I had no idea he was on Mock the Week
http://youtu.be/J7q_NyPB6Gc
That's weird, I don't like that. John Oliver has been drafted to America and isn't allowed to do anything in Britain ever again.
I had no idea he was on Mock the Week
http://youtu.be/J7q_NyPB6Gc
That's weird, I don't like that. John Oliver has been drafted to America and isn't allowed to do anything in Britain ever again.
I had no idea he was on Mock the Week
http://youtu.be/J7q_NyPB6Gc
I had no idea he was on Mock the Week
http://youtu.be/J7q_NyPB6Gc
How the fuck is lead paint still a thing.
I quite liked the three politicians saying kids lives matter etc, then they vote to have the lead paint removal bills funding slashed.
But if all of this solves one mystery, it shines a high-powered klieg light on another: Why has the lead/crime connection been almost completely ignored in the criminology community? In the two big books I mentioned earlier, one has no mention of lead at all and the other has a grand total of two passing references. Nevin calls it "exasperating" that crime researchers haven't seriously engaged with lead, and Reyes told me that although the public health community was interested in her paper, criminologists have largely been AWOL. When I asked Sammy Zahran about the reaction to his paper with Howard Mielke on correlations between lead and crime at the city level, he just sighed. "I don't think criminologists have even read it," he said. All of this jibes with my own reporting. Before he died last year, James Q. Wilsonfather of the broken-windows theory, and the dean of the criminology communityhad begun to accept that lead probably played a meaningful role in the crime drop of the '90s. But he was apparently an outlier. None of the criminology experts I contacted showed any interest in the lead hypothesis at all.
2am.When does this usually show up on HBO go?
I had no idea he was on Mock the Week
http://youtu.be/J7q_NyPB6Gc
Oh great, of course one of our big banks is also involved. It's incredible with who much shit the UBS is getting away and we even bailed them out once.
Is it just me or was the humor this time around a whole lot better?
Pretty good episode on Puerto Rico, although a bit disappointed that Oliver didn't really mention at all two negative aspects of Puerto Rico: the massive corruption/cronyism on the Island and the recent flight of businesses (Gamestop recently shut down all stores, Walmart is threatening the same) due to the island govt raising taxes dramatically for bigger businesses, to the point where big businesses have decided there is no way to make a profit.
The corruption is endemic and out of hand too, the place has a massive army of bureaucrats. For example there are 3.6m people on the island but it has 78 mayors (!), each with their own large staff many of whom are relatives. There is an endless parade of insane corruption on the island in every department.
So any sort of relief/bailout needs to be coupled with a reform of the government, shrinking the number of municipalities from 78 to 5-10 and cutting the govt staff by 50-75%, otherwise it seems likely a bunch of money will be raised and wasted again in the next decade.
Also not sure what exactly PR citizens themselves voted for in 2012 on whether they want to remain a commonwealth or try to lobby to become a state.
Where are all the cicada warriors?
I roll my eyes every time a "study" is mentioned on the news or FB. I look forward to responding to them with a link to this segment.I am so fucking glad Oliver is discussing the interpretation of scientific studies.
I am so fucking glad Oliver is discussing the interpretation of scientific studies.
Yeah, it was a great topic for the show to cover. Unfortunately, it's ultimate statement of "if a morning news show is going to talk about a scientific study, they need to state the actual facts of the study" was pretty weak. As the show stated, those talk shows know that those types of stories are big hits, they aren't going to change a damn thing.
Nah man I'll just pub med and see if the abstract confirms to my view.Of course. Good Morning America isn't going to change its sexy titles to something that's more accurate. Hell I've had some of my studies reported in the lay press where the purpose and findings were completely misrepresented and I've come to terms with the fact that it will happen. But even here on GAF, we get a "study finds... blah blah blah" topic extremely often, and I would hope that people that watch that segment will at least go in with some degree of whether the "report" is actually accurately summarizing the results.