How to Get Rich (without getting lucky):
More from Life
Today is a day to celebrate love in our lives.
And here at ACLU-MA, we know that justice is a labor of love. Here are some of our favorite moments of love and justice in the last year, to brighten your #ValentinesDay.
💞👇💞
Almost exactly a year ago, our clients Hanz and Maudy were reunited after being separated by the cruel "Return to Mexico" policy.
And here at ACLU-MA, we know that justice is a labor of love. Here are some of our favorite moments of love and justice in the last year, to brighten your #ValentinesDay.
💞👇💞
Almost exactly a year ago, our clients Hanz and Maudy were reunited after being separated by the cruel "Return to Mexico" policy.
Yesterday, a family of asylum seekers were reunited. Hanz & his son were subjected to #MPP, a cruel policy that forced them into dangerous cities in northern Mexico. We sued on their behalf, allowing them to rejoin their family in Massachusetts. pic.twitter.com/Kce6MTpS9C
— ACLU Massachusetts (@ACLU_Mass) February 7, 2020
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?