AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION: Interested in a non-academic career? Sign up for this month’s APA Member Webinar.

 

There are myriad career opportunities available to philosophers, both within and beyond academia. Because many current philosophy graduate students and recent PhDs are interested in pursuing a variety of careers, the APA’s Committee on Non-Academic Careers has organized a webinar for members: Launching a Non-Academic Career.     The webinar will include perspectives and advice about exploring and embarking on careers outside of academia. The webinar may be especially useful for graduate students and faculty who are interested in career paths beyond the professoriate. The panelists for the webinar are the following: Gina Helfrich, PhD (Non-profit technology sector) Program Officer for Global Technology, Internews JC Lau, PhD (Video game development) Producer, Harebrained Schemes Shane Wilkins, PhD (Public administration) Management analyst, US Department of Agriculture The facilitator for the panel will be Sherri Lynn Conklin, PhD, member of the APA Committee on Non-Academic Careers.   The webinar will be held on Wednesday, April 28 at 1 p.m. Eastern time / 10 a.m. Pacific time. To participate, register on the APA website. Registration will be available until 10 a.m. Eastern time / 7 a.m. Pacific time on the day of the webinar, and access information will be provided to registrants at least one hour prior to the start of the webinar. Registration is limited to current APA members.   Register now.   This webinar will offer useful advice and insight on potential career paths for those with advanced degrees in philosophy. Space is limited, so register now! If you’re unable to attend the live webinar, a recording will be made available to APA members afterward.   In addition to offering this webinar, the Committee on Non-Academic Careers has just published a new edition of its guide, Beyond the Academy. You can find more information about the topics discussed in this webinar in the section entitled “Launching a Non-Academic Career.”   All the best,   Amy Ferrer Executive Director

Support these groups fighting for voting rights in Texas. BOOT TEXAS REPUBLICANS.

 

David, Texas Republicans are bending over backward to jam through HB 6 and SB 7 -- voter suppression legislation on par with or worse than Georgia’s new, horrendous anti-voting law. We are standing up and fighting back in every way we can because the right to vote is so important. It’s the cornerstone of our democracy and we should always be making it easier, not harder for Texans and Americans to vote. Yet, if we don’t fight for it, Texas Republicans will be successful in making it more difficult for millions of Texans to cast a ballot. That’s why we’re asking you to support the following organizations that are playing a major role in the fight against anti-voter legislation in Texas. Texas Civil Rights Project MOVE Texas Black Voters Matter Thank you for everything you’re doing to support Texas voting rights! --Boot Texas Republicans DONATE »

We need your voice, David. Urgent action needed today. UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS.

 

Science is one of our best tools for understanding and solving critical problems we face. It has informed policies that ensure the air we breathe and the water we drink is clean, that we have access to vaccines to protect us from deadly diseases, and has ensured the toys our children play with are safe. In order to serve the public good, federal science must be strong and independent, protected by safeguards that guarantee its freedom from political interference, distortion, or censorship. But the last four years have eroded those safeguards. Tell President Biden that you want to see science and evidence restored in federal decision-making and give them researched recommendations from the Union of Concerned Scientists on how to achieve that goal.     Thank you for standing with us, and we're so glad you signed up to take action with UCS. Sincerely, Katy Love Online Engagement Manager Union of Concerned Scientists

Science for a healthy planet and safer world Get updates and alerts from UCS: Text SCIENCE to 662266 About UCS | Contact UCS | Privacy Policy | unsubscribe © Union of Concerned Scientists is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 547-5552

BLAST FROM THE PAST- Friday, November 6, 2020: HOW HAVE WE COME TO THIS? THE INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS. PART 1.

  

Since the Democrats are continuing their efforts to make things as easy as possible for TRUMP to add another Mediocre Legal Mind to the Supreme Court, furthering the FASCIST AGENDA THAT IS THE REAL GOAL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, it is time to lay out the INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS.

#1- WHY DID THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BLOCK PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT MERRICK GARLAND?

The simple answer is to block a Well-Respected, Deserving, and Highly Regarded Legal Mind who would not blindly obey their Fascist Ideology. However, it was more than just that;

A TEST:
IT WAS TO SEE HOW MUCH, AND WHAT TYPE OF OPPOSITION REPUBLICANS WOULD FACE IF THEY DECIDED THAT REGAINING POWER AND KEEPING IT, COULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS. WITH A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMING UP, JUST HOW FAR COULD THEY PUSH THE DEMOCRATS (ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE SENATE), INTO GIVING UP POLITICAL GROUND WITHOUT A FIGHT.

Again, here is the Text from SECTION 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

That's it. There are no Qualifications, What-Ifs, Different Scenarios etc; TO DO CONSTITUTIONALLY WHAT MCCONNELL DID WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING THE DOCUMENT. THERE ARE NO PRECEDENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TO DO WHAT HE DID. NONE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE WHERE A PRESIDENTIAL SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WAS DENIED A HEARING AND VOTE BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE.

I can understand why REPUBLICANS didn't object, (HONOR AND DUTY IS NOT PART OF BEING A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS), BUT FOR SENATE DEMOCRATS TO ACCEPT THIS IS INEXCUSABLE. EVEN IF THEY ACCEPTED MCCONNELL'S EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, A LAWSUIT TAKEN INTO COURT WOULD HAVE SET LIMITS AND GUIDELINES. LIKE THE FOLLOWING:

"THAT IN FUTURE ELECTIONS, SHOULD A VACANCY OPEN UP, THE COURT REQUIRES THAT THE SAME STANDARDS AND PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SET IN THIS CASE MUST BE FOLLOWED." 

THIS TYPE OF RULING WOULD PREVENT CONTINUOUS PERSONAL PREJUDICES, PARTY POLITICS, AND CRIMINAL INTENT FROM TURNING THE PROCESS INTO A 3 RING CIRCUS.
LIKE MCCONNELL AND TRUMP ARE DOING NOW.

HOW LUDICROUS IS THIS? IF WE, AGAIN, ACCEPT MCCONNELLS EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, THEN GIVING JUDGE GARLAND THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. WITH A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY VOTING NOT TO APPROVE PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE, (WHICH THEY CAN DO CONSTITUTIONALLY), THEY COULD HAVE FORCED A DELAY UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. 

THIS WAS THE REAL TEST, AND SENATE DEMOCRATS FAILED MISERABLY. 

TO BE CONTINUED...