81–90 of 91 posts
I just like imagining such possibilities, of course this is probably not the case, but the implications ... I guess I have been watching too many Homeland episodes lately. :)
Defending the Press is almost universally unpopular. However, I think there's a important distinction to be made here. Namely that Martha Gill's piece is comment and not news. Hence it's filed under 'blogs'. Opinion is free to be responsible or irresponsible, informed or misinformed, constructive or destructive but, by definition, it cannot be true or false. I don't see anything wrong with someone expressing an hones…
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan Just because it's filed under "blogs" does not make it above refutation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan Just because it's filed under "blogs" does not make it above refutation.
I'm not saying it's above refutation, quite the contrary. What I'm saying is the article is opinion--not fact--and it's presented as such.
Regardless, Martha's piece is publicized and therefore open to criticism and debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There must be ground rules for the game of capitalism. Market's are awesome at balancing things like price/quality/features. Most consumers can do that, and if they can't, well... caveat emptor. But if the quality is so bad that people die, or are maimed, poisoned, or otherwise injured, we have different rules. Consumers aren't good at this, they aren't experts, they don't have the right information. So they turn to…
These ethical factors are, of course, a trade-off with the others. Sweatshops and child labor are immoral, we will not tolerate that. If we don't tolerate those, then we don't tolerate giving them the best alternative possible. Asking for more would make it uneconomical, and thus, economically destructive.
'Able' here is a complex thing; to look at just two countervailing parts, how little can employers get away with paying, but also how much can they afford to pay?
If the sweatshops do more than break even, then the employers can afford to pay more and have better conditions for their employees - but they won't if sweatshops as they are now are legal, common, and accepted. Most sweatshops do a lot better than breaking even, so if we got rid of them, a better alternative would be able to exist. (If you believe in General Equilibria, a better alternative would be forced to exist).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A famous quote from the satirical political TV comedy Yes, Minister sums up the British press fairly well. Amusingly, one of the characters is named Jim Hacker. Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do…
Here is a the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
I am not sure if that scary or a good thing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A famous quote from the satirical political TV comedy Yes, Minister sums up the British press fairly well. Amusingly, one of the characters is named Jim Hacker. Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do…
> the Morning Star is now defunct They still sell it where I live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, this gave me a smile People think "oh let's build a startup for 3d-printing model this on the cloud, blah blah blah" Where anyone with modest skills can build this using scissors, some cardboard, or Papier-Maché or some other technique.
But this kind of mask won't protect your face against rubber balls shot by police - in Brazil, for example. Yeah, neither resine mask will do, but its slightly better.
The following quote is relevant here: “WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then…
Please add attribution before the beginning of the quote; otherwise it looks like the quote is from the open letter itself.
The following quote is relevant here: “WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then…
"wah wah wah corporations are bad, growth is bad" Corporations and economic growth are directly responsible for the possibility that this discussion is happening: the internet, cheap and powerful computers, etc Or even better: https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/391943773963304960
People are too in love with the idea of seeing others get "nailed" for being hypocrites. All you have to do is say something that sounds vaguely clever or ironic in a snarky manner and people go "Ooooh, snap" even if it really makes not much sense. For instance: "Julian Assange of Wikileaks wants to protect his own privacy." "Ooooh, snap."
Maybe it is just that the Internet is more popular than it was in the 90s. On the other hand, I think rich media offers more opportunities to be snarky, and of course we are going to take advantage of this. #smh #justsayin