Apple's response to the Cisco suit parallels the Exxon Valdez travesty. Deny, deny, deny.
I saw this report on MSNBC and my immediate take was, yes, you ignorant fool, he would shop there. If these ministers are too damn dumb to get it, maybe they should turn in their pulpits and figure the following out:
First, Wal-Mart makes it possible for a lot of income strapped families to have a Christmas of any kind. Too bad Wal-Mart did away with their layaway plan that helped serve these strapped customers. Jesus would be walking among them and shopping there were he of them, although I think the idea of Christmas as we have it today would be abhorrent to him.
Second, no one working at Wal-Mart left a better job to work there.
Third, if Wal-Mart was not employing these people, they would be unemployed (or working an equally miserable job at some fast food operation). Were they unemployed, see number one.
Too bad some good ministers are being sucked into a quagmire they do not understand by political web spinners who do not like Wal-Mart because of their own agendas. God forgives fools, even those from the clergy.
The Toronto Star has published a series of articles on the Canadian unit of MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling their fund-raising efforts into the public arena. The Star says that MADD is over stating the amount of the raised funds that go into the unit to do its work. MADD says it is how they keep the books and that the large amount paid out to the professional fund-raisers is something or another. One thing for sure - no one will win in the end of this one.
This topic has been around for awhile and there is a post below about Gannett's Fort Myers news operation that fits this category. Here is another, via MSNBC, from Business Week online, talking about Best Buy's flexible workplace. Nothing new, just the latest iteration. There are a lot of buzzy phrases in the BW article, almost like they are trying to heat the story up and evangelize on behalf of Best Buys: bottom-up stealth, work-life balance, results-only work environment (ROWE - Best Buys term), post-face-time, location-agnostic, covert guerrilla action, and so on. Probably the biggest thing mentioned is that these work environments are challenging the paradigm that productivity is directly tied to physical presence. BTW, the author, Michelle Conlin, is wasting her time writing at Business Week. She is a far better wordsmith than that and some large ad agency should pull her in to write creative. That, or she should brand herself and go outside as a gun-for-hire.
I wonder how many of these employees can even register the fact that were it not for Wal-Mart employing them, they would be unemployed. Not a one of them left a better job of any kind to work there, did they? I guess they like cutting off the hand that feeds them.
This "conversation," reported by the New York Times, reads like presubmitted questions, Of course, that fits into the definition of a conversation, but this could be face-to-face, right? Then why not "interview?" Here is an excerpt with some comments:
Q. In effect, are you using the universities to create more demand in the market for your products and services?
A. I think of it as shaping the market for the good of all businesses and society. The more we can bring technology and structured engineering thinking to bear on this increasingly complicated problem, the better off everyone will be. You’re also creating the skills that are more and more required in the 21st century. (He goes on to give some percentages and further rationalizations -- but does not directly answer the question - the answer being "yes." Otherwise a simple "no" would have sufficed. The question asks for a yes-no answer. So, IBM is in this for the money, what else is new?)
The follow-up question asks what IBM is putting into the pot - answer: $100 million in grants (that includes money), free access to IBM hardware and software (non-money).
Now, check the next question:
Q. Do you offer money in exchange for changes in curricula?
A. Usually we don’t have to offer money. (Does not answer the question, skirts it, but the answer known from above is "yes" and from the lack of a simple, "no" coupled with the use of "usually.") That is the last thing they need from us. (Right, then why the grants in addition to access to hardware and software?) They need real-world information. . . .
Nice to know IBM gives us short, direct and fully-truthful answers.
]]>
He thinks it will get the truth out by balancing legitimate negative reviews. Right, makes me wonder if he is in anyone's pocket being paid to advocate this position. Personally, like Blogspotting, I prefer balanced input from real, REAL, reviews.
Can anyone explain to me the mutual exclusitivity of "secretarian violence" and "civil war?" Precisely how they are any different? I guess it depends on who is talking. BuzzFeed proposes another euphamism: "intersocietal military conflict (IMC)." Here is a link BuzzFeed gave to see how the differing media and journalists are referring to the civil war.
Found this British bit at Beyond PR. Seems ING Direct does not want to pay out the current savings rate and wants its customers to be relieved that it is not. I wonder, nah, we know what they would do were the rate to decrease, right?
Yeppers, got that right, the cartel says they are fighting the bad guys - I guess that is all them law enforcement types trying to control their drugs, eh?
From the Miami Herald (via Media Daily News):
Right! Whtat's next guys - an ad soliciting users? These guys have spin down better than GW Bush does.
jim