Scandal ! Shock and horror!

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Last night , I was shocked. Utterly amazed, even.

I found myself mentioning the Nestle Boycott to someone and they said "yeah , I know about the Nestle Boycott"
But someone else said
Companies can and should be able to provide this option without being accused of just being money-grubbing.
So, lets look at what Nestle is actually doing in poor, developing countries. Ok, corporations should be able to offer goods and services - I agree. But, is Nestle offering an ethical service, or are they indeed 'money grubbing'?

For the record, I am not anti capitalism per se, but when a company like Nestle goes into the developing world, the poorer nations, or whatever we used to call the Third World this week and agressively promotes their product to women who don' really need and really can't afford their products - I call this corporate vandalism, if not manslaughter.

Seriously, my wife and I won't have a product made by Nestle or any of its subsidiaries in the house or the shopping basket until they quit the aggressive and high pressurised marketing of their products in the poorer nations.

I mean like ~everyone~ who cares about what happens to women, or their children in poorer nations ought to be on the Nestle boycott, and ought to be writing to the company and saying why they are on it.

You might well tell me that "You have been doing this for decades, and the problem is still here". Ok, but it is the principle. Economic boycotts worked against Iceland, and will work against Nestle if enough people know and get on board and tell the company why they did it.

So, have a link. Yes, I am using Wiki.
Any challenges against Wiki will be met with the sources they cite against this company.
Lets have it out. if anyone thinks that Nestle is being badly treated by Wiki or anyone else, step up please, and make your case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

I also looked for tags on Nestle, Boycott and stuff like that. We don't do them it seems. Scandalous!

Morality: Killing over "Stuff"

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I was going to post this as a follow up to my post "On compromise" but it got jumped in the queue by my reply to Masaladas about Race/Class issues. Any way...

A question that inevitably comes up in discussions about self defense is "Would/Could you kill a mugger over the money in your pocket?"

Even among the hard-core advocates of self defense there exists a sentiment that "Stuff" is not worth fighting or killing over. Michael Bane talks about this at length here. While I agree in general principal that my wallet or TV is not worth killing someone over, I would still answer the above question in the affirmative.

You see, unless it's some idiot teenager mouthing off I am inclined to take any threat of violence against myself or another at face value.

Say a mugger jumps you in an alley and in so many words offers the following ultmatum "your money or your life". Let us also assume that he's not bluffing because the costs of calling that bluff is your life and theres no way to know for sure.

And thus you give him your wallet. A simple transaction yes?

No. While the mugger now has your wallet and it's contents you have gained nothing but a social contract with someone who has already shown that they don't give a fuck about social contracts. (I would argue that people who care about social contracts don't go around robing people)

As several commentors in my earlier post noted, paying the danegeld will not get rid of the danes, nor is there any guarantee that the cannibals will go away if you take thier "compromise". As two recent incidents (1,2) graphically illustrated, "giving them what they want" is no guarantee of safety. Thus in my mind the only viable response to such a threat is the ancient and primal question of, "Fight or Flight?"

If I think I can get away, I will (that or get shot/stabbed in the back). But sometimes retreat is not an option in which case choice is predetermined, "FIGHT".

And that, as anyone will tell you, is where things get messy. The best way to avoid getting hurt in a fight is to avoid getting in one. The second best way is to make sure that the fight is as short and one-sided(in your favor) as humanly possible. If you have a weapon use it. If you don't, a brick or bottle to the head'll also get the job done. If bricks and bottles are in short supply Remember that eye gouging and groin-kicks are also on the table.

In conclusion, your stuff is not worth a life, but your own life most certainly is.

You're not defending your wallet, you're defending your life.

The Silent Emergency

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

No doubt , many people here will have seen the newsreels of children , sitting listlessly as flies crawl all over them . children who are merely skin and bone without even the strength to stand and walk. These are famine victims, in places like the Horn of Africa. But famines are rare outbreaks, and getting rarer as time goes by. Most children die in what is known as 'The Silent Emergency' - now what is that? ( Read more... )

Give me that old time religion:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?ID=228736&R=R1

I was wondering if this was going to happen. There is a small fringe group of ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews that want to revive that esteemed Jewish cultural tradition of polygamy. That used to be pretty regular where Sephardi culture is concerned. And as expected the Ashkenazim like that tradition no more now than ever. They still think of it as a perversion of Judaism (I'm sure Abraham, Israel, David, and Solomon would be interested to know that it was in fact such a perversion). I think this if anything confirms that Christianity is not the only religion to produce cuckoolander reactionaries. Usually, though, these types *are* Christians.

SO what do you in the community think? Is this really no true Scotsmen-not Jewish? Or are these people the Israeli version of FLDS in the USA? I personally see them as Israel's FLDS and expect this to happen in Israel when Shabbatanism is confirmed as the official sect of Judaism there.

Lord of the papers

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Just until a month ago, Rupert Murdoch would hardly suppose that he would become target of such a campaign. Arguably the most influential person in the world of British media and one of the biggest figures on the global media market was called to testify before Parliament. The last time this happened in 1992 when the sons of the scandalous billionaire Robert Maxwell had to explain how their father had sucked out pension funds. Rebekah Brooks was surprised to be under arrest today, after she had been assured by British politicians a few months ago that she was not in the list of journalists under investigation. Now James Murdoch and daddy Murdoch himself have to give explanations for the wiretapping scandal. The Maxwell story could repeat again, now Murdoch in the role of the crucified victim, quartered and dragged through the mud after all the systematic abuse of journalistic ethics has been revealed throughout his media empire. But is there a deeper story hiding behind these spicy revelations and the coming public punishment?

( Read more... )