PBS | FRONTLINE: Digital Nation
Why I rarely brought my laptop to class. The irony is that this documentary is now the main thing distracting me from my bar study. Inspired by the story of the Lower Merion student who sued the school district for spying on him at home via webcam.
Examiner.com | Glenn Beck's show now running without commercials in United Kingdom due to boycott
Would I advertise on this show? I don't know. I'd have to be a businessman. I remember hearing him cream himself on the radio after the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Iraq. I thought he was fairly nutty then. As with many conservative commentators, he is fairly astute on many economic issues, which is ostensibly why Goldline remains a sponsor. I'm not sure about the history of the "Obama is a racist" comment. If he had a good-faith reason for believing that, and showed us his evidence on the show, then it would not be a deal-breaker for me. A fact is a fact. But if he simply went around calling people racists because he didn't like them, then yes, I probably would pull my ads.
Business and Media Institute | 'Glenn Beck' Sponsors Attacked by Left, Pull Ads from Fox News Show
Rather than describing the method of attack, the article spends much time identifying The Obama Administration's Van Jones as a founder of the group alleged to be doing the attacking. Pure ad hominem. Read the rest of this entry »
Links for 2010-02-18: Frontline Episode on Digital Distractions, Sponsors Pull Ads from Glenn Beck’s Show, others….February 19, 2010
- World Socialist Party (US) | Labor Theory of Value
Looking for a simple, concise explanation of the theory, I find instead this litany of apologetics. Written almost entirely on the defensive, the article explains nothing about the Labor Theory of Value except why Marx scoffed at requests to explain it: — “if one wanted to ‘explain’ from the outset all phenomena that apparently contradict the law, one would have to provide the science before the science” (Collected Works vol. 43, p. 68). I don’t know if that explanation satisfies you, but I find it wanting. I think, ultimately, Marx uses the word “VALUE” as a term of art that means simply that part of an item’s existence attributable to the labor required to produce it. So, if I spent 50 man-hours making 50,000 turd sandwiches, Marx would “VALUE” those turd sandwiches at the going rate for 50 man-hours of labor. Sure, the labor theory of value makes sense in THAT context, but what about real life, in which we don’t always have the luxury of defining words as we please?
Update: It has come to my attention after listening to a lecture on the opening chapter of Marx’s Capital that Marx believed that useless items had no value. He actually employed three terms of art, and what he saw as the relationships between them, to describe what a layman would call “value”. The terms are: use value, exchange value, and value. An explanation of this in the linked article would have been helpful.
- reason.tv | Don’t Get Hurt
Fear of addiction and other harms resulting from prescription pain-killers is overblown, argues Ted Balaker at Reason. Read the rest of this entry »