Poem by Agnes Török on the news of a new Conservative budget. Based on experiences of living in Britain under austerity as a young, queer, unemployed, female immigrant student – and not taking it any more.
Phi Beta Iota: Art trumps corruption in 3 minutes. YouTube (3:12) top stuff.
Phi Beta Iota: $141M is chump change. Beyond that are the tens of billions paid in fines for violating laws — e.g. $5B for manipulating the multi-trillion foreign exchange markets with tens of billions in illicit profit that also bankrupts the unwitting. What we have are politicians guilty of treason who sell out for chump change, while continuously legalizing high crimes against the public interest.
Should vaccines be used to make women in certain countries sterile? It seems that covertly, the World Health Organisation and Unicef are doing just that in Kenya…
This book reconstructs how a group of nineteenth-century labor reformers appropriated and radicalized the republican tradition. These ‘labor republicans' derived their definition of freedom from a long tradition of political theory dating back to the classical republics. In this tradition, to be free is to be independent of anyone else's will – to be dependent is to be a slave. Borrowing these ideas, labor republicans argued that wage laborers were unfree because of their abject dependence on their employers. Workers in a cooperative, on the other hand, were considered free because they equally and collectively controlled their work. Although these labor republicans are relatively unknown, this book details their unique, contemporary, and valuable perspective on both American history and the organization of the economy.
From PayPal to Amazon to Visa & MasterCard, we now know that it is time to end our reliance on intermediaries. This moral policing by Visa and MasterCard is horribly ignorant, wrong, and should be a basis for public boycott of both of these card services — what's next: not letting you use payment cards to buy organic food because Monsanto says that is wrong? The hubris of Visa and MasterCard on this matter is deeply troubling.
Peer review is anti-innovatory because it is a process that depends on approval by exponents of the current orthodoxy. . . . Perhaps the biggest argument against the peer review of completed studies is that it simply isn’t needed. With the World Wide Web everything can be published, and the world can decide what’s important and what isn’t. This proposition strikes terror into many hearts, but with so much poor-quality science published what do we have to lose?