Procurement is slow because Congress and governments around the world have embedded so many safeguards and administrative procedures to make it objective, unbiased, fair, effective, incorruptible, that what you end up with is an intricate system that only business insiders and administration officials understand. For that very reason, that system is inherently anti-competitive. You have to be a Beltway insider, or a version of those characters in other countries, to do business with government.
Writers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your brains.
Sex scenes have become dull and unimaginative since the ’70s, when showing flesh in mainstream movies still carried a frisson of transgression….The real objects of lust in contemporary cinema are not bodies but, well, objects — in particular the luxury brands that form the lingua franca of popular culture from hip-hop to reality television to the pages of Vogue.
The participants in the caravan settled in Summertown, Tenn., in 1971. They took a vow of poverty and veganism and lived communally. Birth was a revered “sacrament.” Ina May and five other women ran a midwifery practice delivering babies of the community’s 1,200 members and nearby residents. Members built latrines, acquired horses and tractors and plowed meadows. They opened a soy “dairy” and a sorghum mill and started a book-publishing company. (Although the land is still communally owned, the Farm largely embraced capitalism in the 1980s, a traumatic event known as “the changeover.”)
This is wonderful. #Merica
While New Yorker writers tolerated low pay in return for prominence and the ability to publish elsewhere, salaried employees in the editorial, typing and fact-checking departments received none of these extra benefits. In 1976, the issue of low pay came to a head when 22 editorial employees tried to form a union to demand higher pay. Shawn was horrified, viewing an outside union as a threat to the informal, democratic atmosphere of the office. In addition, The New Yorker employed many promising young writers in amorphous, untitled jobs while waiting for them to ‘hit their stride’ and write something publishable. Under a union, every job would need a title. The peculiar mechanisms of The New Yorker would be unable to function. When the uproar against the business offices only grew, Shawn finally penned a seven-page letter explaining how salaries were decided at The New Yorker. He explained that every fall salaries were reviewed, and he, the editor, took recommendations from his executive editor, approved them and then submitted them to the business offices. The business offices never once questioned these recommendations, and instituted the salary raises exactly. At the same time, if the magazine was ever experiencing a monetary crunch the business office would relay the information to the editor who would keep it in mind when reviewing the salaries. However, the business office never refused any increase because of financial reasons. The system worked, Shawn explained, because of the mutual trust between the editors and the publishers. He also pointed out that the quality of the magazine was based on the total independence of the editorial division from the business division. Unlike most publications, flogged to produce maximum profit at minimum cost to provide income to a corporation, the New Yorker business department allowed the New Yorker editorial department to do whatever it pleased in the interest of producing the finest magazine. Unionising would unravel the trust between the two departments, bringing the business department into the affairs of the editorial and extinguishing the unique phenomenon that was The New Yorker. According to Ved Mehta, William Shawn’s appeal to principles worked. According to Renata Adler, it was editor Bill Whitworth who successfully negotiated with the workers. In any event, the workers proposed that a committee of their members meet regularly with Shawn to review their salaries. Shawn agreed (grudgingly), and the crisis was diffused.
Union are evil, example 23841047
Employers plan to hire only 2.1 percent more new college graduates this year than in 2012, according to a survey from the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Last fall they thought the increase would be 13 percent.
When the liberal says “race is a social construct,” he is not being a soft-headed dolt; he is speaking an historical truth. We do not go around testing the “Irish race” for intelligence or the “Southern race” for “hot-headedness.” These reasons are social. It is no more legitimate to ask “Is the black race dumber than then white race?” than it is to ask “Is the Jewish race thriftier than the Arab race?”
The strongest argument for “race” is that people who trace their ancestry back to Europe, and people who trace most of their ancestry back to sub-Saharan Africa, and people who trace most of their ancestry back to Asia, and people who trace their ancestry back to the early Americas, lived isolated from each other for long periods and have evolved different physical traits (curly hair, lighter skin, etc.)
But this theoretical definition (already fuzzy) wilts under human agency, in a real world where Kevin Garnett, Harold Ford, and Halle Berry all check “black” on the census. (Same deal for “Hispanic.”) The reasons for that take us right back to fact of race as a social construct. And an American-centered social construct. Are the Ainu of Japan a race? Should we delineate darker South Asians from lighter South Asians on the basis of race? Did the Japanese who invaded China consider the Chinese the same “race?”
Andrew [Sullivan] writes that liberals should stop saying “truly stupid things like race has no biological element.” I agree. Race clearly has a biological element — because we have awarded it one.