How Corporate Branding has Taken Over America
Ten years after the publication of No Logo, Naomi Klein switches her attention from the mall to Barack Obama and discovers that corporate culture has taken over the US government
Search This Blog
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Friends and Friendship
William Deresiewicz provides an excellent and timely analysis of friendship in his recent article in The Chronicle entitled "Faux Friendship." It should be required reading for anyone using, or trying to understand, Facebook and other social networking technologies.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
On "Leadership" in the U.S.A.
I wouldn't call Tiger Woods a leader, but some would -- or at least did before the recent debacle involving his illicit affairs. A recent Huffington Post commentary puts it into perspective. Where are our true leaders today?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Should businesses support the health care reform?
I think business should support the reform. Check out this article.
Monday, November 9, 2009
For American Consumers, a Responsibility Revolution
Can consumer spending choices really promote the kind of changes we seek and need? Here's an article that seems to think so. What do you think? Is it enough to stem the tide of global climate change, poverty, employee abuse, discrimination, just to name a few of our social problems?
For American Consumers, a Responsibility Revolution
For American Consumers, a Responsibility Revolution
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Does multimedia add to productivity or waste time?
Check our this article on the topic of texting from the Wall Street Journal on multi-tasking.
Do you think there are some advantages to texting as a way to communicate in the workplace? Will texting replace meetings or face-to-face communication?
Do you think there are some advantages to texting as a way to communicate in the workplace? Will texting replace meetings or face-to-face communication?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Do You Believe in Polls?
A day doesn't seem to pass without my hearing what the "people" have to say. How much do you trust polls? Some are conducted by establishments that use accurate methods and systematic sampling techniques. Others are not so trustworthy. Regardless of the source, we should be critical of even the most reputable of polling organizations. Consider what follows -- from a recent New York Times article: (The entire article can be reached by clicking here.)
From the NYT:
In recent weeks, polls kept showing solid support for a public insurance option, seeming to breathe new life into its viability as a provision of the health care legislation under way in Congress. In fact, advocates of a public option, from left-leaning groups to pundits to lawmakers, seized on each new number and trumpeted the news across the 24/7 news spectrum of Twitter, TV ads, blogs and headlines.
And while those polls may have bolstered Senator Harry Reid’s decision to include the public option in the merged Senate bill this week, a closer examination shows once again that public opinion on this issue shifts and shimmies depending on how you phrase the question and what you strip away from (or add to) a compound sentence.
In nearly all recent surveys, a majority of Americans simply approve of providing coverage for the uninsured, suggesting that on an altruistic level at least, they believe people deserve health care.
But differences emerge in the details. For example, support for a public health insurance depends on the order of questions, the language and the arguments posed in favor or in opposition.
For example, in a poll that NBC News and The Wall Street Journal released on Tuesday, half the respondents were asked one question about the public option, and half were asked a different one.
Just under 50 percent favored a health care plan administered by the federal government to compete with private insurance companies, while 4 in 10 opposed. But, almost three-fourths said it was important to have a choice between a public plan and a private plan.
Comment: People aren't being stupid when they answer questions in different ways depending on the wording. But we as a society are stupid to place as much stock in polls as we do. Walter Lippmann reminded us a generation ago that polls are just a snapshot of the electorate's opinion. Why should that snapshot be given reverential treatment? That was a good question when he posed it. It's still a good question.
From the NYT:
In recent weeks, polls kept showing solid support for a public insurance option, seeming to breathe new life into its viability as a provision of the health care legislation under way in Congress. In fact, advocates of a public option, from left-leaning groups to pundits to lawmakers, seized on each new number and trumpeted the news across the 24/7 news spectrum of Twitter, TV ads, blogs and headlines.
And while those polls may have bolstered Senator Harry Reid’s decision to include the public option in the merged Senate bill this week, a closer examination shows once again that public opinion on this issue shifts and shimmies depending on how you phrase the question and what you strip away from (or add to) a compound sentence.
In nearly all recent surveys, a majority of Americans simply approve of providing coverage for the uninsured, suggesting that on an altruistic level at least, they believe people deserve health care.
But differences emerge in the details. For example, support for a public health insurance depends on the order of questions, the language and the arguments posed in favor or in opposition.
For example, in a poll that NBC News and The Wall Street Journal released on Tuesday, half the respondents were asked one question about the public option, and half were asked a different one.
Just under 50 percent favored a health care plan administered by the federal government to compete with private insurance companies, while 4 in 10 opposed. But, almost three-fourths said it was important to have a choice between a public plan and a private plan.
Comment: People aren't being stupid when they answer questions in different ways depending on the wording. But we as a society are stupid to place as much stock in polls as we do. Walter Lippmann reminded us a generation ago that polls are just a snapshot of the electorate's opinion. Why should that snapshot be given reverential treatment? That was a good question when he posed it. It's still a good question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)