This is good reporting on a subject about which much bullshit has been written.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

In the same spirit as Dodo's link, consider this.

Shafer's enjoying the Animal House joke... But as anyone who's been paying attention lately understands, an education costs money. It's easy to imagine that parents would want to be told that their children were squandering that time playing authority games with administrators.

In adult life, "occupy" is not a job description (outside of genuine warfare, the kind with bullets and violent death). In adult life, it's a context for assholes.

Time to shake up the status quo.

Just for fun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/photoshopped-advertisements-bill_n_5173154.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Lawmakers Introduce Bill To Tackle Misleadingly Photoshopped Ads

In an effort to shield young children and teenagers from the damaging effects of photoshopped images, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Lois Capps (D-Calif.) have co-sponsored legislation to reduce the use of misleadingly altered images in advertisements.

“Just as with cigarette ads in the past, fashion ads portray a twisted, ideal image for young women,” Capps said in April. “And they’re vulnerable. As sales go up, body image and confidence drops.”

While the proposal would not implement new regulatory standards, the “Truth in Advertising Act” would mandate the Federal Trade Commission to report on advertisements photoshopped to “materially change the physical characteristics of the faces and bodies of the individuals depicted."

The legislation would also require the FTC to coordinate with health and business experts to develop an ongoing strategy aimed at reducing the use of photoshopped images.

Opponents of the measure view the bill, introduced in March, as a broad and redundant infringement on advertisers' rights, arguing that the FTC already employs existing powers to block blatantly untruthful ads.

“The use of cosmetics and photoshop are widespread practices,” Dan Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers told Time magazine in April. “It can’t just be the photoshopping that they go after, it would have to be tied to something specific. Are you just going to say that whenever someone photoshops it’s a per se violation? I think that would be going too far.”

Washington and Lee law students, following what should be kind of an embarassing epiphany, demand change.

Gog, about that status quo: can you explain this?

"In the United States, $3.74 trillion was invested in socially responsible strategies in 2012, up from $3.07 trillion in 2010,"

Every time somebody mentions the compensation of CEOs, they are only expressing wealth envy. Each and every corporation presented as harboring some sort of sybaritic excess is subject to a charter, drawn up under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the firm is incorporated.

A CEOs pay is not your business. It is not my business, unless I happen to be a stockholder of the corporation.

But you cannot tell anyone that once they have the idea somehow, they will be getting that money somehow.

"Every time somebody mentions the compensation of CEOs, they are only expressing wealth envy."

And thus, no criticism is allowed. Silence, minions!

"subject to a charter, drawn up under the laws"

Laws are wonderful! Jim Crow laws - now there's some laws for a happy nation! Am I right or am I right? I'm right! Law = good. Always!

'A CEOs pay is not your business. It is not my business, unless I happen to be a stockholder of the corporation."

Exactamundo! Our society is hardly made up of interlocking and interworking facets that affect one another! So what if a corporation can wield behind-the-scenes political power to its own ends? It's not like our politicians are corruptible!

The ironic emails of the day:

I was a little long on paying on a CC.

The e-mail titles:
8:18 PM Payment received on CC
8:48 PM We have not received payment for CC

Gotta love automated systems.

Not true, Gog. Get thee to a website about fallacies.

Dunno about fallacies, but of all the corruptions at work in society, I don't think executive pay is the worst.

People who whine about it as a major source of evil seem to be expressing their own capacity for envy, while not-so-cleverly feigning worry about the envy felt by the little people.

Covetessness is a sin... Pretending that the envy in your heart actually belongs to the guy standing next to you doesn't help. He shouldn't be covetous anyway, and your attempted deception is vain and small-minded.