"Infinite digital bits don’t have to deal with the supply-and-demand business models that once existed. You create one version and can disseminate it everywhere, instantly, at virtually no distribution cost."
“Health insurance industry trade groups opposed to President Obama’s health care reform bill are paying Facebook users fake money — called “virtual currency” — to send letters to Congress protesting the bill.”—
With Monsanto’s patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.
Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family’s dinner table. That’s because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto’s patented genes.
Monsanto’s methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments.
The company has used the agreements to spread its technology — giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto’s genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto’s genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.
Can I tell you something about Dockers? My father loves them. Wears them when he’s golfing or on a casual business day. They are stain resistant and wrinkle free. They look nice with a sweater or a golf shirt. They are sturdy and reliable and reasonably-priced and my mother has been buying them at the mall for approximately 20 years.
Now let me tell you something about my father: he’s helped to raise three daughters, he takes his job very seriously, helps neighbors and friends whenever he can, and has been happily married to my mother for over 35 years. My father is a grownup. This ad campaign is not aimed at my dad. It is aimed at men who have absolutely NO intention of growing up, but every intention of claiming every stereotypical “man” role as a means to act as if they’ve crossed some great developmental threshold. If anyone has to grow up, it’s the advertisers who keep pushing this sexist, backwards bro culture down everyone’s throats.
“The brand’s new “Wear the Pants™” global ad campaign celebrates the reemergence of the khaki as the go-to versatile pant in a man’s wardrobe. The tongue in cheek campaign encourages men to, once again, Wear the Pants™. “The intent of the campaign is to put forth a new definition of masculinity, one that embraces strength and sensitivity and appeals to men who can change a tire AND a diaper,” said Jennifer Sey, Global VP of Marketing. “We’re not trying to shame men. We want to make them laugh at themselves and at the state of manhood. And, at the same time, encourage them to dress up, man-up and embody today’s new definition of masculinity.”—
Unfortunately, the ad on the Docker’s website indicates nothing of the sort. That “balance” she implies (“men who can change a tire AND a diaper”) is absent, but what’s very much present is, “Once upon a time… women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because that’s what they did.” No one I spoke to read the ad as being tongue-in-cheek (though one person on Twitter gave me a hard time based on reasons I reject flat out).
Anyway, this “new definition of masculinity?” I can’t even think of how to address the FAIL. First off, who wants to phone my parents and tell them the decisions they made about their family life 40 years ago weren’t actually invented then?
And also? The entire phrase, “Wear the pants” is offensive. I’m kind of glad Dockers owns the trademark for it now. Maybe they’ll sue anyone else who uses it.
OMG. Please just help me list the ways this entire thing is WRONG.
The movie, not the book. The book is stark, devastating and beautiful. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible to adapt to the cinema, but this review of the movie supports my initial impression upon learning they filmed it: “That’s gonna suck.”
More than that, I fear it will give people the impression that it reflects the book – again, going just from this review since I haven’t seen the movie itself. This would be tragic, since the book is a must-read. It’s unlike anything else I’ve read.
So if you’re going to see the movie, at least read the book first, okay?