We can just make stuff up with aplomb. One day we say the market rises as "investors cheer" good employment numbers; the very next day we attribute the decline to "structural problems" and look forward to a long decline! Were those structural problems not present yesterday when investors were cheering?
The Wall Street Journal released the line-up of speakers at its Digital Live conference -- and it didn't include a single woman.
On April 9 The New York Times published one of the most exasperating op-eds I've yet read on climate change. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger wrote that articles that link global warming to the rash of extreme weather events hurt rather than help efforts to rouse the public.
If you are a manager nowadays, it is too easy to drop the ball on the "fundamentals" as a manager and then blame HR for a lot of your troubles.
The larger media coverage question is, has the press been wed for so long to the Republican-friendly narrative of a broken and doomed Obamacare system that journalists are refusing to adjust the storyline as crucial new facts emerge?
In seeking to block Obama's "gainful employment" rule, which would penalize career colleges that consistently leave their students worse off than they started, the industry's arguments have been as misleading as their tactics have been unscrupulous.
I believe that the Fed has overreached in its monetary policy not just in response to the latest crisis, but pretty consistently over the 15-20 years. In an effort to lessen the effects of (inevitable) economic downturns, the Fed (and other central banks) has caused extreme financial distortions and dislocations.
When I was a teenager, my mother sat me down and told me, "You have a choice: Your father and I will either pay for your college education, or for your wedding." I told her, "College, of course." How else was I going to meet a husband? Why else would you go to a private liberal arts college?
Right-wing billionaires threw a hissy fit in recent weeks. The 99 percent are persecuting them, the wealthy ones whined. That whole Occupy Wall Street thing hurt their feelings, conservative 1 percenters pouted.
If the Tribune is going to use the pages of the New York Times to write about wealthy donors to Texas gubernatorial campaigns, it would seem the Times would want them to disclose they are also taking money from those same people.
The wisdom of privacy is fundamental to the healthy evolution and future of human beings. It is perhaps the most essential ingredient of the natural order and balance in the social milieu and for a healthy human existence on earth. It makes the privacy revolution we are facing real, relevant, and vital to preserving ourselves as societies and individuals.
Heated debates have erupted in the U.S., Israel, France, and Britain over the past few weeks about when it is appropriate to use "Nazi" to describe someone you dislike. I propose a simple set of rules to guide our judgment, illustrated through four recent examples.
Perkins' letter is, in many respects, little more than a more dramatic and ill-advised riff on the standard Republican and conservative talking points that the wealthy are successful job creators and those who criticize their obscene accumulation of wealth are lazy, ne'er-do-wells or un-American.
There's a rule of thumb in cyberspace etiquette known as Godwin's Law. A variation of that law boils down to this: He who first compares the other side to Nazis loses, and the conversation is at an end. Unless you're billionaire Tom Perkins, who seems dedicated to digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself.
I put this issue to my podcast buddies on The Ohio Revolt, and I was surprised by the conversation. For me, it may be an irreversible, inevitable decline. To them, it was an issue of better leadership and better long-term planning.
The top story on Thursday's New York Times mobile edition was titled "U.N. Says Lag in Confronting Climate Woes Will be Costly." Why was the newspaper featuring a story on something that's so unpopular?