HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » n2doc » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 1163 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Current location: Georgia
Member since: Tue Feb 10, 2004, 12:08 PM
Number of posts: 37,848

About Me

Environmental Scientist

Journal Archives

Monday Toon Roundup 4: The Rest


Middle East




Monday Toon Roundup 2: Airbag Party

Monday Toon Roundup 1:Memorial Day

Shooting Son Doong in 360°

Making a massive interactive gigapixel experience in the world’s largest cave
By Martin Edström

As me and my team left for Vietnam this January, we had a goal: to make an interactive reportage about the world’s largest cave for National Geographic. This included several things no one had ever attempted before: lighting up and capturing the largest caverns that exist on this Earth. In 360 degrees.

What could go wrong, right?


The 360 experience (stunning)


Toon: Trade Special

Cry Me A River:Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio asks public's help with legal fees

With his legal fees mounting and a trial turning increasingly personal, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is turning to the public for money and the legal system for a new judge.

Arpaio said in a letter to supporters that he doesn't have the money to continue paying for attorneys out of his own pocket, adding that he feels "targeted" by the immigration rights groups that have sued him to stop what they say are racist policies targeting Latinos.

"In some instances I have to personally pay for attorneys to represent me in these cases," Arpaio wrote in an email Thursday. "I do not have the personal wealth or the wherewithal to keep up with the costly demands of paying for attorneys to defend me."

Arpaio made the plea while awaiting a decision by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow on whether the sheriff broke the law in failing to carry out a 2011 court order to refrain from bias against minorities.



Robert Reich- Whatever Happened to Antitrust?

Last week’s settlement between the Justice Department and five giant banks reveals the appalling weakness of modern antitrust.

The banks had engaged in the biggest price-fixing conspiracy in modern history. Their self-described “cartel” used an exclusive electronic chat room and coded language to manipulate the $5.3 trillion-a-day currency exchange market. It was a “brazen display of collusion” that went on for years, said Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

But there will be no trial, no executive will go to jail, the banks can continue to gamble in the same currency markets, and the fines – although large – are a fraction of the banks’ potential gains and will be treated by the banks as costs of doing business.

America used to have antitrust laws that permanently stopped corporations from monopolizing markets, and often broke up the biggest culprits.



The great trade debate – it’s “us” vs. “them”: so who really benefits?

Stephanie Burgos is Oxfam America’s Economic Justice Policy Manager.

The only thing that everyone seems to have in common on all sides of the current trade debate is that this is a battle of “us” against “them”. So who really are the “us” and “them” that each side is referring to?

Going by the news coverage, proponents such as the Obama Administration are making this out to be the United States vs. other countries (particularly China). As Secretary Kerry just reminded us, 95 percent of the world’s consumers live beyond the US borders (probably the most repeated statistic by such proponents over the last few decades). “When we increase what America sells overseas, our payrolls get larger, our paychecks get fatter,” he said.

I doubt the US Trade Representative has been using that line with any success at the negotiating table with the other 11 countries engaged in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. Anyway, that line of thinking is so very 20th century.

In today’s world, the winners and losers from these trade agreements – the real “us” and “them” – are divided not along national lines, but rather along economic lines. That is in large part because the trade agreements of today have little to do with tariffs or cross-border trade. The reason they are so controversial is that they set in stone the economic rules of the game, creating an “enabling environment” for corporations to do their business globally, unencumbered by pesky national regulations designed with the public interest rather than shareholder interest in mind.



Sunday's Non Sequitur- Warning Center

CNN has a job for her when she gets older.

Sunday's Doonesbury-Ask The Turtle

With a couple of glaring exceptions….
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 1163 Next »