Meltdown at – bloggers jumping ship

UPDATE: Luboš Motl finds some interesting tidbits about the state of science at Sb, see below the “Continue reading” line.

UPDATE2: PZ Myers ends his “strike” and flames me, see response in Update2 below.

Many WUWT readers are familiar with some blogs that reside at Sb. For example there’s Wikipedia edit master, William Connolley’s “Stoat-taking Science by the throat“, Tim Lambert’s “Deltoid“,  and some others like the well known Pharyngula by the ever grouchy PZ. Myers. It’s all good fun to read.

But, now there’s quite an exodus occurring at the conglomerate. Just look at the front page for today and the list of bloggers leaving or expressing concerns:

What’s happened? Well it all started with the parent company, SEED, allowing the Pepsi Company to start a blog on nutrition. Some bloggers went ballistic, perceiving that SEED caved to the almighty dollar and let some evil corporation into the sacred science temple.

Newsflash: SEED is a business.  The Guardian did a story on the Sb blogger anger, and Sb was faced with a mass revolt. The SEED management didn’t handle it well enough or fast enough for some bloggers tastes, even though they removed the Pepsi Food Frontiers blog. The result: 15 Sb bloggers upped and quit in protest. Here’s the content they are protesting.

As PZ Myers writes at Pharyngula, it is getting worse, more bloggers are leaving, and he’s on strike with a list of demands for the Sb management.

The Sb Blogging Union, local #42

Meyers writes:

It’s come to this. We’ve been facing a steady erosion of talent here at Scienceblogs, with the loss of good people like Carl Zimmer and Ed Yong a while back, and with the very abrupt departure of 15 bloggers after the recent PepsiCo debacle — an event that damaged the reputation of this place. And now just yesterday we lost PalMD and Bora. Something is going rotten here. What could it be?

Just in the time it took me to write this up this morning, Superbug, Zuska, and Speakeasy Science have all announced their departures, and Casaubon’s Book is considering it. We really are having a serious crisis of confidence, and Seed has to wake up and take action.

Add Mike Dunford to the list of departures.

Sb is crumbling fast. It seems to be the season for things crumbling. I wonder though, how many of those indignant bloggers that couldn’t handle a PepsiCo sponsored nutrition blog actually consume many of PepsiCo’s brands and don’t know it? There’s a lot of brands, Doritos and Mountain Dew for example. What blogger can do without those?

And PepsiCo has a lot of green brands, like Ethos Water that helps children get clean water worldwide.

And who could argue with the greenness and innovation of PepsiCo stuff like this?

sunchips ad

Point is that the bloggers who resigned in protest over a nutrition blog probably consume some of these things and don’t even know who makes it.

But what is really funny is how the new Food Frontiers blog was presented by SEED management in the first place:

As part of this partnership, we’ll hear from a wide range of experts on how the company is developing products rooted in rigorous, science-based nutrition standards to offer consumers more wholesome and enjoyable foods and beverages. The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy. In addition to learning more about the transformation of PepsiCo’s product portfolio, we’ll be seeing some of the innovative ways it is planning to reduce its use of energy, water and packaging.

Oh the humanity! Lots of tolerance over there at Sb.

I’ll give this piece of advice we always used to give in the TV Newsroom to people calling in that demanded we remove/edit/censure certain news stories, TV shows, or advertisements:

I understand your concerns, thank you, there’s no need to yell. Respectfully, if you don’t like the content, change the channel, we don’t force you to watch.

I find the whole Sb revolt thing hilarious. It’s a tempest in a pop can. Of course, PepsiCo could have defused this whole thing simply by making an announcement to stop putting deadly earth killing CO2 in their sodas, and instead sequestering it out back, underground. Then they’d be heroes, right?


UPDATE: Luboš Motl finds some interesting tidbits about the state of science at Sb:

To demonstrate that has almost nothing to do with science these days, let us look at the five most active articles on their server, according to the main page of

1. Episode LXXXII: Is this the thread for the tea party?… P.Z. Myers just included a would-be funny video that attacks the tea party movement

2. Monckton vs The House of Lords… Tim Lambert wrote a short text discussing purely the form, not the content, of some exchanges of Lord Monckton with the deputies

3. What fresh torment can we perpetrate on young girls?… P.Z. Myers discusses breast ironing in Cameroon and argues it occurs because the inhabitants are Catholics

4. Boyd Haley finally does the right thing, but is it for the wrong reasons?… Orac celebrates that the ScienceBlogs surrendered to the commies like him in PepsiGate; it’s discussed that evil companies are adding drugs to food

5. GOP Talking Points Even GOP Doesn’t Believe… Ed Brayton about Bush tax cuts. Doesn’t even pretend to be science

As you can see, science is virtually non-existent over there and everything is biased left-wing politics. But they still have the breathtaking arrogance to attack PepsiCo’s scientific blog on nutrition as insufficiently scientific for them.

Compare the above postings to the Food Frontiers blog now at PepsiCo’s website.


UPDATE2: Predictably, the always angry PZ Myers goes zerkers over this post. He thinks I don’t understand the issue of “ethics of keeping advertising separate from content”. Um Newsflash there PZ. I spent 25 years in a TV and radio newsrooms, don’t lecture me about keeping infomercials off the news.  I’ve fought that battle. But as I pointed out and PZ missed, if people don’t like infomericals, they can turn off the TV or switch the channel. The organized rant that forced SEED to remove the PepsiCo Food Frontiers blog denies readers their right to choose. That’s so uncool but typical for people like PZ that think people shouldn’t be allowed to choose for themselves. Just look at his religious hatreds he posts regularly. No science there, just hate.

Also, without citing a single sentence he claims I have particular take, that the reason for the exodus is that people don’t like PepsiCo products. Well noooooo, if you’d read it rather than engage your typical hateful knee jerk keyboard pounding reaction, you see it was a question.

I wonder though, how many of those indignant bloggers that couldn’t handle a PepsiCo sponsored nutrition blog actually consume many of PepsiCo’s brands and don’t know it?

It seems he’s ended his “strike” (he’s been posting the last couple of days), now he’s busy spiting me for noticing him at all. Next time I’ll just ignore him.

Some class act that PZ. He is the face of Sb today, so sad that science is co-marketed with anger and hate there.


UPDATE3: see my detailed comment below


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Oh my God!
I’ve been eating Doritos, will I go to hell for that?
I had a beer with them, instead of a Pepsi, will that buy me some discount time in the Fire?

I ate some…Farted…we’re all gonna die!!!!!


mmmmmmmmmm Mug Rootbeer. I had no idea that Pepsi was owner of Dole Juices, nor do I really care beyond knowing that fact.
Who peed in their Wheeties…wait is that a Pepsi product too?


I’ve got nothing against junk-food (having consumed so much in my life), so long as it doesn’t try and pass itself off as something else. In my opinion the pepsico nutrition blog is at root a bit dishonest in its aims. If SEED is a business, they need to think a bit more clearly about who their customers are if they want to survive to next year, rather than on ill-advised short-term profit maximization. Businesses don’t deserve profit, they have to earn it. If they make too many mistakes they die. It’s called a free market.


Pepsi running a science blog, hilarious,..”everyone knows Pepsi is what makes plants grow…it’s got electrolytes”


“Scientists spit dummy out of pram and suck mountain dew instead”
“Scientists without borders discover the domino effect”


I also think that this is a tempest in a pop can. However I don’t understand some of the reasonings presented here. I also drink coke and pepsi and eat many not-very-healthy things, and it doesn’t mean that I think that they are healthy. It only means that their unhealthiness is not an important issue for me at the time I eat them. However, I will feel totally outraged if these companies “pretend” that they care about the health of their customers. No, they don’t. If they say that they do, they’re lying. And I may not care that they play somewhat with my health, but I won’t tolerate that they also lie in their customers’ faces. Because I may not care, but maybe others do.
So perhaps these people are overreacting, but they do have a point.

This is kind of a silly post, and perhaps it’s meant as such. I read (or used to read) a couple of Sb blogs, and I think it’s pretty clear that the bloggers weren’t objecting to the mere existence of Pepsico, they were objecting to SEED allowing Pepsico to use an Sb blog as an infomercial space. It doesn’t follow that any such blogger is a hypocrite if they drink Pepsi.
To use your TV analogy, the bloggers are just saying “we don’t like your content and if it persists, we’re going to change channels”. SEED managment can either take note of that or not – all fair and above board.

Alex the skeptic

Was this the excuse the SB bloggers were waiting for to abondon the sinking AGW ship?

stephen richards

Every company (and NGO for that matter) that has jumped on the greeny beeny CO² wagon has done it for money. That includes Soros, greenpeas, friends of the earth, etc. It’s all for money, guys. Wake up and smell the roses.
You dumbos who run around protesting for these people need to get a life and get educated in life.


You have to love a narrow minded over-reaction based on your own assumptions, at no point does pepsico say they are going to tell pepsi is good for you. They do say;
The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy.
Which doesn’t seem unreasonable for a large company with a huge portfolio in today’s world


oops – didn’t get the italics right

Ken Hall

The CO2 is the least of the worries on soda. Do not even get me started on Aspartame I could rant all week!!!


I’m with a couple of the commenters above. I don’t mind PepsiCo. I generally don’t buy their stuff, but I have no moral objection to doing so.
I’ve followed the resignations, and I can see why it might push someone over the edge (I suspect most of the defections were not caused by this alone BTW) if scientific neutrality is a big thing for them.
For many of the bloggers on Sb the fact that they are accused of being “Big Pharma” shills is a real issue. Of course they are not – no more than Anthony is a shill for “Big Oil”. But if Sb is going to contain “blogs” that are shills for industry, then the mud is going to be a whole lot clingier.
There’s no way Anthony could afford to have WUWT be sponsored by Shell or Exxon. Even if they let him total editorial control it would look too suspicious. I wouldn’t buy it. In the same way the science bloggers need to be totally above suspicion as being bought by industrial concerns. It looks like a little matter, until you investigate what is actually behind the concerns.
This is different to sponsorship. I have no issue with “industry” as such. If they sponsor the NZ Provincial Rugby Championships it will endear me to them, and I might buy more of their junk. But the sponsorship better have no ring of influence.

Frozen man

MMmmm all this CO 2 molecules running in our brains after having a Pepsi…
They should be blacklisted too….
[sarcasm off]

Dave N

Pepsi? I hit the TAB button.. now where is it?? Oh wait.. no time for that.. the computer’s starting!

Some people have to gripe about everything.
Sure some corporations have done terrible things in the past, and time to time still do some bad things. But on the whole, they are very responsible and have made our lives immensely better.
Take a look at the list of products. I see many there that I enjoy on a daily basis. Let the people decide for themselves if they want or don’t want to buy.
The eco-zealots are so out to lunch (and often with Pepsi products).

John A

What interests me is that many of the blogs on ScienceBlogs are not about science. Pharyngula is not about evolutionary biology (because PZ writes about that on “The Panda’s Thumb”), its about PZ being as offensive as possible to religious believers of various sorts (and I’m not religious, just to let people know).
PZ Meyers at least writes well, even if most of the time he writes too angry. Its a wonder he doesn’t develop stomach ulcers or boils to the skin. He even encourages angry discourse on the blog – but maybe he has an enlarged spleen or something because I can’t manage it for that length of time without nausea.
Tim Lambert’s blog isn’t about science – its about the character assassination of people that Tim disagrees with, mixed with a good helping of historical revisionism and really bad scientific comprehension (and cheered on by people even more clueless than Tim). Its densely argued nonsense that one could spend a good lifetime trying to catalogue all of the mistakes – only to get blocked by Timmy for annoying him.
William Connelley’s blog is about science with rigid blinkers on. No variation of view from what WMC believes is allowed. He thinks Wikipedia is too conservative now that they’ve rumbled him.
The Denialism blog takes that whole idea one stage further to accusing anyone who disagrees with the author’s political views on science policy as morally depraved – a religious concept if ever there was one.
What Scienceblogs does demonstrate is that most academics don’t automatically make very good writers (or even thinkers). But they do have monster egos. And they do bitterly resent outsiders standing on their educational lawns.
Scienceblogs is also solidly politically far left-of-centre. No variation at all. (Note: not liberal). The commentary is mostly classical late 19th Century Marxist and politically correct to the n-th degree. Its gets very boring after a while.
I like reading a range of viewpoints (which is why I like WUWT, because I can mock quite a few of them safely), so scienceblogs is like an occasional dip in the swimming pool with the enormous wave machine on – fun, but tiring and after a while you just want a quiet swim.


This is too funny – except it suggests the way they want their world to be. Would they have been up in arms if Ben and Jerry’s or Stonyfield Farm (NE Organic Yogurt)had sponsored the nutrition site? Hold on, didn’t Ben and Jerry sell out to Unilever? The money grubbers did. We can’t have those Capitalist swines at Unilever sullying the science, even if they are Europeans.

Jack Simmons

Ken Hall says:
July 23, 2010 at 3:28 am

The CO2 is the least of the worries on soda. Do not even get me started on Aspartame I could rant all week!!!

How about corn syrup sugar?
I like the ads put on by the corn syrup sugar industry demonstrating ‘moderate’ consumption of corn syrup sugar is fine.
I agree, moderate consumption of anything is fine. Only problem is defining moderate.
I’ve decided, on a strictly personal basis, a 16 ounce serving of Pepsi per week is ‘moderate’. No consumption of processed foods in the house is ‘moderate’. Well, except for those stray bags of pretzels or potato chips. I try to eat at places where the food is obviously fresh, but there are times the occasional fast food meal, sans the soft drink is ok. Bread has gone down in my diet. My favorite food too. Too many carbs.
By the way, whatever happened to people deciding for themselves what they will eat or drink? If the stuff is bad for them, so what?

Nylo: July 23, 2010 at 2:54 am
However, I will feel totally outraged if these companies “pretend” that they care about the health of their customers. No, they don’t. If they say that they do, they’re lying. And I may not care that they play somewhat with my health, but I won’t tolerate that they also lie in their customers’ faces. Because I may not care, but maybe others do.
So perhaps these people are overreacting, but they do have a point.

It’s more a reaction to having a representative of the vile, bourgeois, manufacturosyndicalist cabal intrude into the *purity* of their site — it forced them to face the Inconvenient Truth that somebody has to pay the rent.
Which is why I get a chuckle when I see outraged commenters demanding that Anthony change WUWT to conform with *their* points of view…


Some bloggers went ballistic, perceiving that SEED caved to the almighty dollar and let some evil corporation into the sacred science temple“…
Ahhh, the cluelessness of leftists is manifest yet again…
So what if SEED was taking money from Pepsi?
Its not like bandwidth (plus assorted hardware & software) were free…

Bruce of Newcastle

Hey, Pepsigeddon has been no easy thing:
You might remember Joe D’Aleo who recently posted here why he couldn’t move ICECAP to a more friendly platform which would allow commenting. I think he said he has thousands of articles which would have to move somehow without being lost.
My local banks are still using 1980’s software because of the nightmare that transferring to new software would represent. Fossilised blogs are just a new Y2K-like result of this rising tyranny of the electron!

Eric Anderson

Amen to John A. So much on there has so little to do with science anyway . . .
Kind of comical to see the hysteria induced.


This has nothing to do with outrage over health concerns just as the science of global warming has nothing to do with concerns about the planet. The truth is, wherever Coke and Pepsi are ascendent, western culture is as well. So perhaps this is really an argument pitting Aristotle against Marx.
I drink Coke and Pepsi, and lead an active and healthy lifestyle in a vibrant community that embraces the western tradition.

Joe Lalonde

Companies are not stupid. They see a shift in the saturation of the “Green” movement and are looking at future profitability to keep their products selling at the inflated prices that their products are at.
Good question is what is the products actual price to manufacture and sell, without all the marketing gobbledygook to get the true answer.
“Have to keep our shareholders happy” is the current social order, so let’s keep pushing that price up, sneak in the change of amount in the packages smaller to keep that profit margin high.


Some people seem to like their science as a big white shiney temple where peaople piously sing hymms to theoretical constructs.
While others would prefer to urinate against the wall and see the world as a place to observe.
I think the Sb thing is really Climate Change in a bottle. People disconnecting from whats real to let their preconceptions be the world. PepsiCo probably has more chemists in it’s employ than NASA and has done positive things, the litmus test is are they making blog entries about scientific facts in a Science Blog? Its too early to tell about Pepsi, but not about the people who don’t seem to bother with empirical evidence.

CO2= Plant food. What could be more green than. That? The forests of the world thank you.


What, the authoritarians are taking their ball and going home? Who they gonna play with?

Joe Lalonde

Science in medicine have had an extremely profitable union with healthcare. Any company would love to have this same union in another science field that has as much interest in it. But our society have an extremely limited attention span to science as it is an education thing that government should take care of.
You don’t see Colleges or Universities looking for any NEW SCIENCE that will draw students and sponsors as the knowledge is in a book or on the computer.
I have seen so much science that is very incorrect being taught as higher learning, when in actual fact will create our next world leaders to be “educated idiots”.
When you do not question anything, it must be correct. I question everything and find many surprises in what is actually happening.


The anti-corporate thing runs deep apparently. Note that they threw a hissy fit immediately, they didn’t wait to look at what PepsiCo actually wrote/blogged about, no no no. Corporation = eeeevil. NGO apparently = good. Big Oil is bad bad bad. It seems the more likely they are to actually use the product the more they want to demonize and hurt the providers of said product.

Fandangular going on strike.
My, that’s gonna hurt.

Leon Brozyna

Sounds like a bunch of petulant drama queens throwing a hissy fit.
Reminds me of that time early in the evolution of the internet, when text only content gave way to a WYSIWYG graphical content and, horror of horrors, ads began appearing. The sounds of the offended just burst through every computer — and all without the benefit of soundcards.
Or how about this, for the sanctimonious and self-righteous: the very holy internet they profess to love was founded by tax dollars under the guidance of the military-industrial complex (aka DARPA). You want purity? Build your own internet with your own dollars and expertise.
Ever notice how sanctimony and hypocrisy seem to go hand in hand?


Where would science be without the capitalistic system? Where would engineering be without the capitalistic system? And where would our standard of living be without the capitalistic system? All three would have a much lower level of development without it.
It sounds like many people at Scienceblogs don’t consider this, which isn’t too surprising. Their education at our higher institutions of liberalism has brainwashed them into believing capitalism is evil, that anything touched by that system should be rejected, and that self-flagelating behavior is the answer. They’ve constructed their own self-righteous demise.

John Q. Public

And the reputation of science takes another hit. So much for that silly idea that scientists were rational and level-headed. They’re as nutty as the rest of us. And there goes the free pass for science.


Yep those environmental scientists sure care about people,not big corporations.
AUSTRALIA’S top health standards body has been accused of subverting food science to fit a green agenda.
It did this by suggesting caps on meat and fish intake on environmental grounds — even though pregnant women risk nutritional deficiencies as a result.
But in a submission responding to the draft, sent to the NHMRC in May, the CSIRO noted the “term ‘environmentally sustainable’ appears . . . throughout the document as an argument for some of the limitations on some foods, notably meat, fish and dairy”.
“It is unclear from this document as to how such conclusions were derived and . . . why nutritional desirability for optimal health has been compromised as a consequence,” the CSIRO said.


‘Point is that the bloggers who resigned in protest over a nutrition blog probably consume some of these things and don’t even know who makes it.’
Speculation doesn’t make a good argument one way or another.
‘Of course, PepsiCo could have defused this whole thing simply by making an announcement to stop putting deadly earth killing CO2 in their sodas, and instead sequestering it out back, underground.’
You don’t have other ways to view the world’s issues do you?
It is a textbook conflict of interest for SEED to take money from Pepsi and then give Pepsi blog space under the auspices that Pepsi scientists are going to give a complete picture of the science behind Pepsi products. I think that one is hard-pressed to claim that in that given situation there wasn’t a better way in which SEED could have brought Pepsi along. That was the major contention of many of the contributors.
The other contention had to do with the fact that while the contributors of ScienceBlogs work to give the site legitimacy (whether you agree with particular blogs or not), SEED was effectively selling that legitimacy to Pepsi without any feedback from the bloggers themselves. In the end, I think it was this fact that drove many away because they had had enough of having no say in the direction the site could take on any given day.
[reply]As you said speculation doesn’t make a good argument one way or another. RT – mod

John Egan

Pepsi is evil for many reasons –
The main one being that it is a poor imitation of Coke.


I find it impossible to understand why you skeptics don’t believe that RC is the fount of truth and beauty and that’s all there is to know.
RC Cola, that is.

Nolo Contendere

Oh, me. I think I pulled a muscle laughing too hard at these indignant bloggers sputtering and stamping their wee little feet petulantly at the very thought of a corpoaration. Thanks for the comic relief.

Red Jeff

This is advertising from The Soda Pop Board of America (1950’s). “For a better start in life start cola earlier” “How soon is too soon? Not soon enough. Laboratory tests have proven……babies who start drinking soda during that early formative period…”
Pepsi has science on its side!!

Daniel H

Personally, I prefer Coke, but I have nothing against Pepsi. Indeed, I’ve been studying in Tokyo for lo these many, many months, and at this point I’d kill for a (formerly PepsiCo owned) Taco Bell Bacon Club Chalupa thing. You don’t normally realize how much you miss Taco Bell food until it’s no longer an option for you. It’s strange because there are KFC’s everywhere here but not a single Taco Bell in sight. I’m very upset about this. Maybe I should follow Al Gore’s motorcade during his next Japanese PowerPoint Climate Crisis + Massage Therapy + CO2 Footprint Tour.
As for these leftist food snobs who can’t tolerate having their so-called “science” blogs co-hosted on a site with PepsiCo, it doesn’t surprise me one bit. These are the same hypocrites who will refuse to consider a published peer-reviewed paper if one of the authors happens to have a second-cousin whose neighbor once knew the brother of a secretary who worked for Exxon in 1967. This is how their “science” works: Don’t evaluate the merits of the actual claims being made, instead attack the sources of funding and assassinate the characters of the people making those claims.
Is it really surprising then that the loyal patrons of would abandon ship en mass rather than endure the humiliating possibility of being (even remotely) connected with an obscure PepsiCo-backed “science” based infomercial? The scary thought of having their green credentials revoked was enough to make them run for the exits. This is how group-think works.
Well, that’s my take on it anyway… Now I’m hungry 🙂 ¡Yo quiero Taco Bell!

John A wrote:
An accurate epitaph for Scienceblogs.
Scienceblogs. Having spent more than enough time in the academic science environment I was always bemused by the highly doctrinaire social, cultural, and political views held by many. Along with the demand for conformity to these views and the lack of tolerance of any dissent. Also that the belief that they are correct about everything, regardless of whether or not it’s outside their domain of specialized knowledge, simply because of their belief that they are smarter than everyone else.
The outcry over Pepsi reminds me of an anecdotal story. I went out to dinner with a well known professor, in his field, and his students. This prof was a supporter of every so-called progressive cause one could imagine. Naturally, he was a vegetarian. So all his students fell obliged to order veggie dishes. I ordered the meatiest dish I could find on the menu. It was clear that the prof was not pleased – did not approve. So I said, “Well, my evolutionary ancestors did not fight their way to the top of the food chain, just so I would eat nothing but vegetables.”
The tenured types can predict their secure income over their working life to the last penny, so it’s not surprising that they may have difficulty understanding why Scienceblogs might need to consider a sponsor.
Anyways, I find that various science news aggregators, such as PhysOrg, TechReview, etc., a far more interesting, informative, and useful read than most of the blogs on Scienceblogs which, as someone correctly pointed out, are mostly not about science.

Some one needs to research how much the green industry has bought into the CO2 AGW myth and how much their executives stand to loose as the myth is exposed and bad laws, treaties, and regulations are abandoned. That green industry includes a lot of scientist who have used scare tactics to fund their research. Watch the political green issue ads between now and November.


I find it interesting that in the 21st century we have arrived at Marxism without Marx and Leninism without Lenin. People still hold to the same philosophical positions (Gov = good, Capitalism = bad) but without the underpinnings from Marx and Lenin. In fact they would deny any connection to those two worthies, but they still pine for a socialist utopia void of profit motive.


Consensus mindsets become sceptical, Watts up with that? Gosh, I was always taught to think, make up my own mind, and when someone was hard selling you something, or soft selling for that matter you always took their claims with a “grain of salt” (reality check) No need for those of the consensus faith to get their knickers in a knot, just healthy normal scientific scepticism (skepticism)
A reality check, for those in need, indeed!!

What bothered me the most about the Pepsi-ScienceBlogs spat was the utter contempt a few of the bloggers there showed for “corporate science.” See “Corporate Science = Evil Science?” at P.Z. Myers thought I “missed the point.” You can judge for yourself.

Red Jeff,
The “Soda Pop Board?” What’s ‘Pop’? Is that like CoCola in the South?

Joe Lalonde

BarryW says:
July 23, 2010 at 5:45 am
Capitalism was good when companies looked after their employees and not looking to grab the biggest profits and pay bouses to who can rip you off the most.
Government do not listen anymore when elected. They create their own agendas as it suits especially in early terms of office so to give time for the voters to forget as the world moves on with other stories that catch their interest.
People in general have a short attention span.


This tempest in a teapot reminds me of Sayre’s Law, which is originally sourced from the faux-reality of academics:
“In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue.”
Not being an academic, I had no idea it was called Sayre’s Law until I went to look up the accurate phrasing.
See here: