Those following the BBC’s commemoration of the World War One centenary may have noticed this Tweet on September 20th.
The link leads to a feature on the BBC’s iWonder webpage titled “Does the peace that ended WW1 haunt us today?” which is presented by the BBC News diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall. Launched in January 2014, the iWonder brand was described by the BBC as a project intended to “educate and inform”.
“To coincide with the start of the BBC’s World War One season the BBC today launches a range of exciting digital content under a new brand called BBC iWonder.
iWonder is the new brand from the BBC designed to unlock the learning potential of all BBC content. Interactive guides – curated by experts and BBC talent including Dan Snow, Kate Adie, Ian McMillan and Neil Oliver – are the first phase of this initiative.[…]
View original post 907 more words
During 2012, BBC‘s program The Big Question hosted a lively, intersting debate on the issue of animal testing (aka vivisection). The program started off civil but then the animal rights, anti-testing side (not surprisingly) hurled accusations and half-truths toward the middle of the exchange. The opponents of animal testing knew they could not win the debate so they made slanderous charges against their opponents.
by Tim Harding
At first sight, the concepts of economic efficiency and social justice might seem unrelated or even counterposed. Some people intuitively feel that in the economic sense, efficiency works against fairness and therefore equality. Economic inequality just seems unfair and wrong.
In this essay, I propose to argue that the concept of economic efficiency can be used as part of a case that social justice does not require economic equality. My case is primarily based on the works of Frankfurt; but Rawls’ Difference Principle is also of assistance. I also intend to consider some objections to this case, and to either provide counter-arguments against them, or to suggest that the objections are not sufficiently important to outweigh the case I am putting forward.
Economic efficiency is typically defined as a Pareto optimum – a state of affairs in which it is impossible to make anybody better-off without…
View original post 2,124 more words
People also drank beer as a way of purifying water.
Fascinating research by Dr Susan Flavin:
You spend years “burrowing away on dusty documents”, then a line in your research – admittedly attention-grabbing – about workers in Ireland in the 16th century quaffing rations of 14 pints of beer a day, gets noticed, and suddenly historian Dr Susan Flavin is getting calls from all over the place. Images of burly stone masons lurching around drunkenly wielding medieval hammers and chisels come to mind.
Flavin, a lecturer in early modern history at Anglia Ruskin University, has been researching 16th century social and economic history for years, and says today that people have “jumped on” the beer angle. She’s had an offer from someone who wants to recreate a 16th century oat brew and send her bottles, and a well-known craft brewery has also offered help in recreating the methods, for which she’s hoping for research funding.
So, if people routinely quaffed…
View original post 358 more words
The populists are on the march, and as the 2018 campaign season gets rolling we’re witnessing more examples of political opportunism bolstered by economic illiteracy aimed at increasingly unpopular big tech firms.
The latest example comes in the form of a new investigation of Google opened by Missouri’s Attorney General, Josh Hawley. Mr. Hawley — a Republican who, not coincidentally, is running for Senate in 2018 — alleges various consumer protection violations and unfair competition practices.
But while Hawley’s investigation may jump start his campaign and help a few vocal Google rivals intent on mobilizing the machinery of the state against the company, it is unlikely to enhance consumer welfare — in Missouri or anywhere else.
According to the press release issued by the AG’s office:
[T]he investigation will seek to determine if Google has violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act—Missouri’s principal consumer-protection statute—and Missouri’s antitrust laws.
View original post 2,710 more words