Jared Daugherty has just posted an article to IGE's website discussing the recent arrests of human rights activists in Vietnam. Were the arrests violations of religious freedom? Why does it matter? How should Christians how to become an actor espond? We invite your comments and feedback.

This is what it is. When my mother and her siblings were in their prime working years, they had to deal with discrimination. It wasn't until the 70s when things started changing so that they had a chance to be rightly compensated for the work they did and they had a credible chance to advance in their careers. Now that my mother is retired, her Social Security payments as well as her pension payments, are based on the salary that she earned. However, because of discrimination, her salary wasn't as high as it may have been. I don't believe in reparations for slavery and I think that if the reparation proponents were serious, they would be going for reparations for people like my mother and her siblings. But, as I wrote, what happened is what it was and no one dwells on it. I write about this because of Colbert I. King's opinion article titled "In Virginia, More to 'Get Over' Than Slavery" in Saturday's Washington Post. Now chill. This piece isn't about reparations. It is, however, a reminder -- as if one is needed -- that the Emancipation Proclamation did not remove the shackles from the descendants of slaves; that injustice and inequality were an integral part of Virginia during the adult life of Frank Hargrove. Which gets me to the source of his consternation: the legislative proposal for Virginia to issue an apology for slavery. I'm not sure off site backup t's worth the trouble.

Rabbit writes: In other Chicago news, the las vegas car dealer hicago Tribune's headline today was "Shrub poisoned zoo monkeys." My first thought: "Now he's finally stooped too low."

A story not really covered by UK bloggers was the big hoo-har over Federated Media paying US A-list bloggers to put their names to advertising content. I won't recount the affair as Jeff Jarvis has a comprehensive write-up . But one idea raised by Jarvis stuck in my mind. Referring to a previous campaign conducted by Federated Media which created a Wikipedia entry for a client, Jarvis opines: "I’m afraid they are still on the dark side. You just can’t put something with commercial motive into Wikipedia. Admitting it is hardly better; it is still a crime. The Wikipedians and bloggers will attack hard and they will deserve what they get." The important point here is: FM thought that by admitting what they were doing, they were being transparent. They weren't. They were being open about their activities, but ultimately masking their intentions. It's where transparency as a genuine value meets transparency as a corporate platitude. The former is vital for holding real conversations and building real relationships. The latter is the cross-over member services oint where conversations meet marketing. One commenter on Jarvis' blog, Sam Harrelson , explains rather neatly the reason for this: "In our post-modern world, ideas such as “trust,” “objectivity,” “disclosure,” and “reliability” have been turned over and rendered subjective. That doesn’t mean that these terms are meaningless, it means that things like trust are now subjective in the eyes of the beholders.

Click Here

A story not really covered by UK bloggers was the big hoo-har over Federated Media paying US A-list bloggers to put their names to advertising content. I won't recount the affair as Jeff Jarvis has a comprehensive write-up . But one idea raised by Jarvis satellite radio antennas tuck in my mind. Referring to a previous campaign conducted by Federated Media which created a Wikipedia entry for a client, Jarvis opines: "I’m afraid they are still on the dark side. You just can’t put something with commercial motive into Wikipedia. Admitting it is hardly better; it is still a crime. The Wikipedians and bloggers will attack hard and they will deserve what they get." The important point here is: FM thought that by admitting what they were doing, they were being transparent. They weren't. They were being open about their activities, but ultimately masking their intentions. It's where transparency as a genuine value meets transparency as a corporate platitude. The former is vital for holding real conversations and building real relationships. The latter is the cross-over point where conversations meet marketing. One commenter on Jarvis' blog, Sam Harrelson , explains rather neatly the reason for this: "In our post-modern world, ideas such as “trust,” “objectivity,” “disclosure,” and “reliability” have been turned over and rendered subjective. That doesn’t mean that these terms are meaningless, it means that things like trust are now subjective in the eyes of the beholders.

Rabbit writes: In other Chicago news, the Chicago Tribune's headline today was "Shrub poisoned zoo monkeys." My intranet search engine irst thought: "Now he's finally stooped too low."

Jared Daugherty has just posted an article to IGE's website discussing the recent arrests of human rights activists in Vietnam. Were the arrests violations of religious freedom? Why does it matter? How should Christians anger management seminars espond? We invite your comments and feedback.

This is what it is. When my mother and her siblings were in their prime working years, they had to deal with discrimination. It wasn't until the 70s when things started changing so that they had a chance to be rightly compensated for the work they did and they had a credible chance to advance in their careers. Now that my mother is retired, her Social Security payments as well as her pension payments, are based on the salary that she earned. However, because of discrimination, her salary wasn't as high as it may have been. I don't believe in reparations for slavery and I think that if the reparation proponents were serious, they would be going for reparations for people like my mother and her siblings. But, as I wrote, what happened is what it was and no one dwells on it. I write about this because of Colbert I. King's opinion article titled "In Virginia, More to 'Get Over' Than Slavery" in Saturday's Washington Post. Now chill. This piece isn't about reparations. It is, however, a reminder -- as if one is needed -- that the Emancipation Proclamation did not remove the shackles from the descendants of slaves; that student trip njustice and inequality were an integral part of Virginia during the adult life of Frank Hargrove. Which gets me to the source of his consternation: the legislative proposal for Virginia to issue an apology for slavery. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.