![Photobucket](http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac74/JacksonBrown/Owls/Blade-Runner-Owl-550px-header-1.jpg)
At The Guardian, Lucy Siegle writes Who made this product? Why do I need it?:
Imagine a label, one that reads: "An actual, living, breathing human used their own hands to help make this product." This is just what the (western) world needs, a label affixed to consumer goods. We need this urgent reminder because in those seconds when we decide to purchase another piece of life's apparatus we are strikingly effective at suppressing any ethical doubt over its provenance.
The first thing we do (with varying levels of awareness) is convince ourselves that – from the hottest bits of sleek hi-tech gadgetry to highly embellished fashion garments – these were made by very clever robot arms that can apply toxic chemicals to a touch screen or expertly sew a sequin or bead. But as today's Observer report on Apple products lays bare, our consumer goods still arrive courtesy of the blood, sweat and tears of many human beings.
The Global Assembly Line is a misnomer for a dystopian, complex jumble of production that uses any number of countries and its citizens. Environmentalists are already aware that the price tag on most mass global consumer products already fails to factor in the true ecological cost ("natural capital") of the product.
From elements in mobile phones to leather in trainers, all are habitually "subsidised" by the environment. Furthermore, with electronics, ethical arguments have tended to focus on the end of the chain, where consumer behaviour conspires with Moore's Law (the amount of computing power that can be bought for a certain amount of money doubles every 18 months) and planned obsolescence to create mountains of e-waste.
But today's report reveals the human capital that is also squandered. No supply chain so dependent on workers should be breathtakingly intolerant of any of their needs. What's more, and to put it bluntly, it is hard to find any robot (given research and development costs and maintenance) which matches humans working on the global supply chain on a pure cost basis. In this sense, humans are very "cheap". ...
• • • • •
At Daily Kos on this date in 2007:
Many of you may be wondering why the pretzeldent vetoed the Iraq Accountability Act instead of signing it and issuing one of his infamous "signing statements," and simply declaring his intention not to abide by the provisions of the law he didn't like.
While there were surely elements of pure partisan politics involved, and not a little bit of ego, there may also be a more practical reason: killing time and running out the clock.
Take a look at the parting shot in Bush's veto message:
Finally, this legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution, including as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. For these reasons, I must veto this bill.
If there's anything more important to Bush than funding his occupation of Iraq, it's escaping out the back door of the White House in 2009 with his vision of the authority of the his presidency unquestioned and unchallenged.