I suspect the world would be better if that percentage were even greater.
Scoble on Human Rights…
In one of his recent posts, Robert Scoble reveals a certain pragmatism when it comes to human rights.
When doing business in various countries and, even, various states here in the US, we must comply with the local laws if we want to do business there.
And, as a shareholder in Microsoft, I think it would be a bad decision to decide not to do business in China.
Tell me Robert, when you are willing to curb your sense of moral outrage simply to appease your shareholders, why should we bother to listen to you on any subject?
Doesn’t your eagerness to overlook basic human rights abuses in pursuit of bucks for your corporate masters give you any cause for introspection?
Comments
Comment from John McCabe
Time 6/13/2005 at 9:24 pm
Scoble claims he “would die for” the freedom of expression, and would give up his “life” for it, too. But he is still living. Maybe he should read Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party. Our government has amazing views on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The true test for every self-proclaimed democratic society is the ballot access laws and election administration.
Google: “frank rizzo” bomb
Though I like to think China is worse than our government.
Pingback from Flutterby!
Time 6/17/2005 at 7:07 pm
[IMG ] Scoble says Microsoft is right in supporting repressive regimes as long as it increases shareholder value ( Mark expresses some small portion of the appropriate outrage ), representatives are taking three quarter of a million dollar bribes from defense contractors (source), further holes and unravelings in the Bush administration’s story about Iraq… It all calls for some virtual time in the hammock, staring up at