News Stories

[JokerD]

Court frees ex-Korean Air executive in 'nut rage' case

Wait for outrage to die down then quietly release the person.

[ganbaru]

Suicide bomber strikes Saudi Shi'ite mosque, many dead or wounded: residents
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0O712S20150522

U.S. vows to continue patrols after China warns spy plane
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0O60AY20150521

Irish vote on gay marriage in landmark referendum
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0O717R20150522

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Suicide bomber strikes Saudi Shi'ite mosque, many dead or wounded: residents
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0O712S20150522

Watch US arms flow into the Shia regions in Saudi Arabia. $$$

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Watch US arms flow into the Shia regions in Saudi Arabia. $$$

Or French arms. Or Russian arms. Or Chinese arms. Or Iranian arms. Or ....

The Houthis are allegedly receiving arms from Iran last I heard.

The US is arming the Saudi Coalition forces. Given the Security Council ban on arming the Houthis, I don't see why you think the US would arm the Shia in SA.

Honestly, sometimes it seems like you think the US is the source of all evil in the world.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Or French arms. Or Russian arms. Or Chinese arms. Or Iranian arms. Or ....

The Houthis are allegedly receiving arms from Iran last I heard.

The US is arming the Saudi Coalition forces. Given the Security Council ban on arming the Houthis, I don't see why you think the US would arm the Shia in SA.

Honestly, sometimes it seems like you think the US is the source of all evil in the world.

What I mean is that all the arms used to arm the Iraqis would flow into Shia in Saudi Arabia.

[SeijiSensei]

Maybe on the black market. IS Sunnis won't be selling arms to Shia forces any time soon. Are you suggesting they'll be coming from the Iraqi military itself? Maybe Shia militias in Iraq might supply some, but at the moment they seem to have more important problems like the expansion of IS. Regardless, who do you see as receiving the "$$$" you posted before? Your posting implied the US; I doubt that very much.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Maybe on the black market. IS Sunnis won't be selling arms to Shia forces any time soon. Are you suggesting they'll be coming from the Iraqi military itself? Maybe Shia militias in Iraq might supply some, but at the moment they seem to have more important problems like the expansion of IS. Regardless, who do you see as receiving the "$$$" you posted before? Your posting implied the US; I doubt that very much.

I meant there is money to be made. The flow of arms through the black market from on Shia militia to another will more or less result in more sale of arms to the "legitimate government" as they increase their arms to protect themselves.

Meanwhile there will be political backlash on the White House either way - not arming their allies, or arming "terrorist sponsors". It seems that it is only the arms dealers who win.

[MrTerrorist]

So why are other countries not doing the same thing?

[SeijiSensei]

US continues overflights of Chinese dredging operations

The United States and China on Friday escalated their dispute over contested territory in the South China Sea, after the Chinese repeatedly ordered an American military surveillance plane to abandon flights over areas where China has been building artificial islands.

The continued American surveillance flights in areas where China is creating new islands in the South China Sea are intended to challenge the Chinese government’s claims of expanded territorial sovereignty. Further raising the challenge, Pentagon officials said they were discussing sending warships into waters that the United States asserts are international and open to passage, but that China says are within its zone of control.

The Defense Department planning comes in response to China’s accelerated efforts to build new islands in the South China Sea to bolster claims to a vastly expanded area of sovereignty, a direct challenge to the United States and other nations in the region.

I've worried about a naval confrontation between US and Chinese forces in the China Sea for some time now. My guess is we'll see an incident of some form in the next few months if the current tensions escalate. At one time I thought we might be dragged into a Chinese-Filipino naval encounter, but now it appears it could happen without the Philippines being involved.

[ganbaru]

Irish voters back gay marriage in 'social revolution'
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0O717R20150523

Exclusive: Prosecutors probe possible criminal case in California oil spill
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0O72K020150523

Thailand passes first inheritance tax to raise revenue in lackluster economy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0O805920150523

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

So why are other countries not doing the same thing?

Cost efficiency. Who will be paying for the logistics to collect and redistribute the food?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Cost efficiency. Who will be paying for the logistics to collect and redistribute the food?

A good reason. Another one if than some supermarket do already transform on site that kind of food ( and sell it). Another one if the issue than the ''unsold but still edible'' might not stay edible for long enough.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

A good reason. Another one if than some supermarket do already transform on site that kind of food ( and sell it). Another one if the issue than the ''unsold but still edible'' might not stay edible for long enough.

In the lawsuit happy US at least, lawsuits by people who got sick after eating the food (expired or allergies) vs no profit/loss from giving the food out.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by JokerD

In the lawsuit happy US at least, lawsuits by people who got sick after eating the food (expired or allergies) vs no profit/loss from giving the food out.

I wasn't thinking about lawsuits but it might be another good reason but still dealing with that unsold but still edible food, given what it is might require much work. If we talk about vegetable, especially the misshapen one, it isn't much of a issue. Meat in another hand can be a bit more problematic.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

So why are other countries not doing the same thing?

Actually, in pure economic terms, a supermarket is better off destroying products they don't want to waste shelf space on rather than giving it away.

Destroying the products just means they no longer make any money from them. But giving away the product means lowering demand. If you give away bread that is less people wanting to buy bread from you, because some potential customers have already been fed. Thus you LOSE money.

In short, it is greed. Capitalism demands that you make as much money as possible, and that includes destroying old products to prevent them from being picked up by the poor for free and thus lower product demand. This is why governments had to force companies to donate the food; they wouldn't do it voluntarily.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Actually, in pure economic terms, a supermarket is better off destroying products they don't want to waste shelf space on rather than giving it away.

Destroying the products just means they no longer make any money from them. But giving away the product means lowering demand. If you give away bread that is less people wanting to buy bread from you, because some potential customers have already been fed. Thus you LOSE money.

In short, it is greed. Capitalism demands that you make as much money as possible, and that includes destroying old products to prevent them from being picked up by the poor for free and thus lower product demand. This is why governments had to force companies to donate the food; they wouldn't do it voluntarily.

Some did it before the law was passed. (Though you could argue they were just seeing the way the wind was blowing and did it for PR. Plus, it would mostly lower demand for the hard discount stores.)

[aldw]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Actually, in pure economic terms, a supermarket is better off destroying products they don't want to waste shelf space on rather than giving it away.

Destroying the products just means they no longer make any money from them. But giving away the product means lowering demand. If you give away bread that is less people wanting to buy bread from you, because some potential customers have already been fed. Thus you LOSE money.

In short, it is greed. Capitalism demands that you make as much money as possible, and that includes destroying old products to prevent them from being picked up by the poor for free and thus lower product demand. This is why governments had to force companies to donate the food; they wouldn't do it voluntarily.

Looking at it from the Fast Food grease perspective, old food that can be composted can be resold to others for profit, much as old cooking grease can be converted to diesel fuel. Indeed, recycling can and has grown into major sources of economic activity, in this case of old food the right amount of focus and investment would be needed to kickstart that composting activity to achieve the optimal critical mass of sustainability.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by JokerD

Court frees ex-Korean Air executive in 'nut rage' case

Wait for outrage to die down then quietly release the person.

That's a load of crap of a decision as far as I'm concerned. She should be serving even more time in jail after what she did, rich girl or not.

[Ithekro]

Safeway use to donate bakery goods to non-profit orginizations at least a decade ago. The problen was that it was usually all or nothing. You took all they had, or you took nothing. Not picking and choosing. That could be a problem if they had a lot and the orginization didn't send the larger van to pick up the pasties, cakes, and bread.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Destroying the products just means they no longer make any money from them. But giving away the product means lowering demand. If you give away bread that is less people wanting to buy bread from you, because some potential customers have already been fed. Thus you LOSE money.

For the poor, they wouldn't have the money to buy the food in the first place, so the supermarkets are not loosing any potential customers. Unless there are those on the borderline who can buy but choose to get handouts instead.