Friday Five: Word Association

The Supreme Court ruled this week, in a 5-4 decision, that individual contributions to political campaigns are protected by the first amendment and therefore should not be limited. We all latched on to a different element of this controversial ruling in what turned out to be a sort of word association game. It got us thinking about income inequality, corporations as citizens, the 1% and the downside of free speech.

  • This 3-part MarketPlace series on the life of a food stamp explores all the beneficiaries of the SNAP program, including Wal-Mart, and includes interactive tools to help walk readers through the tough decisions the poor face @Slate
  • Not all 1%-ers are the same. The lower 1% spend a lot to calm their status anxiety, which leaves them feeling poor because they aren’t as comfortable as the 0.05%– learn how hard it is to be rich @TheAtlantic
  • We have all heard horror stories of the academic job market and the struggles of low-wage adjuncts. But don’t rush to lump those poor Phds in with other exploited labor they have more power than we give them credit for @TheChronicle
  • Here is a good refresher on how corporations got rights, along with references if you want to learn more @OrgTheory
  • Finally, free speech includes this strange commercial from Snickers, if I am reading this right we should limit the candy intake of men if we want them to respect women. Is that what Snickers is trying to tell me? @SocImages

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s