Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Utilities"

From eplmediawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(What sort of music do you like? http://eastcountyins.com/about-us/ buy zithromax online no prescription In her decision, Bransten said it was premature at this stage of the case to accept that Morgan)
(Will I have to work shifts? <a href=" http://www.thisistimeads.com/index.php/cv/ ">10mg paxil</a> Regulation can always be improved, and reporting on regulatory failures, real or alleged, is obviousl)
Line 1: Line 1:
What sort of music do you like? http://eastcountyins.com/about-us/ buy zithromax online no prescription In her decision, Bransten said it was premature at this stage of the case to accept that Morgan Stanley disclosures were sufficient, that the bank lacked fraudulent intent, and that credit and housing market problems caused losses for MetLife.
+
Will I have to work shifts? <a href=" http://www.thisistimeads.com/index.php/cv/ ">10mg paxil</a> Regulation can always be improved, and reporting on regulatory failures, real or alleged, is obviously in the public interest. But when these are reported in the immediate aftermath of disaster, there’s a pretty clear implication of causation, and an equally clear responsibility to back it up, if not with actual evidence then at least with a coherent argument. At the very least, there is a responsibility to consider the alternative, that the one had nothing to do with the other. Hand-waving references to federal regulation “coming under fresh scrutiny” in the wake of the disaster are the journalistic equivalent of Mulcair’s “exact link” disclaimer.

Revision as of 03:08, 17 August 2014

Will I have to work shifts? <a href=" http://www.thisistimeads.com/index.php/cv/ ">10mg paxil</a> Regulation can always be improved, and reporting on regulatory failures, real or alleged, is obviously in the public interest. But when these are reported in the immediate aftermath of disaster, there’s a pretty clear implication of causation, and an equally clear responsibility to back it up, if not with actual evidence then at least with a coherent argument. At the very least, there is a responsibility to consider the alternative, that the one had nothing to do with the other. Hand-waving references to federal regulation “coming under fresh scrutiny” in the wake of the disaster are the journalistic equivalent of Mulcair’s “exact link” disclaimer.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
extras
Toolbox