Geraldo Rivera set off a firestorm Friday morning when, on “Fox & Friends,” he commented on the Trayvon Martin shooting, saying: “[I] am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.” He continues:

When you see a black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation. Trayvon Martin, you know God bless him, he was an innocent kid, a wonderful kid, a box of Skittles in his hands. He didn’t deserve to die. But I’ll bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way.

John Hudson at the Atlantic Wire scoffed at Rivera’s remarks, putting together a post featuring famous white people (including Rivera himself) and one brown extraterrestrial wearing hoodies. But few around the Web have been as lighthearted in their commentary.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher writes:

You can file Geraldo’s absurd remarks under the category of “Lazy Pragmatism,” which is really just a way to avoid the heavy lift involved in actually thinking about things. If people like George Zimmerman go icy inside when they see a dark person in a hoodie, the answer must be to get dark people to stop wearing hoodies, or at least part of the answer. Never mind that a paranoid cop wannabe with the 911 Suspicious Black hotline on speed-dial gets to walk around free with the 9mm handgun he used to gun down a teenager, or that the police treated that teenager like a side of beef, the key difference being that the side of beef actually has value, or that there are reasons for wearing a hoodie other than “looking gangsta,” or that this is America, and we have the right to “look gangsta.”

Geraldo’s comments are akin to blaming a woman who’s been raped instead of her attacker, argues the Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri:

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. Hoodies kill people. Those shorts will get you raped, and if you wear too much makeup or your skirt is just an inch or so above the knee or your sweatshirt looks too much like the one that always turns up on the surveillance footage, forget it, you don’t have a face or a name and you might as well be carrying a sign that says Commit A Crime Against Me, Please.

But if we were to sift through Rivera’s hyperbolic comments (or give him the benefit of the doubt),  there is perhaps a nugget of truth in what he was trying to express. Like I said, if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt, we’d perhaps find that he was trying to convey the uncomfortable but real issue that Peggy McIntosh wrote about in “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” Here's an excerpt:

[I] have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.

On the flipside, there’s the burden of being a black man. In a piece earlier this week, Time’s Touré wrote “How to Talk to Young Black Boys About Trayvon Martin.” His first point:  

It’s unlikely but possible that you could get killed today. Or any day. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth. Black maleness is a potentially fatal condition. I tell you that not to scare you but because knowing that could save your life. There are people who will look at you and see a villain or a criminal or something fearsome. It’s possible they may act on their prejudice and insecurity. Being black could turn an ordinary situation into a life-or-death moment even if you’re doing nothing wrong.

ALSO:

A shoot-first mentality in Florida

Pictures: Trayvon Martin shooting and aftermath

Obama's shining 'If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon' moment

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Congressional staff members and others join in the "Hoodies on the Hill" gathering on March 23 to remember Trayvon Martin, the black teenager shot and killed in Sanford, Fla., who was wearing a hooded sweatshirt. Credit: J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press 

Between the months-long investigation by The Times that revealed that 94% of the members who make up the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are white, and the heated debate about "The Help" putting the "mammy" stereotype back in the spotlight and celebrating the "white savior," it would have been impossible not to watch Sunday's Academy Awards through a racial lens. Here are a few such observations.

"So glad they got rid of the producer who used a homophobic slur so we could get Billy Crystal doing racial jokes and blackface."

With open arms, the Oscars welcomed diversity back to its ceremony, but the embrace turned out to be more awkward than warm. […]

Even before host Billy Crystal took the stage, Morgan Freeman spoke about the glory of films. James Earl Jones received one of the first salutes from Crystal. Pharrell Williams, one of the show's music producers, played the drums alongside percussionist Sheila E. And Octavia Spencer received the evening's first standing ovation when she won the supporting actress Oscar for her role as a downtrodden maid in"The Help." […]

Tweeted one viewer named Lisa: "So glad they got rid of the producer who used a homophoic slur so we could get Billy Crystal doing racial jokes and blackface."

--Greg Braxton, Los Angeles Times

"Never listen to anyone try to tell you it isn't about race."

Oh, it's fine to give out plenty of supporting nods to black actresses, but lead? Lead is a whole different thing, isn't it. It's a prom queen thing. It's a Sandra Bullock, Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet thing. It's actresses who get their chances at bat throughout their careers, with plenty of lead roles offered to them and varying degrees of portraits. But Viola Davis? It just doesn't happen. […]

Change will come but it will take more upstarts like Davis. But never listen to anyone try to tell you it isn't about race. It was about race the minute each actress in those films signed their contracts. It was about race because one has had an entire career to stretch and grow and play an array of leading ladies, and one has always had to play whatever tiny character parts the American public could accept a black woman in. Viola Davis was still a winner tonight. She doesn't have an Oscar but she has the right stuff inside that matters."

--Sasha Stone, Awards Daily

"The persistence of segregation"

The off notes began when Billy Crystal resurrected his Sammy Davis, Jr. impersonation for a "Midnight in Paris" sketch at the beginning of the show. The bit is just fine, but on a night that featured Octavia Spencer and Davis as acting nominees for "The Help," and Gabourey Sidibe reflecting on how few women like herself she sees on-screen, it was an unfortunate reminder of how few parts are available for actual African-American actors. It didn't help when, later in the telecast, Crystal joked that after seeing "The Help,""I wanted to hug the first black woman that I saw, which from Beverly Hills is about a 45-minute drive." It might have been a crack on white, wealthy Los Angeles residents, but the joke didn't have quite enough self-awareness about the persistence of segregation. […]

As Chris Rock reminded us, "If you're a black man, you can play a donkey or a zebra."

--Alyssa Rosenberg, ThinkProgress

"Davis made Sunday night at the Oscars a teachable moment"

Whether she knows it or not (she does), Viola Davis made Sunday night at the Oscars a teachable moment, giving the world a crash course in the ever-complicated politics of African-American hair.

Davis, a Best Actress nominee for "The Help," arrived at the awards ceremony in a stunning emerald-colored gown and a natural, curly Afro, instantly lifting the lid from the bubbling pot of anger, judgment, and debate often directed toward African-American women and the varying states of their textured tresses. […]

"She's using her hair to say, 'Don't be confused. I am not who I play on TV or movies,' " says race and cultural writer Rebecca Walker. " 'I have left the plantation and wait for no one to tell my story.' "

--Allison Samuels, the Daily Beast

 ALSO:

An Oscar for diversity

Photos: Oscar's best and worst

Academy Awards: It's about art, not political correctness

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Octavia Spencer, right, is congratulated by "The Help" castmate Viola Davis on the way to the stage to accept the supporting actress Oscar. Credit: Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times

"I'd let Chris Brown punch me in the face."

"Like I've said multiple times before, Chris Brown can beat me up all he wants. I'd do anything to have him oh my."

"Chris Brown can punch me whenever he wants #love."

These are just a few of the many disturbing Tweets posted by young women in response to Chris Brown's performance and win at Sunday's Grammy Awards. But what are we to expect, ask opinionators, when only three years after Brown rendered then-girlfriend Rihanna bloodied and bruised, the music industry has not only welcomed the young star back into the fold but is actively celebrating Brown's "comeback" by giving him the spotlight on music's biggest night of the year? Brown could have dedicated some of his time in the spotlight to a PSA so that young women, such as the ones listed above, would better understand that there's nothing "hot" about domestic violence. But he didn't, leaving critics to rightly take him and the Grammys to task.

"At a time when schools across the country are struggling to figure out how to stop kids from bullying each other, and educate teens about dating violence, it seems fair to ask why producers of the 2012 Grammy Awards thought it was an acceptable message to young people to allow Chris Brown to perform just three years after he famously beat up his then-girlfriend, Rihanna," writes the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss. "Sure, people should have second chances, and sure, people can like the music of artists who say and/or do nasty things. That doesn't mean they deserve a chance to strut around the Grammy stage a few years after being convicted of felony assault for his attack on Rihanna at a pre-Grammy party."

"It is absolutely unacceptable that someone who is known to have perpetuated violence against a woman has been so uncritically welcomed and promoted by the music industry," Lori Adelman of Feministing argues. "The message we sent to young women was unmistakable: You are powerless. You are worthless. You will be a victim, and that will be okay with us."

"This is how men get away with domestic violence," writes Blisstree's Hanna Brooks Olsen.  "[A]buse is about mind control and power. And in this situation, Chris Brown has gained power over everyone -- the power to expunge his behavior, to tell the public 'It was a mistake. It will never happen again.' But all abusers say that … and it always, always happens again. Even if it's not Chris Brown raising his fist, it will happen again. And it will happen again because there weren't enough voices, or enough loud voices, to make Brown into an example. There weren't enough people in Hollywood stating that domestic violence is unforgivable, and that, in a just world, a performing artist who beats his significant other doesn't get to be on stage any more."

ALSO:

PHOTOS: Grammy winners

What's really wrong with Chris Brown's Grammy performance

Grammys 2012: Kanye is MIA and Chris Brown is a turn for the worse

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Chris Brown accepts his Grammy during coverage of the 54th Annual Grammy Awards on Sunday. Credit: Los Angeles Times

If Israel really planned on attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, skeptics ask, would it be talking about it so publicly? Still, rumors that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may attack Iran before this summer has opinionators screaming waiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. Waging war would backfire, they warn, ultimately causing more trouble for Israel and, subsequently, the United States. Some argue that even if this is simply Israel engaging in saber-rattling rhetoric, the threats alone are damaging enough and should stop immediately.

In a recent Op-Ed, Chuck Freilich, who was a deputy national security advisor in Israel during Labor and Likud governments, wrote in our pages:

So herein lies the dilemma: a potential risk to the nation's existence versus the uncertain results of military action, the likelihood of a devastating Iranian/Hezbollah response, the risk of an end to the peace with Egypt and even a military confrontation and regional war, severe international opprobrium and a partial rift with the United States.

Rather than wage war, Israel should wait for economic sanctions to cripple Iran, writes the New York Times editorial board:  

President Obama has spent three years rallying the toughest sanctions ever on Iran -- including a European Union oil embargo. Tehran is increasingly isolated; its economy is reeling. The administration was right to warn Iran against any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. We hope it is also looking to privately persuade Iran of the need for a negotiated solution.

Israel must defend itself. This country’s alliance with Israel is crucial. We hope for everyone's sake that Israel's leaders weigh all of the consequences before they act. A military attack would almost certainly make things worse. Tough sanctions and a united diplomatic front are the best chance for crippling Iran's nuclear program.

Leslie H. Gelb, author of "Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy," agrees. In an open letter to Netanyahu posted on the Daily Beast, he writes:

Economic sanctions weaken and divide them -- and often produce constituencies for compromise. Give sanctions time to play out. […]

And if it is to be war, it won't be only Israel's war. Yes, Israel will bear the greatest risks in a war now or a war if Iran has nukes. But even if Israel attacks by itself, Tehran also can be expected to strike at America, Europe, and elsewhere. And Tehran likely will unleash terrorists worldwide, possibly with chemical and biological weapons, plus hits on oil pipelines. So the decision to go to war cannot be Israel's alone. Both U.S. and Israeli officials tell me that the Obama administration is urging you to be cautious. In an interview Sunday, President Obama expressed solidarity with Israel and also said that diplomacy remains the "preferred solution." But you know, Bibi, that most times this White House is too nice about saying hard things to you. And maybe you won't get the message.

Let me spell out what I think President Obama is saying to you: the unprecedented economic sanctions against Iran are already hurting and will hurt a lot more over the next year. Let them bite more. Meantime, the U.S. and Israel are both underlining to Tehran that all options are on the table. (That's not a trivial phrase from a great power.) Israeli threats won't reinforce the pressure from the sanctions; they'll harden Iran's heart. And we'll all be heading for an incredibly dangerous war.

Juan Cole also sounds a warning to Israel via CNN's GPS section. He lists 10 reasons why Israel shouldn't attack Iran, including…

Oil prices will spike. I imagine you could easily see $150 a barrel or maybe even more. This development could throw the U.S. and Europe back into deep recession.

And he concludes…

It seems obvious to me that if all these developments actually occurred, they would be much worse for Israel than if Iran actually did start a weapons program and Iran and Israel replicated on a regional scale the Mutually Assured Destruction of the U.S.-Soviet standoff of an earlier era.

For some, Israel's rhetoric is dangerous enough. James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, explains on the Huffington Post:

If this is the game, then Israeli saber-rattling and American outrage play right into Iran's hand. […] My concern is that the escalating rhetoric by all sides poses a danger, in itself. The region is a tinderbox, and it is as if everyone is too busy playing with matches to think of the consequences of their behavior.

But then there's the Daily Beast's Niall Ferguson, who argues that an Israeli attack on Iran may actually be a lesser evil. (Note: The Atlantic's James Fallows calls Ferguson's piece "the weakest case anyone has made in public for going to war, from a celebrity professor.")

The single biggest danger in the Middle East today is not the risk of a six-day Israeli war against Iran. It is the risk that Western wishful nonthinking allows the mullahs of Tehran to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Because I am in no doubt that they would take full advantage of such a lethal lever. We would have acquiesced in the creation of an empire of extortion.

War is an evil. But sometimes a preventive war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement. The people who don't yet know that are the ones still in denial about what a nuclear-armed Iran would end up costing us all.

All of this commentary is beside the point for TruthDig's Barry Lando, who says we can't asses the situation honestly until we have the whole story. He writes:

Officially, however, Washington and Israel continue the ridiculous pretense that Israel has no nuclear weapons. To this day, Israeli reporters can write about their country's nuclear capacity only if they cite foreign publications as the source. And in the U.S., Washington's official silence seems curiously contagious: How often, in the current flurry of media reports about the threat from Iran, is there any mention of Israel's own nuclear arsenal?

The bottom line is this: Whatever your view about Iran or Israel's right to nuclear weapons, how can statesmen or reporters or anyone seriously discuss the current crisis over Iran when a key part of the dispute is officially hidden from view? How can the U.S. and Israel deal with proposals for a nuclear-free Middle East when they still refuse officially to acknowledge that the region is not nuclear free -- and hasn't been for the past 50 years?

ALSO:

The GOP presidential race so far

Faith-based tolerance on gay marriage

McManus: Who reviews the U.S. 'kill list'?

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: A worker rides a bike in front of the reactor building at the Bushehr nuclear power plant near Bushehr, Iran, in this 2010 photo. Credit: Majid Asgaripour / Mehr News Agency

In one swift move, the Susan G. Komen For The Cure foundation has undermined its pro-woman, pro-health, pro-solidarity image.

By pulling funding from Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings -- not to mention after Republican activist and abortion rights opponent Karen Handel came on board as vice president of public policy -- and couching the decision as new protocol, Komen’s turned into an org women won’t want to be associated with. Not all women, of course. But there will be a lot us who'll not longer be able to look at the pink ribbon as simply “breast cancer awareness.” They’ll think: What self-respecting, abortion rights supporter who cares about women’s rights and women's health would be caught wearing a pink ribbon now, much less buying any of the many products that display the pink insignia? With one decision, Komen turned the pink ribbon into an ugly and polarizing symbol.

Opinionators and senators are also lamenting Komen’s move. Here's a roundup chronicling some of the critique.

Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times writes: “[Komen] have not only made it harder for women to have abortions, but also to get birth control counseling, prenatal care, and now cancer screenings.”

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones writes: “The right's recent jihad against Planned Parenthood is about as loathsome as anything I've ever seen come out of them. They simply don't care anymore how many people they hurt or how much harm they do to anyone they disapprove of.”

Erin Gloria Ryan of Jezabel writes: “Komen's brand is imploding and seriously alienating young women and politically progressive supporters who were drawn to the cause expressly because of their non-political approach to a non-political disease. But when a charity hires a woman like Handel, a woman who must always attach politics to a woman's body, and allows her to project her political beliefs into her work, Komen ceases being a viable charity and starts being a self-righteous political organization for rich ladies who like hanging around with celebrities. It's a social club, and the only thing it's curing right now is people's desire to raise any more money for them.”

Megan McArdle at the Atlantic writes: “In that environment, you can see why an organization that does not itself have a mission to support abortion access would want to pull back from funding Planned Parenthood, even for related services.  Unfortunately, while they easily could have declined to fund PP without much backlash, de-funding them sends an extremely explicit message that is probably going to cost them significant public support.  Which is a pity, because early detection and treatment of breast cancer is a mission that we should all be able to agree on.”

Senators Lautenberg, Murray, Mikulski, Boxer, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Menendez, Wyden, Blumenthal, Shaheen, Begich, Merkley, Tester, Akaka, Sanders, (Sherrod) Brown, Leahy, Baucus, Cardin, Feinstein, Franken, and Kerry write in a letter re-posted on the Washington Post:

More than 90 percent of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are primary and preventative including wellness exams and cancers screenings that save lives. Each year, Planned Parenthood health clinics provide 750,000 breast exams, 770,000 pap tests and nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases. Twenty percent of all women in the U.S. have visited a Planned Parenthood health center....

Komen funding for Planned Parenthood has provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and resulted in 6,400 referrals for mammograms. In 2011 alone, grants from Komen provided Planned Parenthood with roughly $650,000 in funding for breast cancer prevention, screening, and education. According to a recent statement by Komen, “In some areas of the U.S., our affiliates have determined a Planned Parenthood clinic to be the best or only local place where women can receive breast health care.”

It would be tragic if any woman -- let alone thousands of women -- lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.

Hear, hear.

ALSO:

Obama's tax code gambit

America's waning influence

Are college students learning?

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photos: A breast cancer awareness ribbon. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Facebook filed papers for an IPO on Wednesday. Not everyone is celebrating, though. In anticipation of the news, critics began questioning Facebook's direction as a company, raising the following questions.

Are IPOs really good for businesses?

The IPO has become such a standard feature in our culture of casino capitalism that we tend to take it for granted, as if it were what all companies aspire to, and always have. But as [Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management in Toronto] points out, the first 30 years or more of American business in the 20^th century were dominated by semi-public or privately held companies run by entrepreneurs or owner-managers. "We're in an odd period right now," says Martin. "We thought that being publicly traded was the way to go. But it turns out not to be right: You can't build a company and its value over the long term given how the expectations market jerks companies around. I see us coming back to the days of privately held companies because of all the problems associated with being publicly traded."

It might turn out that this period of IPOs and publicly traded companies isn't the norm -- it's actually a passing fad, a financial anomaly.

--Alan M. Webber, USA Today

Will Facebook shares hold their value?

Can we get real? The best way Facebook could protect its ordinary users is by not letting them anywhere near this IPO.

For one thing, given the turbocharged excitement surrounding the coming deal, the likelihood is much greater that the shares will be fully valued than that they'll harbor hidden treasure. It won't be long before the holders of insider shares, including current and departed employees, will be able to cash out, diluting the market price further.

--Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times

Isn't it better to invest in a company before it goes public?

You get the idea. The idea that Facebook is worth $100 billion, or even $75 billion, is, well, a bit optimistic. Or would be, if there were anything rational about this deal. But there isn't. […]

The fault lies with private investors who have driven this company up so much in private markets that it's been picked clean, leaving little upside for public investors. Something similar happened to Zynga, which had been so overpriced in private funding rounds that its IPO price was actually lower than what it fetched from T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, and others.

That sort of thing isn't supposed to happen. But this is the brave new world of tech investing. With Facebook, and some of the other new tech companies, the smart money has already got in and got out long before the IPO ever happens.

--Dan Lyons, the Daily Beast

Isn't this much ado about nothing?

It won't unleash corporate capital spending. In 1995, Netscape's IPO spurred a wave of corporate capital spending. That's because the web browser made the Internet easier for people to use than it had been before. A wave of supporting industries ranging from web consultants to makers of Web infrastructure -- that got their fingers into the corporate Internet investment pie, as I described in my 1998 book, Net Profit. Facebook is not doing that -- its revenues represent a mere 1% of the world's $507 billion in total ad spending and its IPO would not lead to a major change in the trajectory of corporate spend. […]

It won't boost the overall venture financing market. If a Facebook IPO created a fever to invest in tech start-ups, it might be good for the venture capital industry. But since the IPO does not change much for Facebook investors, does not spur the growth of a range of related industries, does not unleash corporate investment, and might not even help out the IPO market, the after-effect of Facebook's IPO could be modest.

--Peter Cohan, Forbes

ALSO:

America's waning influence

Newton:Who's in charge of the LAPD?

Legal hurdles to retrieving files from Megaupload

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: A sign with the "like" symbol stands in front of the Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park. Credit: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Apple's profits may have soared last quarter, with revenue up 74% (to $46.3 billion), but I wonder how celebratory they feel in Cupertino as reports emerge about the company's business practices, specifically how it keeps production costs low so that it can "make a 60%, 70% margin per phone" sold?

In the last few days, the New York Times has published bombshell reports ("How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work," "In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad") that expose the appalling working conditions at the Foxconn plant in Shenzhen, China, where Apple's products are made. Here's an excerpt describing the troubling environment:

[T]he workers assembling iPhones, iPads and other devices often labor in harsh conditions, according to employees inside those plants, worker advocates and documents published by companies themselves. Problems are as varied as onerous work environments and serious -- sometimes deadly -- safety problems.

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple's products, and the company's suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers' disregard for workers' health. Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77. Before those blasts, Apple had been alerted to hazardous conditions inside the Chengdu plant, according to a Chinese group that published that warning.

It should be noted:

--Apple is not alone among electronic companies employing Foxconn and other such plants.

--Apple has responded to scrutiny over workplace conditions by disclosing names of suppliers and manufacturing partners.

--If the New York Times' anonymous sources are to be trusted, Apple execs don't seem to care how the work gets done so long as it's fast and cheap. Here are two unabashed (and nameless) quotes from the New York Times stories:

"The speed and flexibility is breathtaking," the executive said. "There's no American plant that can match that." […]

 "We shouldn't be criticized for using Chinese workers," a current Apple executive said. "The U.S. has stopped producing people with the skills we need."

They should have just come out and said they'd rather not abide by U.S. regulations that protect worker rights -- regulations that would slow down productivity and increase costs. ("By some estimates, each iPhone includes $190 in hardware costs, $10 in Chinese labor," Scott Tong said on Wednesday's "Marketplace.")

Earlier this month "This American Life" dedicated an entire episode to the issue of human rights abuses taking place at Foxconn. On the program, Mike Daisey performed from his one-man show, "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs," in which he shares his experience from Shenzhen, where he went with the intention of learning about the people who made his beloved Apple products. Here's an excerpt of his heartbreaking findings:

While I'm in-country, a worker at Foxconn dies after working a 34-hour shift. I wish I could say that's exceptional, but it's happened before. I only mention it because it actually happened while I was there.

And I go to the dormitories. I'm a valuable potential future customer. They will show me anything I ask to see. The dormitories are cement cubes, 12-foot by 12-foot. And in that space there are 13 beds, 14 beds. I count 15 beds. They're stacked up like Jenga puzzle pieces all the way up to the ceiling. The space between them is so narrow, none of us would actually fit in them. They have to slide into them like coffins.

There are cameras in the rooms. There are cameras in the hallways. There are cameras everywhere. And why wouldn't there be? You know, when we dream of a future where the regulations are washed away and the corporations are finally free to sail above us, you don't have to dream about some sci-fi dystopian Blade Runner/1984bull [BLEEP]. You can go to Shenzhen tomorrow. They're making your crap that way today.

When I leave the factory, as I can feel myself being rewritten from the inside out, the way I see everything is starting to change. I keep thinking, how often do we wish more things were handmade? Oh, we talk about that all the time, don't we? "I wish it was like the old days. I wish things had that human touch." But that's not true. There are more handmade things now than there have ever been in the history of the world.

Everything is handmade. I know. I have been there. I have seen the workers laying in parts thinner than human hair. One after another after another. Everything is handmade.

Beyond the working conditions, Daisey also sheds light on an environment in which people live in fear and are eventually disposable. "And so when you start working at 15 or 16, by the time you are 26, 27, your hands are ruined," he says. "And when they are truly ruined, once they will not do anything further, you know what we do with a defective part in a machine that makes machine. We throw it away." And there's no one to protect workers, he goes on, in this "fascist country run by thugs."

"It's barbaric," the Daily Beast's Dan Lyons says bluntly. And it's up to us, the consumers, to do something about it rather than turn a blind eye. He writes:

As the Times article points out, this isn't just Apple. It's every company. It's every product we use. It's our entire way of life, built on the backs of people who are being treated in ways that we would not allow ourselves or our countrymen to be treated.

Ultimately the blame lies not with Apple and other electronics companies -- but with us, the consumers.

And ultimately we are the ones who must demand change.

RELATED:

Apple reports record sales of iPhones, iPads and Macs

iPad down to 58% of tablet sales as Android catches up

Apple discloses names of suppliers, manufacturing partners

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: A representative from Foxconn Technology Group speaks to applicants outside the computer component maker's plant in Shenzhen last year. Credit: Associated Press

Rick Perry announced Thursday that he was dropping out of the Republican presidential race, inspiring posts about his greatest gaffes, oops, blunders, mishits and dance moves. If nothing else, Perry has made for an entertaining day.

In celebration of the news, our editorial board writes:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is frequently compared to George W. Bush, a fellow Republican Texas governor who went on to serve two undistinguished terms as president of the United States. But that's a grave insult to Bush. Perry, who dropped out of the GOP presidential race Thursday, is far more divisive, inarticulate, insular and insensitive than Bush ever was, which is why his departure from the national political scene is good news for everybody but late-night comedians.

Ouch.

Here's what other opinionators are saying:

Rick Perry, one of the biggest, most embarrassing flops in the history of American presidential politics, has decided to call it quits two days before he would have come in dead last in the South Carolina primary. It was an overdue decision, really, and not one that will devastate many supporters, since there are few supporters left to devastate.

--Dan Amira, Daily Intel

[P]erry joins Fred Thompson and Wesley Clark on the growing list of late entrants whose best days as a candidate were their first days as a candidate. Hopefully he will serve as a warning sign to future credible candidates who consider putting off their day of declaration.

--Sean Trende, RealClearPolitics

But numbers aside, Perry is a bible thumping Conservative of the worst caliber. He doesn't believe in evolution, he wants inhumane restrictions on abortion, doesn't support civil rights for gay people, he brags about a death penalty that has killed innocent people, he wanted to re-invade Iraq, secede from the union and he repeatedly called Obama a "socialist."

--Samhita Mukhopadhyay

Perry's national message was a carbon copy of his 2010 reelection campaign in Texas, complete with allusions to secession: anti-Washington, Tea Party-centric and -- as in the infamous anti-Don't Ask, Don't Tell ad -- culture-baiting. His twang, his boots, and his difficulty with syntax also were more than a little reminiscent of George W. Bush. It turned out these things weren't what voters were looking for outside the Lone Star State -- not even in South Carolina. The conservative candidates who surpassed Perry -- Gingrich and Santorum -- are both Washington insiders with a wonky bent. It may be that in the wake of Obama's perceived incompetence, Republican voters are looking for a candidate who knows how to work the levers of power -- or at least one who knows how to string a sentence together.

--Molly Ball, the Atlantic

What I'll miss is being able to believe Rick Perry is an effective governor. […] But the real casualty of Perry's presidential run is the idea that governors in California or any other state should be looking to him for an example. His failure to launch went beyond the usual range of campaign screwups to a level of nincompoopery that wise people should avoid.

--Tim Cavanaugh, Reason

The silver lining in this race for me (most texans really) has always been that we either got to have you serve as President, or you came back to finish out your four year term as governor of our great state. It's the rest of the country that lost out. […]Ultimately, your impact in the remainder of your term is up to you. My hope is that you will bring the same fight you've shown on the campaign trail back to make Texas a more conservative and more prosperous state.

--Razshafer, RedState

RELATED:

The problem with Perry

Rick Perry and Galileo -- pardners in science

Huntsman girls: More memorable than the candidate?

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced his withdrawal from the presidential race and endorsed former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on Jan. 19. Credit: Allison Joyce/Getty Images

Jon Huntsman's withdrawal from the Republican presidential race Monday didn't come as much of a surprise. In fact, a good amount of Monday's chatter has to do with Huntsman's daughters and how it'll be a shame not to have them around anymore. Even Rick Perry chimed in about the Huntsman girls. Of course, there are opinionators discussing why Huntsman's candidacy failed to take off, and why he'd suffer the same fate again 2016. Here's a sampling of the commentary.

Huntsman was too mild-mannered…

Temperamentally, Huntsman remained mild-mannered and rather manicured. He seemed to want to run as the Reasonable Candidate. The nice guy. Someone who could reach across the aisle with an open hand and not a dagger. The fellow who didn't reject what scientists said about global warming. He didn't talk about revolution, he talked about reform -- tax reform, education reform. No more war in Afghanistan, no more nation-building abroad. He talked about the "trust deficit." It was an easy-drinking agenda, a light beer instead of the fire water you often get served on the campaign trail.

And it would have been fine, probably, if he was running for president of Friends of the National Zoo.

--Joel Achenbach, Washington Post

He wasn't Republican enough

Huntsman offered a critique of what has gone wrong in the modern Republican party: too anti-science, too socially conservative, too militarily interventionist, too hostile to expertise.

He did not however offer a unique selling proposition for his own candidacy. Even supposing a Republican primary voter agreed with every point in Huntsman's critique (and surprisingly many do agree) -- what then? Huntsman's answer to the party's problems was himself: smart, sophisticated, worldly, pragmatic. But every one of those characteristics is shared with Romney. What Huntsman did not offer was a programmatic alternative.

--David Frum, the Daily Beast

He was "non nutty"

He was a refreshing voice of semi-reason during debates characterized by Mitt Romney simmering with robo-rage, Rick Perry embarrassing himself, Ron Paul going on and on about how if you just let all the animals out of the cages, the zoo will eventually reach a state of peace and prosperity, Herman Cain shouting numbers, Michele Bachmann adding the word "Obama" as a prefix for everything she doesn't like ("Obama traffic jam" "Obama cramps"), Newt Gingrich coming dangerously close to smirking his face skin right off, and Rick Santorum using the word "family" as a code word for "horrifying totalitarian body control." […]"Non nutty" doesn't resonate enough with today's GOP primary voters to keep them interested.

--Erin Gloria Ryan, Jezebel

He was condescending

As for his future, it's possible to imagine Huntsman getting some kind of appointment in a putative Romney administration. But he should forget about another presidential run. That's not just because the next generation of political talent in the GOP such as Paul Ryan​, Marco Rubio​ or Chris Christie will eclipse him. Huntsman's performance on the stump and in the debates was so poor as to render him an unlikely prospect for the future. While he committed no absurd gaffe in the manner of Rick Perry​, his arch and condescending tone in the debates was more than off-putting. His tendency to comment on the proceedings as if he were in the peanut gallery, to make ill-considered quips quoting songs and, finally, his decision to answer a Romney riposte in Chinese (to show how much smarter he was than his rivals) told us everything we needed to know about his personality.

--Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary

He didn't leave an intriguing image

I believed from Day 1 that Huntsman was running for 2016, which gave him way more scope to run a relatively honest and dignified campaign than any of the folks who were genuinely running for this year's nomination. And yet, Huntsman just never seemed to attract a following, not even the Tsongas/Anderson/McCain-ish kind of cult that presidential elections so often produce. These are the folks who rally around the guy willing to "speak hard truths" and avoid "politics as usual." The media usually swoons for them too. But not Huntsman. He got a few followers, and a bit of decent press, but that was it. He just wasn't any good at projecting an intriguing image.

--Kevin Drum, Mother Jones

ALSO:

How to predict a president

Hunted by the "super PACs'

Suspending disbelief about Jon Huntsman's 'suspension'

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., accompanied by his family, announces the suspension of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on Jan. 16. Credit: Paul J. Richards /AFP/Getty Images

Mitt Romney's latest endorsements come from the likes of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who told Fox News that the presidential contender was "conservative enough for me," and Kris Kobach, an anti-immigration activist with questionable tactics.

Romney came out of the gate looking like the clear bet to win the Republican nomination and run against President Obama in the general election. His victories in Iowa and New Hampshire certainly make it appear that Romney's got this in the bag. Here is Washington columnist Doyle McManus on Romney's electability:

"Electability" can be a self-sustaining chemical reaction. Now that Romney has finished first in both Iowa (by an eyelash) and New Hampshire -- a feat no non-incumbent Republican had ever accomplished -- his aura of inevitability has grown. If he wins in South Carolina on Jan. 21, the race for the GOP nomination will be over -- and there won't even be much shouting.

But not so fast, writes Ari Fleischer on CNN. Newt Gingrich is still a problem from Romney. 

Republicans like Romney. They think he's qualified. But they don't love Romney and many worry about his core convictions.

That's why this race will come down to Newt's personal decision. Will he yield after South Carolina, recognizing the GOP needs to unite, or will he keep going, out of sheer determination and knowing Romney's weaknesses?

If he keeps going, it's going to be a long slog, with many Republicans viewing him as a spoiler intent on damaging the party's likely nominee. Many other Republicans, though, will look forward to casting an anti-Romney vote that can make a difference. Most won't be voting for Newt; they'll be voting against Romney.

And, of course, there's the issue of Bain Capital, which Gingrich's "super PAC," Winning Our Future, has driven home with "When Mitt Romney Came to Town." Here’s the short version for your viewing displeasure.

"This attack admovie destroys Romney’s argument for why he should be elected president. It does so by showing us the faces of the real people who were laid off as a result of Mitt Romney's company Bain Capital, buying their companies, restructuring them, firing their workers and closing their plants. Romney made millions off of these deals,” writes Zerlina Maxwell of Feministing. “Showing how Romney destroyed so many lives is an effective way to cast him for what he is -- a face of Wall Street greed."

The New Republic's William Galston agrees that Bain presents an obstacle for Romney. He writes: "Bain matters because it goes to the heart of the core case Romney is making: The economy is broken, Obama doesn't know how to fix it, and I do. If his rivals can undermine his record as a job-creator and substitute the narrative of Romney as a 'vulture capitalist' who makes money by looting firms and firing workers, his path to the presidency becomes a lot steeper."

Still, argues the Washington Post's Dan Balz, Romney's the candidate who has the best shot of beating Obama. And that's why Republican voters will continue to back him, he argues.

Democrats and Republicans have agreed privately that Romney would be less scary to independent voters than a GOP nominee who is further to the right ideologically. Scott Howell, a Republican strategist, said, "Romney will appeal to a broader electorate, and that's a huge problem for Obama."

RELATED:

How to predict a president

Romney's 'electability' is key

Romney's authenticity problem

Romney's 'firing' riff is more revealing than it seems

After New Hampshire, Romney retains his most precious asset

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks to the media Thursday in Greer, S.C.  Credit: Mark Wilson / Getty Images