Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit. This is the essence of the old adage "Money is the root of all evil."
The actual quote:
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
This is an important distinction. When a man loves money more than personal morals and ethics, only then does his business become unethical.
BBC English in those days was very prim and proper, I don't know if anyone on the street spoke like that but we see a lot of it in the old TV and films of the day. Only the Queen comes close to sounding like that nowadays.
The so-called “new anti-Semitism” poses a unique challenge. “New anti-Semitism” is aimed at the Jewish state. Since this anti-Semitism can hide behind the veneer of legitimate criticism of Israel, it is more difficult to expose. Making the task even harder is that this hatred is advanced in the name of values most of us would consider unimpeachable, such as human rights.
His test is simple:
I believe that we can apply a simple test – I call it the “3D” test – to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.
The first “D” is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
The second “D” is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross – this is anti-Semitism.
The third “D” is the test of delegitimization: when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism.
Seriously - why isn't the header for this story "Some Guy says something outrageous".
Since this guy is no-one in any position to implement this sort of policy, leave him to his distasteful opinion.
I am of the opinion that a person should be able to use both interchangeably
Why? About the only people left who use Fahrenheit are Americans - everyone else has been managing quite happily using Celsius for decades. The rest of the world should now relearn an anachronism to keep Americans happy?
you can remove bike pedals with a crescent wrench, but why would you do that if you had access to a real pedal wrench?
But to follow your logic through, you're essentially telling people to carry two single-function wrenches, when one multi-purpose wrench would do just as well. Both wrenches achieve exactly the same result, but one can be used for purposes other than removing pedals. Why carry both?
It does rather sound like you are trying to justify your sentimental attachment to the system with which you are most familiar, rather than accepting it as an anachronism and moving on. I mean I get why that might be hard to do, and there's nothing wrong with being sentimental, but let's call it what it is.
The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981