New Balance makes some very lightweight, stylish shoes.
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
New Balance makes some very lightweight, stylish shoes.
Minimis are sweet shoes
I wear Brooks. Pricey, but always reliable for running.
I like Brooks a lot, too. Lately I've been using Mizuno for most of my running. They have some lightweight ones good for not only running, but also triathlon. Triathletes love the loud/bright color schemes.
High arches are a bitch
New Balance used to be made in the USA only...I know that has changed somewhat what with them having to cut some corners to meed price standards and get their stuff in places like Meijer and other large box stores, but they really do make an effort to maintain a manufacturing presence in the USA, which is commendable. It is also why I haven't worn anything but New Balance in clese to ten years.
Screw Nike and Adidas, from a "evil corporation" perspective. They both suck.
but you should understand that probably 90% of any manufactured items you buy are made under the same conditions that are so deplorable in the Adidas and Nike factories. That is the norm for almost anything made abroad, be it China, Bangalore, wherever.
I prefer to run in Asics. The gel ds trainers are a great lightweight nuetral shoe.
I just received my new 940s, and they are nice. Way better than the Asics I was wearing previously.
I shouldn't hold out hope for Nike Freehs to hit shelves anytime soon.
So it's not the sweatshop labor that makes you switch, but the opinions held by the founder?
He's a job creator. We used to respect that in this country.
Most nike products aren't made in the united states.
Kathie Lee Gifford agrees.
I didn't say that. He's creating jobs overseas and giving work and wages to those who wouldn't otherwise have them. If you want to call it a sweatshop, fine, but working for $5 a day in a factory sweatshop is probably better than working for $2 a day in a field in Bangladesh. If you want to advocate for higher wages, fine, but I don't think it is right to condemn every company that doesn't pay foreign workers the American minimum wage + benefits.
It's not creating jobs to exploit wage and environmental abirtrage and simply move jobs to the third world. The jobs are created by demand for the products. Don't be an obtuse troll intentionally.
the jobs that you prefer. Who's being obtuse? And BTW, how many people work at Nike around the country--this country? Do you consider those jobs created? How many existed before Nike began? And how many are still there because of the profits Nike makes?
Yes. I'm sure that is why Nike has their products produced overseas, TO CREATE JOBS!!! They are such an incredibly nice company. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that with the cheaper than cheap labor and opportunity to maximize profits by taking that produced product by some 10 year old kid for $5 a day and then selling it for $150 around the world!!! Nope, not it at all. Phil just cares about the third world countries of the world that much. .
FF to 4:40.
Maximizing profit = bad. Selling things for as much as people ARE WILLING TO PAY--FREELY is bad too. Yes, they should only make the kind of smaller profit that Bown Bear perfers, then they would be nice guys, not mean capitalists.
You can't do anything with $5 an hour in America because it buys you nothing. In whateveristan it will buy you a lot more. He is a dick for not keeping jobs here and paying someone $7.50. Your "he's just trying to maximize profits" argument is invalid.
How is in invalid? Because you disagree with Nike (and almost every single business worldwide to be clear) who makes as much money as they can? That's PRECISELY what they should be doing. They, like every business from the local cupcake shop to GM, are in business to make as much money as they can--all of them. You know when they won't? When people stop VOLUNTARILY paying the money for their product. You miss the part where they offer a product with zero notion of whether or not people will buy it--business in most cases is a voluntary activity. If it's unfair and enough people think so they won't do it anymore because people won't buy the shoes. And you know what is "invalid?" The notion that our workers deserve to put shoes together at $7.50 an hour any more than the workers in "whereveristan" do for $5.
I don't think it's black and white, but how well do you think it'll go when 50% of the country here makes minimum wage and the only people with money are executives? How much demand is there then?
That's a good example of what $2/day looks like. It's not about "deserve" man, it's about good commerce and good practices.
an environmental policy in China. So you believe Nike shouldn't have workers make money in China because they have a government that doesn't care as much as we do about pollution?
And if there were 50% with money and 50% making minumum wage, that would be bad. That has little to do with this issue however. Both here, and now slowly in China, the entire reason that the middle class EXISTS is because of the profit motive and companies trying hard to make money. That is a fact. Capitalism and the profit motive created the middle class.
We used to respect that, when the jobs created were in this country.
It's hard to believe, but the massive USAS-led protests that led to Michigan dropping Nike were almost 15 years ago now. Unfortunately, Adidas isn't exactly a paragon of fair trade either. http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/responsibleshopper/company.cfm?id=180
What Phil Knight says means about the same to me as what Warren Buffet says ... Nothing
This. Phil appears to have been stricken with the all-too-common I-have-a-lot-of-money-so-you-have-to-listen-to-my-opinion disease.
There's a billion people in this world that would have that disease, save for the fact that they don't have any money. It's not like he's the only one with an opinion, just that he has a profile to go along with it.
Stick to shoes, Phil, shoes.
NO RELIGION on the board...o wait sorry wrong post
I'll still buy Nikes because the shoes are durable and stylish. If I boycotted every item that had a less than desirable behind it I would be living under a tree. There are worse things. You could eat at Chick fil a.
Its impossible not to eat at Chick-fil-A once you've tried it. They put spinkles of cocaine in it to make people crave it until their next fix. I know, from experience.
I'm on vacation in South Carolina and I couldn't help but have it once. And then of course once turned into twice, thrice....
Try living down here permanently and having one across the street from yoru office building! My metabolism is such that I don't currently weigh 300 pounds but I am definitely going to die early from putting all that grease in my stomach.
I couldn't agree more with you.
As soon as another Off-the-highway fast food place offers a competetive combination of quality and price as Chick-fil-a, I'll consider not eating there. Until then, all the losers with "higher ideals" can suck it.
Like Paterno, Knight is an old dude who's hung around way too long at his job. Nike needs to gracefully put him out to pasture.
(Little-known fact: Knight was the inspiration for Hank Scorpio in that one Simpsons episode.)
The episode was called, "You Only Move Twice," a parody of Bond's, "You Only Live Twice." Scorpio was a great Bond villain.
(Little-known fact: Knight was the inspiration for Hank Scorpio in that one Simpsons episode.)
Wow, how did I never notice that before?
Why is he even commenting and why should I care about his opinion on this topic?
11 days after the Freeh report was issued, the NCAA levelled Penn State with historically drastic sanctions. it took 14 months for the NCAA to investigate and punish Michigan for stretching. i am not saying that the punishment was undue or that the Freeh report is wrong, but that the timeline does seem to support a bit of a rush to judgment by the NCAA who did not conduct their own investigation or report.
Difference being, Penn State agreed to let the Freeh report be the base of what the NCAA would rule on. The NCAA didn't need to do any investigation, therefore the short time frame. All they had to do was read the report and make a ruling.
to all the sanctions. If they would not have agreed the public outcry would have been overwhelming. Penn State knew this and agreed to terms. Right wrong or indifferent, Penn State realized they in part were responsible in some way for what had happened. It may not have been a NCAA rules violation in the sense we are use to seeing but Penn State knew they had to do something to change public opinion. So the offered up the football program since that is the doorstep on which this tragedy occurred. All parties agreed so what's the problem.
This happens in court all the time. It's called "Plea bargaining". A person agrees to plead to a lesser crime they didn't commit to have the original crime for which they did commit dismissed. Penn State knew if they didn't do something they would get crucified. So they pled out so to speak to a lesser crime. The original crime was "Allowing the injustice to happen".
Penn State didnt really have a choice in the matter regarding allowing the freeh report to be the end all be all and the NCAA didnt want an invesigation to drag on.
The NCAA and PSU president (or regents?) signed a contract agreeing to the sanctions -- this is not the same as the NCAA unilaterally imposing sanctions. This is the reason for the dramatically shortened timeline.
PSU wanted to move past this as quickly as possible and tried to do so by agreeing to the sanctions on an expedited basis. PSU traded getting all the facts out through an extended investigation for a quick solution so that they could start a new era after JoePa - now they (or the Paterno family) wish they had gone through with the normal NCAA investigation first instead. This is just buyer's remorse, in my opinion, and there isn't really anything they can do about it, other than raise a stink with the media and hope the NCAA feels bad and wants to renegotiate the deal that was struck. Fat chance of that.
I am pretty sure Freeh was talking to and working with the NCAA the entire time he was investigating this. The NCAA knew what was going on the whole time
Frankly, I can't see any reason for Freeh to be working with the NCAA.
The reality is the truth probably lies somewhere between both documents. Anyone issuing definitive statements for public relations reasons is nonsense.
I am sure the Paterno report was quite objective and balanced when considering all of the factors and events that took place surrounding the Sandusky scandal. Truly, it can be seen as a beacon of truth giving light to a dark time besmirched by the national media, prosecuturial evidence, and testimony given by various officials at the Pennsylvania State University.
"Additionally, the NCAA's actions are exposed as totally unwarranted," he said. "The NCAA acted outside its charter and rendered judgment absent any kind of investigation or judicial hearing. It was simply grandstanding." - Phil Knight, quoted in the article
The problem with what Knight said here, and I could be wrong, is that the NCAA was determined to be a private entity and not an agent of any state in a ruling about 25 years ago, as I recall, so they do not necessarily need to go through due process. They don't have subpoena power, I believe, but the Freeh report was publicly available and could be used by the NCAA on that basis, as it would be construed as something they could turn up in the course of any investigation they could muster. Again, that might be misinterpreting their powers, but I believe that's why Knight is off here.
He's dead to me. Thankfully, we have adidas.
I saw on the interwebz that most of the products 'made' by Nike and Adidas are produced in the same Chinese factory complex which has approximately 50,000 workers.
Their both turning to shit.
Someone needs to get Martha Stewart over to that factory to teach the Adidas workers how to stitch. I'm sick of jerseys ripping all the time because workers are doing a piss-poor job producing our horrifically ugly uniforms.
Adidas isn't paying you $.65 an hour to put out poor quality work, Chinese laborers.
NCAA thinking about Penn State scandal - good.
NCAA thinking about Oregon recruiting scandal - bad.
Knight should kept his mouth shot. Nike's move to pull Paterno's name off of a child care centre was the right one that should have been there only move. No one outside of Paterno's family believes he didn't do anything wrong.
I still have none of it for Penn State
Phil Knight is claiming he rushed to judgement without having read the enitre Freeh report last year. Here are some things I'm comfortable claiming.
Therefore, Phil Knight's opinion means precisely dick.
Just like yesterday. If I stopped buying things in silly outrage after every mistaken issue stance by a head of a company, there would be very little left to buy.
A movie or a tv show again. Or probably listen to music.
Or do much of anything.
Oregon may have some NCAA sanctions in store for them and the guy who funds the school now comes out against the NCAA's power to implement sanctions. /shocked face
Not to mention his company's footprint in the AAU underbelly of college basketball recruiting.
There are few if any individuals in the world who are less disinterested when it comes to lax enforcement of NCAA regs.
Why here and why now? It seems like strange timing.
Not really. The findings of the "Paterno investigation" into the findings of the Freeh report have come out this past week. Members of the Paterno family will be making numerous public appearances / interviews to try and restore Joe's image and discredit the Freeh report. Phil Knight and JoePa were friends, so he's making this statement now to try and lend another public voice of support to the Paterno family's cause.
I still see Paterno as an old man who didn't want to believe that an old friend was a perverted POS. I still think Paterno was a victim of a media-fueled feeding frenzy. The Paterno family has every right to be angry, and they have the same First Amendment rights as everyone who directed their anger toward Joe Paterno and broke his spirit, ultimately doing him in.
Jerry Sandusky was and is the real criminal here. Child molesters and other abusers who get away with it for a long time do it because they are great at fooling everyone. If Paterno asked Sandusky what happened, I have no doubt that Sandusky had a perfectly normal-sounding explanation for it.
Was Joe Paterno probably too naive? In retrospect, of course he was. But maybe it's time to revisit who the real criminal in this case was. Joe Paterno, at this point, is just another victim. The half-truths and hatred that were perpetrated upon him cost him his life.
Most people who hold this opinion are immediately called some variation of "blind Joe Paterno supporters who drank the kool-aid." Personally, though, I'm just someone who is disgusted with the mob mentality that has become so prevalent in today's society. I'm also someone who would like to see a bit more actual evidence before saying that Joe Paterno was complicit in any of this.
If the NCAA or the media cared about the victims here, all they needed to do was give them at least $1 million each, and start some kind of support group for them, hire someone to run a "therapy clearinghouse" where the victims could get the help that they need,
Then again, none of this has ever been about the victims.
that are flocking to message boards to voice favor of Joe today.
It's almost cultish. There is no logical reason to keep up the charade and it really devalues his life even more because it tries to force an all-or-nothing judgment. They can't accept his good deeds if he wasn't perfect.
OK, then Joe is 100% immoral and his entire legacy is enabling the abuse of victims. Next topic.