Submitted by Jmalmberg:
March 2, 2009 – The joke goes like this. “I remember when the biggest comedians in Hollywood were the Marx Brothers. Now we have a President that’s a Marxist Brother.” Now, before you get all over me for being a middle aged white guy with an anti-Obama agenda, I’ve got to tell you that the joke is not mine. It was told by a (Read More)
Guardian Unlimited: Technology
Questions about the internet giant's dominance have been gathering steadily since the revelation that Christine Varney, who is Barack Obama's pick to take over the top antitrust job at the Department of Justice, has already talked about the subject."For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem," Varney is (Read More)
: In order to prove google has a monopoly, one of the key elements of the Sherman Act is that the government would have to show that Googles actions had resulted in price increases. But online advertising rates have actually been falling lately. This means that the government's burden would be very high.
Of course, the same rule applied in Microsoft's case, and even though OS prices had fallen, the government was able to win a portion of its case. So you just never know.
Submitted by Jmalmberg:
In 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was not happy with the Supreme Court. The Court had declared a number of the measures he was trying to implement in the name of fighting the Depression unconstitutional. Effectively, the Court was telling Roosevelt that he was meddling in state matters where the federal government didn’ (Read More)
Gristmill
By David Roberts"Is America Ready to Quit Coal?" So asks a must-read story by Melanie Warner in the Sunday New York Times. And so, slowly, fitfully, that possibility -- the possibility not just of cleaning up coal or using less coal but eliminating coal -- creeps its way into the American public consciousness. The hea (Read More)
: To paraphrase Will Rogers, If you put BS in the right package, the American people will buy it. Many of the arguments for going green fall into this category.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for green energy. But the idea that we should eliminate coal - which is pleantiful, cheap and a domestic source of energy in the United States - before we eliminate imported oil is neither economically viable nor wise.
The primary reasons that we should go green are very simple, and they are all economic. Wind and solar are pleantiful sources of energy. There are a number of technologies that are now viable (I am working on two separate green projects right now that could be on the market within a year) and could be implemented in the near term. These technologies reduce the need for commercially generated power and provide immediate economic benefits for individual consumers. They also reduce our need for imported sources of energy.
The environmental clean-up that comes from alternative sources of energy also provides an econmic incentive. Lower levels of polution will lead to better living conditions in metropolitan areas and ecotourism in more remote areas. Everyone wins.
But eliminating a viable source of cheap domestic energy when the economy is - well - in the dumper is just a bad idea. Not only would it lead to higher power prices, it would increase unemployment in coal rich areas and increase the amount of money we are transfering overseas - often to governments that are none-to-friendly to us.
Submitted by Jmalmberg:
February 11, 2009 – Hidden in the economic stimulus bill moving through Congress is a provision to convert all medical records into electronic form over the next five years. This is a topic that the president has spoken about on numerous occasions and which he claims will save millions of patient dollars. But as it is writt (Read More)
Submitted by Your Obama Update
from blog:
That's the title of President Obama's op-ed this morning in the Washington Post, where he makes a forceful argument for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. "What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to (Read More)
: Tax cuts alone may not solve the crisis but neither will $1 billion for Amtrak or $75 million for bike trails. The Congressional Budget Office released a report yesterday that said if the stimulus package passes as is, the economy will actually contract over the next ten years. And the Wall Street Journal did an analysis of the plan that said only 12% of the proposed spending could actually be expected to create jobs. All in all, sounds like we'd be better off saving the money.
: I agree with you on the bailout bill. I also agree that Congress is going to pass this mess of a spending bill. My only point was that they are simply throwing money at the problem without having a clue about whether or not their efforts will be successful. This bill does virtually nothing to help homeowners with mortgage troubles, which is what started this entire mess, or to get banks lending again.
: @jmalmberg I believe the mortgage issue should have been the primary focus of the stimulus and helping the middle class reduce its debt through controls on credit card interest rates etc...
Submitted by Jmalmberg:
February 5, 2009 – One of the key elements of President Obama’s campaign was a promise to turn back the tide of free trade agreements ushered in over the past twenty years. A top priority, but certainly not the only priority, was to renegotiate terms associated with NAFTA. This agreement, along with a variety of others, has (Read More)
Submitted by Jmalmberg:
Unless you are in a coma, you know that Congress and President Obama are trying to pass a bill that they are calling an economic stimulus package. The purpose of that package is to get the economy back on track and get people spending again. After all, the economy runs on consumer confidence. But the bill contains a lot of (Read More)
Submitted by Jmalmberg:
Congress and the White House are poised to spend nearly $1 Trillion of taxpayer money on a so-called stimulus bill. But the bill is filled with pork, which will do little to create jobs, and does virtually nothing to help homeowners deal with toxic mortgages. When members of the House of Representatives tried to insert a “b (Read More)
guardian.co.uk: The Guardian newspaper: Editorials & reply
A new phrase has rolled off the production line of foreign policy analysts: responsible sovereignty. In a world where the threats are transnational - climate change, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the banking crisis - states not only have a responsibility to their own citizens, but to their neighbours and to the internat (Read More)
: The Guardian is a liberal rag and this editorial is simply a lot utopian thinking that would make Marx proud. This idea, that a "new world order" is needed where one world government makes everything all right has been tried before and it has always failed. Caesar, Napoleon, Marx, Lennon, Hitler (and that’s just the short list). They all had the grand idea of uniting the world for a greater good. But it reality, they simply wanted to be the ones in charge.
The idea that Obama would make the United States subservient to a form of international government is repulsive, and probably unconstitutional.
The power of the presidency clearly comes from the Constitution. The Constitution derives its power from the states. And the states derive their power from the people. Ultimately, The People of the United States have the constitutional right to see to it that their leaders are elected by The People or their elected representatives. Since no American has ever elected anyone to the UN or in any other government, making the US a subservient to any other body would violate the Constitution.
It needs to be pointed out that by definition a new world order means that there will be winners and losers. The winners are the ones that don’t have power now but would in the new order. But the new world order that the register proposes is one in which those with political power become winners and virtually everyone else loses. They want the government – world government – to regulate virtually all aspects of daily life. Again, that’s been tried and failed on more than one occasion.
If you want to live in a utopia, build a commune and leave the rest of us alone.
Submitted by Jmalmberg:
January 27, 2009 – There are a number of differences between what President Obama wants included in his economic stimulus plan and what Republican leaders in the House and Senate want to see included. Some of the most contested provisions of the legislation are centered on changes to tax credits that actually provide refund (Read More)
Submitted by Jmalmberg:
January 16, 2009 – President-elect Obama’s incoming Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told a group of business and economic executives that “you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste.” The comments were made to the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Conference in November but have gone relatively unreported by the media. Althou (Read More)
Submitted by Jmalmberg:
January 15, 2009 – The incoming Obama administration has been lobbying Congress hard to get them to release the second half of the already authorized $700 Billion bailout bill passed last year. So far, $350 Billion of that money has already been spent; the vast majority of it going to banks. Yet there is little evidence tha (Read More)
guardian.co.uk Science
The world is full of terrible things and it may seem absurd to be shocked by the state of science teaching more than by war and famine or any of the more obvious candidates. But I was more shocked by the report showing that a significant minority of British science teachers can't see anything much wrong with creationism tha (Read More)
: Granted, this is a much different issue here in the states, but the issue is still something we will deal with more in the coming years. I think that eventually the question has to come down to this, how would these Christian families react if we started teaching children all the various creationist theories? What if we brought in the Muslim creation story, taught the Native American creation story, the Buddhist, the Shintoist, and on and on down the line?
To me this isn't so much about teaching creationism as it is an attempt by Christian fundamentalists (yep, I'm gonna go there) to bring only their view alongside the theory of evolution (which I personally loathe to see called Darwinism). What about all the others?
: This isn't an issue about freedom of speech, this is an issue of the responsibility of government employees, which public school teachers are.
@thekookfringecom and @jmalmberg are correct, if I don't like what I'm watching on TV, I can change the channel. The children sitting in a classroom listening to a teacher (a government employee) cannot simply raise their hand and say that they would like the teacher to teach something different now.
Additionally, freedom of speech does not generally extend to any workplace. For instance, if I walked into my job and started spouting off racial or religious epithets, I would be fired. There would most likely be no grounds for criminal prosecution (as I would have broken no laws), but I certainly wouldn't get to keep my job.
I will grant you that teachers are often in an awkward position, having to teach to a core curriculum that they may or not agree with, but if they want to teach ID, they are more than welcome to seek a position at a parochial institution. Science class is for scientific theory and proof, not philosophical debate over something that cannot be proved empirically.
I am not trying to downplay faith on a personal level, this is not about a given person, this is about an institution that serves the public, in a civic, secular fashion. No one religion should be given preference to another, especially by the government, that is what freedom of religion in this country is all about. Teaching ID, which is ostensibly a christian theory, would give preference to christianity over other religions, and that is where the violation of the establishment clause would come into play.
Oh, and might I remind whoever it was that threw out that "In God We Trust" is our national motto, I would remind them that the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum (New Secular Order) appears just as many dollar bills as In God We Trust.
Submitted by Jmalmberg:
December 23, 2008 – After all of the financial turmoil of the past year, you might think that the incoming president would appoint someone to the Securities and Exchange Commission that has some experience in confronting large corporations and winning. But his choice, Mary Shapiro, doesn’t have verifiable credentials in thi (Read More)