Random Reaction

My 7th grade daughter is apparently getting into some political discussion in Social Studies early in the semester, and asked me some questions on the way to school today.  Aside from being disappointed that her teacher had simplified the difference between the 2 parties to "government more involved in your life vs. less involved in your life" (which would be another post), we started talking about taxes and the deficit. Trying to simplify for her what has happened over the last decade actually provided a bit more clarity for me.  I mean, at the most basic level, Clinton delivered a budget surplus to George W. Bush, and Bush proceeded to enter into 2 wars (somehow funded "off the books," which I have never really understood) - one of which was completely unnecessary and entered into on false, ginned up, possibly illegal pretenses (again, another post) - implemented massive tax cuts for the rich, and deregulated, and failed to enforce existing regulations or even pay...

Very interesting article on a different way to view the economy.  And it finally gets to the concept I've been wondering about during most of the Obama presidency: why are the Republicans still able to continue to trumpet the mantra of lower taxes on the rich, when they succeeded in lowering those taxes (and radically reducing regulation) under the Bush administration, and we got The Great Recession for it?  They just don't have a leg to stand on, but apparently they have been pounding this mantra for so many years in so many ways and through so many media outlets, that they have brainwashed people into thinking that it is true, contrary to any other evidence that might come along.  I know there have been other articles about why this is so, why people continue to believe untruths in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary, but it doesn't mean it isn't frustrating to watch how successful the right's campaign has been to brainwash the masses.  I mean, why are...

I was listening to the Bill Neumann Show this morning on the way to work (I'll provide a link to the podcast when/if it is posted), and he was interviewing a pharmaceutical entrepreneur who also happens to have been heavily involved in civil liberties.  The entrepreneur made the point that America is special, not because of all the chest-thumping reasons of the exceptionalists, but because of a different concept of freedom.  The Bill of Rights enshrines certain freedoms, which actually benefit businesses by providing a level playing field, from free speech onward.  Good point, but he didn't take the next step, which is something that I have been thinking about for a long time, but have yet to see really emphasized: that level playing field does not happen on its own, just by words on a  page; it is created and enforced and evolved by the government .  That is a very large part of why the government exists - to provide and enforce a level playing field...

The effects of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision are now really being felt as we have seen in Wisconsin and some other races that shouldn't have been national races, but ended up being so because of all the money that poured in.  I fundamentally object to the concept that money is speech, which was a decision made by the court a long time ago.  And now we see that since money is now unlimited, the effects of it are more pronounced.  I mean if money is speech, then that means rich people get more speech than poor people? How can that be?  That is not a democracy, that is a plutocracy.  Not that there was much doubt that that is what we are living in, but let's name it.

This article has a concept that I have been thinking about for a while, ever since I wrote up a draft of a response to a friend on Facebook, who posted about the "danger" of a carbon tax. The concept is to think about what the ramifications are of being wrong about the climate "debate" (there really isn't any serious debate about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or even warming, but whether we are responsible and whether we should do anything about it) on either side. If we act on the concern over climate change by implementing a carbon tax to help drive sustainable energy innovation, and we are wrong, then we have perhaps put a bit of a brake on economic development. But maybe not even that, because perhaps the energy innovations create a self-sustaining economic benefit of their own, both in technology, and the fact that pollution of any kind is waste, and waste is inefficient economically. So the ramifications of the climate concern crowd being wrong are...

I heard that it costs BP (and presumably other companies  as well) $1 million a day to run these oil rigs.  There was another huge number as well regarding the costs of deep water drilling, but I can't remember what it was.  But this just kind of staggered me.  I mean, think how much money it costs with shipping, refining, transportation, et cetera to actually produce energy from these fossil fuels.  It prompted me to post this comment in the NY Times Dot Earth Blog: I agree that in terms of seriousness, the BP spill is *relatively* small potatoes compared to climate change, but what it does in my mind is provide an additional non-disputable reason to get off fossil fuels. Not only do they pollute the air when burned, they are dirty and risky to extract. Not to mention the wars we have fought for oil, or the funding we provide to regimes that hate us when we buy their oil. Mountaintop removal mining, other mine disasters, etc. Human, monetary, military, environmental costs are just...

First of all, I really do like the Palm Pre overall.  It is an awesome phone with a lot of great features.  It is fast, and syncs up pretty well with GMail.  But it advertises that it syncs with Outlook, which it apparently only does if you have an Exchange server set up.  Well, that is fine for business users, who are apparently the target of that bit of propaganda.  But it does nothing for those of us who just use Outlook without Exchange.  THAT requires a separate piece of software ($$ is the only kind I have found) to sync up your information with GMail/Google, which then syncs back with the Pre.  Not very elegant, and Google doesn't handle things like Notes and Tasks all that well.  And speaking of Tasks, the Pre reminds you of them, but there is no way to snooze the tasks; they just sit there until they are either dismissed or done.  And they get added to your Google Calendar, which is annoying if you share it with anyone.  There needs to be a bit more control over how things...