Very conservative Tea Partiers harboring extreme distrust in the government have heeded the "advice" of conservative congresspersons, and media persons and are not returning census forms. This of course will undercount districts where there are higher densities of these people. Potentially leading to a loss in representation to those states.
If they think the government does not listen to them now, how much "better" will it listen if their districts are reapportioned, and merged with another? It's almost a self-fulfilling prophesy. The government does not listen - they lose a congressional seat, and their voice is merged with the district next to them. Less representation - fewer like minded votes.
We can argue about the rightful role of government. One thing that is certain is that Congress is given the duty in the Constitution to conduct a census. If you're not counted because you "protest" governments role by not participating in a role that is in arguably a government responsibility, then what can you really hope to gain?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Google Gets in Bed with Verizon
What is most important is net neutrality in all of this I think. Fact of the matter is that much of the infrastructure for telecom is heavily subsidized, and those networks are a public trust (much like broadcasting rights) As such the big telecoms really need to commit to net neutrality. For all the bluster they make about "their pipes" (jargon - not stupidity) being their pipes - as they have been subsidized they're just as much our pipes.
Additionally, comparing broadband access here, and in Europe where population densities are higher is apples to oranges, and the FCC plan is correct in that greater investment in infrastructure construction into lower population densities will be needed as it is just not profitable enough. The gov't investment is needed to support it's growth.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Additionally, comparing broadband access here, and in Europe where population densities are higher is apples to oranges, and the FCC plan is correct in that greater investment in infrastructure construction into lower population densities will be needed as it is just not profitable enough. The gov't investment is needed to support it's growth.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Friday, March 12, 2010
Why are we angrier about health care than the financial meltdown?
I am baffled as to why we are angrier about health care reform (regardless of which side you are on) than we are about the financial meltdown on 2008.
Basically the worst financial meltdown has brought us the worst economy since the 1930s. The causes of it are known, but the degree to which the misconduct has been investigated, and specific legal cases are not part of the news. I would think it would be were it happening. For that reason I'm inclined to think it's not happening.
Bankers are still leveraged, and the toxic assets that were the rot in the system (so we were told) are still in the system. Some reports tell us that there are more foreclosures coming, and more defaults are expected.
Well, hopefully this is the beginning. I doubt it, but I hope so. We need more Dylan Ratigans in the media.
I posted this MSNBC video of Mr. Ratigan's show - which I could not find on msnbc.com, but have here from Huffington Post.
Basically the worst financial meltdown has brought us the worst economy since the 1930s. The causes of it are known, but the degree to which the misconduct has been investigated, and specific legal cases are not part of the news. I would think it would be were it happening. For that reason I'm inclined to think it's not happening.
Bankers are still leveraged, and the toxic assets that were the rot in the system (so we were told) are still in the system. Some reports tell us that there are more foreclosures coming, and more defaults are expected.
Well, hopefully this is the beginning. I doubt it, but I hope so. We need more Dylan Ratigans in the media.
I posted this MSNBC video of Mr. Ratigan's show - which I could not find on msnbc.com, but have here from Huffington Post.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Personal Note - man without a past
Life is funny, and while this may come off as self-pity - and maybe it is a little - I try not to wallow in it.
We grow up, go to school, make friends, and other relationships. In my case we also moved a lot as a service family. I could complain about that, and as a kid I did, but I also saw some pretty cool things many only see in a photograph. So, it is what it is. We all take the good with the bad. But the past being what is our experience, and that which makes us who we will become - I never did a good job of developing long term friendships. I am often jealous of friends who talk of others who they have been friends with since gradeschool. It's one thing I hope my kids develop.
As I find myself after a divorce reconnecting with old friends, I am reminded that I really missed out on time with these people by not keeping in touch with them while I was married. It's one of those things you look back on with regret, not as an error of commission, but of omission. I did not try hard enough to stay in touch with these people. That's my loss I guess. At the same time I feel good knowing that I've arrived at this wisdom while a relatively young 42. There is still time to be friends with these guys I did stupid shit with. Friends to introduce my kids to, and to my kids.
In that respect it's a good thing. Old friends are always in our hearts, and as long as that heart beats in the both of us there is hope to reconnect, and isn't hope the one thing we all really need?
We grow up, go to school, make friends, and other relationships. In my case we also moved a lot as a service family. I could complain about that, and as a kid I did, but I also saw some pretty cool things many only see in a photograph. So, it is what it is. We all take the good with the bad. But the past being what is our experience, and that which makes us who we will become - I never did a good job of developing long term friendships. I am often jealous of friends who talk of others who they have been friends with since gradeschool. It's one thing I hope my kids develop.
As I find myself after a divorce reconnecting with old friends, I am reminded that I really missed out on time with these people by not keeping in touch with them while I was married. It's one of those things you look back on with regret, not as an error of commission, but of omission. I did not try hard enough to stay in touch with these people. That's my loss I guess. At the same time I feel good knowing that I've arrived at this wisdom while a relatively young 42. There is still time to be friends with these guys I did stupid shit with. Friends to introduce my kids to, and to my kids.
In that respect it's a good thing. Old friends are always in our hearts, and as long as that heart beats in the both of us there is hope to reconnect, and isn't hope the one thing we all really need?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
What does the future hold????
I found this today.
It's not what someone wants to read in this economy, but then it's like when you're gonna sell your house, and the agent tells you the price you're thinking is too high, and shows you some professional reality. That's what I think this is. An educated persons view of what may or may not be an accurate prediction, but one that one should be ready for.
Like most historic bubbles, the financial bubble that burst last fall was severe. What the data presented in these graphs suggests is that financial bubble (unlike tech bubbles, or energy bubbles) lead to greater systemic damage. Not sure why. Perhaps it's because finance, as a linchpin of an economy is not a matter of making good stuff, or the next big thing. It's a function of getting capital into the hands of people so they can deliver the next big thing. When finance pops, all the money that was going to entrepreneurs disappears for awhile because the trust that allows market mechanisms to function is gone. Finance is based on trust. Trust that the bond, or note, or any other financial instrument being bought is worth at least what you're saying it is. Cleaning the toxic assets that inhibit that systemic trust from returning is really what will drive, or hold back the recovery.
It's not what someone wants to read in this economy, but then it's like when you're gonna sell your house, and the agent tells you the price you're thinking is too high, and shows you some professional reality. That's what I think this is. An educated persons view of what may or may not be an accurate prediction, but one that one should be ready for.
Like most historic bubbles, the financial bubble that burst last fall was severe. What the data presented in these graphs suggests is that financial bubble (unlike tech bubbles, or energy bubbles) lead to greater systemic damage. Not sure why. Perhaps it's because finance, as a linchpin of an economy is not a matter of making good stuff, or the next big thing. It's a function of getting capital into the hands of people so they can deliver the next big thing. When finance pops, all the money that was going to entrepreneurs disappears for awhile because the trust that allows market mechanisms to function is gone. Finance is based on trust. Trust that the bond, or note, or any other financial instrument being bought is worth at least what you're saying it is. Cleaning the toxic assets that inhibit that systemic trust from returning is really what will drive, or hold back the recovery.
Monday, October 12, 2009
What is happiness?
If there was ever a more amorphous thing than "happiness" that sociologists study I've not heard of it.
I read this, and am not surprised either.
What surprises me is that more men do not think this as well. I know that men and women are different, although different is not good or bad at all - it is only different. If there is one thing that came out of Feminism in the 1960s, and 70s that we should adhere to it is that, but for all of the hullabaloo that came out of the cultural revolution we never learned what happiness should be. What is peculiar is happiness in and of yourself was a big part of the hippie mentality.
Happiness for too many of us too often is tied to something that is outside of us - careers, spouses, homes, childrens' accomplishments. Who is happy in and of themselves?
Anecdotal observations say, it looks like one of Feminism's' failures is to adopt the masculine definition of happiness - accomplishment, and status. These things didn't make men happy, and they haven't made women any happier it seems. We are finding out that this is true of women, and we just don't ask the question of men. But then men, for much longer than women, are used to attaching notions of accomplishment to the value of self, and happiness. We've been programmed to be "happy" with the "castle."
I dunno.
I read this, and am not surprised either.
What surprises me is that more men do not think this as well. I know that men and women are different, although different is not good or bad at all - it is only different. If there is one thing that came out of Feminism in the 1960s, and 70s that we should adhere to it is that, but for all of the hullabaloo that came out of the cultural revolution we never learned what happiness should be. What is peculiar is happiness in and of yourself was a big part of the hippie mentality.
Happiness for too many of us too often is tied to something that is outside of us - careers, spouses, homes, childrens' accomplishments. Who is happy in and of themselves?
Anecdotal observations say, it looks like one of Feminism's' failures is to adopt the masculine definition of happiness - accomplishment, and status. These things didn't make men happy, and they haven't made women any happier it seems. We are finding out that this is true of women, and we just don't ask the question of men. But then men, for much longer than women, are used to attaching notions of accomplishment to the value of self, and happiness. We've been programmed to be "happy" with the "castle."
I dunno.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Why we need a public option
I think lost in much of the hullabaloo surrounding the debate over reform is this, and someone must have said it and I missed it.
Insurance profits have increased 1000% over the past 5 years. That's not hyperbole - it's what a business is supposed to do. But add this: premiums on middle class have gone up over 300%. Add in this accepted economic data: labors' productivity has improved markedly, and corporate profits have also gone up. Now - profits have gone up more than the rate of wages.
Corporations are ripping of their workers?? No - far from it. As health insurance premiums have gone up at a much higher rate, that means the part that employers are mandated to contribute have gone up too. So much so that when it comes time for the ol' annual raise your boss is giving you less than you think you deserve. Sucks don't it?
Well think of this; if employers didn't have to kick in more for insurance each year, they'd logically have more to give to you all in the form of a cash wage wouldn't they? They likely would too, because business people know that labor as the most expensive cost of production, is also the most important, and the cost of hiring someone is higher that the cost of retaining quality. That's the fact of the marketplace. Keep your talent.
Point of interest. Toyota opted to build a new plant in Canada recently. Canada was chosen over Alabama. (non-union state BTW) The reason. The labor cost was higher in a non-union state in the USA because of how much Toyota would have to pay in health insurance as opposed to no health insurance costs in Canada.
This is the reality. It's not "death panels" These are the facts we need to concern ourselves with in this debate.
Insurance profits have increased 1000% over the past 5 years. That's not hyperbole - it's what a business is supposed to do. But add this: premiums on middle class have gone up over 300%. Add in this accepted economic data: labors' productivity has improved markedly, and corporate profits have also gone up. Now - profits have gone up more than the rate of wages.
Corporations are ripping of their workers?? No - far from it. As health insurance premiums have gone up at a much higher rate, that means the part that employers are mandated to contribute have gone up too. So much so that when it comes time for the ol' annual raise your boss is giving you less than you think you deserve. Sucks don't it?
Well think of this; if employers didn't have to kick in more for insurance each year, they'd logically have more to give to you all in the form of a cash wage wouldn't they? They likely would too, because business people know that labor as the most expensive cost of production, is also the most important, and the cost of hiring someone is higher that the cost of retaining quality. That's the fact of the marketplace. Keep your talent.
Point of interest. Toyota opted to build a new plant in Canada recently. Canada was chosen over Alabama. (non-union state BTW) The reason. The labor cost was higher in a non-union state in the USA because of how much Toyota would have to pay in health insurance as opposed to no health insurance costs in Canada.
This is the reality. It's not "death panels" These are the facts we need to concern ourselves with in this debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)