If I wanted this to be my thoughts on current events, I have failed the past week because the most historic and most pervasive piece of legislation of my lifeitme was passed this past week without a line from me.
In all honesty, I didn't know what to say or more importantly what to believe. I think that this was the pulse of the country. We were in either in awe or disgust, dependent on your political affiliation, that such a hot point issue which has been battle for a hundred years was passed.
But there were so many questions. What does this mean tomorrow, a year from now, 10 years? What is the cut off for benefits? ($88,000) How do I get the benefits? Will I have to pay more/less to keep my doctor?
A lot of questions and when I looked to the white house they were telling me that if i understood the bill I would like it.
A. don't act like you really think that if everyone really "understood" the bill they would approve.
B. Are you saying that all the Republicans didn't "understand" because they for sure didn't like the bill?
C. Just explain the bill and I will decide if i like it or not.
Sorry, that is a tangent but it really annoyed me.
An way, I wasn't sure what I really thought about the bill. My gut instinct was unsettled, I don't think that the government does an outstanding job regulating business and i think handing over such an important industry to the government is pretty scare. One word: deficit. I am terrified about the debt we are leaving for our children. I also knew that this was not going to be good for the already shaky as jello economy.
But I knew I thought these things because I have never had to worry about not having health care. I have never had cancer and been dropped from my provider. I have never rationed by own health care because of lack of funds. There are so many people where these situations are the bases for their outlook.
So I tried to think past my parents income and the astronomical taxes they will face and past the problems my children will deal with because of the immense costs we will be taking on. I focused on the utilitarian thought : is this good for MOST people RIGHT NOW?
Well, I am still in the process of gathering my thoughts and I haven't unraveled the answer but here is what I have found that makes me believe that this is not in the best interest of the country.
In a blow to the administrations claim that bill wont affect the economy in a negative way, large corporations are claiming that they will increase charges to cover the lessened tax reductions the bill offers.
"AT&T, the US telecommunications group, announced on Friday that it would take a $1bn non-cash charge in the first quarter to account for the change, which comes into effect in 2013.
Verizon, another telecoms company, also said its costs would increase in the short term. Caterpillar, the largest maker of earth-moving equipment and a vociferous critic of health care reform, said it would take a $100m charge, while John Deere, the world’s biggest maker of agriculture equipment, said it would see a $150m charge."
Financial Times
This is an especially hard blow to Obama who had singled our the struggling Caterpillar company as a company that would affected positively by his stimulus bill and other economy boosting efforts. The results have not been seen yet and the new legislation offers new blows to the company's shaky future.
Why are company's freaking out ? Well lets break it down.
Before this legislation, companies received a 28 per cent tax free subsidy if they provided prescription drug coverage to their retired workers on Medicare.
So basically every $100 that a company spent on Medicare drug costs, it received $28 from the government and it was tax-free. Plus, it could take a full tax deduction on the $100 it spent on drug costs.
Under the new health care legislation, the subsidy will still be tax-free, but can no longer be deducted on taxes.
This means :
"S&P 500 companies may have to pay an additional $361m in taxes in 2013 as a result of the change, and $2.8bn in additional tax through 2019, with telecoms and utilities and industrial sectors accounting for 63 per cent of the new tax."
If in every poll, the number one concern of the average American is the economy and JOBS. IT doesn't seem like these companies or companies like them will be inclined to hire more people as their expenses for new hires increases astronomically.
This is just one affect of the bill, but I expect to see much more ripple affects in the coming months.
On a good and separate note, apparently the bill requires all food franchises ( over 100 stores i believe) to show their nutritional content on their menus. This is really important and ties into my most recent (5 mins ago) read that fatty foods have the same addictive affect on the brain as heroine and cocaine.
Check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/index.html?hpt=C2
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Why we should voice our ethics through capitalism not restraint.
Hustler Magazine has requested for the pictures of the decapitated body of Meredith Emerson,a GA hiker who was brutally murdered and killed 2 years ago.
The request was understandably met with public and political outcry. The magazine has said the pictures would be used apart of a news story the pornographic magazine is working on. It seems like no one is buying that argument or even if they are feel the protrayl of Emerson in Hustler would be disrespectful and appalling.
It would be. It would be sad, disgusting and wrong.
The family has already endured the pain of losing their beautiful 24 year-old Emerson and the media hailstorm of her kidnapping. There seems nothing more hurtful than to have their daughter's dead body paraded in a magazine that objectifies and demeans women. It seems like a no brainer that the GA government would put a stop to their request.
The problem?
The first amendment. The whole press' right to report and have access to public record thing ( the pictures of Emerson are public record).
In order to maneuver around that pesky part of the Constitution, GA lawmakers like State Rep. Jill Chambers are introducing " Emerson's Bill" which if passed will make sure crime-scene photos like Emerson's never can be obtained through Georgia's public-disclosure laws.
Every ounce of outrage is understandable and justified. But in this instance, I hope the court sees the forest through the trees.
Their handling of the case stands for so much more than the abhorrible instance this case represents.
Access to public records is essential to who we are as a country. We are a country who prides itself on at least an attempt at transparency of government. Watchdog journalism strengthened our government by exposing its weakness, its ugly truths and its injustices. The government knows that how they act is monitored and will not be swept under a rug for the sake of placidity. This type of journalism is predicated on our right to access records of government activity.
The government doesn't have a right to declare who indicated a legit mate press agency. and while there may be a general consensus that Hustler does not par with the New York Times in investigative reporting, the government doesn't have the right to say they are incapable of reporting news stories and prohibititng them from accessing records.
We cant make laws to avoid the Constitution or to manipulate it. Making the Constitution a document we tweak and bend based from situation to situation dilutes the meaning. if the Constitution is the backbone of our country, we cant remove vertebrates to become more nimble- we will crumble.
Now, here is my solution to this political and moral conundrum. Leave morality to the people. If we really believe that this is gross testament to the fallen morals of our times, we have every right NOT to buy it. We have every right NOT to sell it in our shops. We have every right to to protest stores that do sell this disgusting smut.
We have all those rights just as Hustler has a right to publish any public records it wants. But it is our job as moral Americans to raise our wallets, not bend our Constitution, in order to show Hustler their perspective is not wanted.
The request was understandably met with public and political outcry. The magazine has said the pictures would be used apart of a news story the pornographic magazine is working on. It seems like no one is buying that argument or even if they are feel the protrayl of Emerson in Hustler would be disrespectful and appalling.
It would be. It would be sad, disgusting and wrong.
The family has already endured the pain of losing their beautiful 24 year-old Emerson and the media hailstorm of her kidnapping. There seems nothing more hurtful than to have their daughter's dead body paraded in a magazine that objectifies and demeans women. It seems like a no brainer that the GA government would put a stop to their request.
The problem?
The first amendment. The whole press' right to report and have access to public record thing ( the pictures of Emerson are public record).
In order to maneuver around that pesky part of the Constitution, GA lawmakers like State Rep. Jill Chambers are introducing " Emerson's Bill" which if passed will make sure crime-scene photos like Emerson's never can be obtained through Georgia's public-disclosure laws.
Every ounce of outrage is understandable and justified. But in this instance, I hope the court sees the forest through the trees.
Their handling of the case stands for so much more than the abhorrible instance this case represents.
Access to public records is essential to who we are as a country. We are a country who prides itself on at least an attempt at transparency of government. Watchdog journalism strengthened our government by exposing its weakness, its ugly truths and its injustices. The government knows that how they act is monitored and will not be swept under a rug for the sake of placidity. This type of journalism is predicated on our right to access records of government activity.
The government doesn't have a right to declare who indicated a legit mate press agency. and while there may be a general consensus that Hustler does not par with the New York Times in investigative reporting, the government doesn't have the right to say they are incapable of reporting news stories and prohibititng them from accessing records.
We cant make laws to avoid the Constitution or to manipulate it. Making the Constitution a document we tweak and bend based from situation to situation dilutes the meaning. if the Constitution is the backbone of our country, we cant remove vertebrates to become more nimble- we will crumble.
Now, here is my solution to this political and moral conundrum. Leave morality to the people. If we really believe that this is gross testament to the fallen morals of our times, we have every right NOT to buy it. We have every right NOT to sell it in our shops. We have every right to to protest stores that do sell this disgusting smut.
We have all those rights just as Hustler has a right to publish any public records it wants. But it is our job as moral Americans to raise our wallets, not bend our Constitution, in order to show Hustler their perspective is not wanted.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Politics Divided.
Dear David Brooks,
Your insight is windex in the foggy mirror of politics.
Love.
Lindsay
Seriously, I am an unabashed fan of David Brooks, the New York Times Writer. If you ever are looking for a a quick read that wont have you tuning out by the third sentence- check out his editorial column. He also is an incredible author and his book Bohos in Paradise is an accurate and hilarious historical look at how the populist culture emerged.
In one recent editorial, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26brooks.html.
David talks about the politics of pointing the finger. We all want to point the finger at economic big smoke monster, sorry random LOST reference. Democrats love to point at wall street and the vicious, ruthless, cutthroat traitors while republicans point their fingers at the law making regulators which interfere with the their idol- the market. I am not debating the merit of the argument, but just noticing that the lines through society are not as deep as rigid as their argument portrays. The Grand Canyon does not divide the rich from the poor. Even those labels seem antiquated. The reason both parties want to push us into sections and categories is not for our own good but for political gain. If there is a monster on the streets, the clark kent gets to play hero. Clearly there are political and business corruption but David Brooks says it best:
"Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power."
I dont think as many Americans are on the populist band wagon as the politicians would like to think. We can look at Wall street for all its snakes and corruption and understand that while they are viciously trying to make personal profit, there is a a bigger picture at work here. They also understand that some of the problems we are having started on our curbs- yes right here on main street. We racked up debt and bought houses we couldn't afford- the Wall Street errors didn't help anyone but we hurt ourselves too. I think that we have always understood that the world of vicious traders is better for the miser than one without Wall Street or as Brooks puts it:
" Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment."
Any who, the populist movement has never been a successful one and I dont think it has success in its future. Some one could tell Washington.
Your insight is windex in the foggy mirror of politics.
Love.
Lindsay
Seriously, I am an unabashed fan of David Brooks, the New York Times Writer. If you ever are looking for a a quick read that wont have you tuning out by the third sentence- check out his editorial column. He also is an incredible author and his book Bohos in Paradise is an accurate and hilarious historical look at how the populist culture emerged.
In one recent editorial, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26brooks.html.
David talks about the politics of pointing the finger. We all want to point the finger at economic big smoke monster, sorry random LOST reference. Democrats love to point at wall street and the vicious, ruthless, cutthroat traitors while republicans point their fingers at the law making regulators which interfere with the their idol- the market. I am not debating the merit of the argument, but just noticing that the lines through society are not as deep as rigid as their argument portrays. The Grand Canyon does not divide the rich from the poor. Even those labels seem antiquated. The reason both parties want to push us into sections and categories is not for our own good but for political gain. If there is a monster on the streets, the clark kent gets to play hero. Clearly there are political and business corruption but David Brooks says it best:
"Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power."
I dont think as many Americans are on the populist band wagon as the politicians would like to think. We can look at Wall street for all its snakes and corruption and understand that while they are viciously trying to make personal profit, there is a a bigger picture at work here. They also understand that some of the problems we are having started on our curbs- yes right here on main street. We racked up debt and bought houses we couldn't afford- the Wall Street errors didn't help anyone but we hurt ourselves too. I think that we have always understood that the world of vicious traders is better for the miser than one without Wall Street or as Brooks puts it:
" Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment."
Any who, the populist movement has never been a successful one and I dont think it has success in its future. Some one could tell Washington.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
It was the night before the State of the Union...
Tomorrow the President will address the nation. Where should he begin the failed economy, rising unemployment, and astronomical debt? No one doubts that Obama has been dealt some difficult cards his first year. No one can say he has sat by idly or not addressed the issues as they continue to come. Nearly everyone though has a reason why his stimulus and bailouts have not been as successful as we all had hoped and what the price tag demanded. Was it too little too late? The too late part seems fathomable but the too little is almost laughable. Should we have let the market self-correct? Was the stimulus a overzealous waste of money? I don't profess to be an economist or a market analysis, but I haven't seen the jobs the stimulus was suppose to create and the banks profit reports make me sick to my stomach.
There are some things the administration I have been extremely happy with. The taxes on the banks profits to reclaim our bail-out money. The concept seems fair enough, but Ill be interested to see which banks are given this tax and which are given amnesty. Today, a bi-partisan effort failed at coming up with a way to tackle national debt.In many administrations, this would be tabled for a while. republicans are against any move toward tax increases. There is significant talk about cutting spending in Medicare and Medicaid that is backed by many Dems.I find this interesting because why is the party that promotes healthcare for all cutting the little healthcare we have now? All and all the 53 votes fell short of the 60 majority needed to pass.
Obama has stepped to the late and recognized his own Instead impact on the national debt and said he will establish a similar panel by executive order. I hope republicans are blocked-out of this conversation like many panels and committees made by this executive administration but i appreciate his unwillingness to let the issue sit.
There are some things the administration I have been extremely happy with. The taxes on the banks profits to reclaim our bail-out money. The concept seems fair enough, but Ill be interested to see which banks are given this tax and which are given amnesty. Today, a bi-partisan effort failed at coming up with a way to tackle national debt.In many administrations, this would be tabled for a while. republicans are against any move toward tax increases. There is significant talk about cutting spending in Medicare and Medicaid that is backed by many Dems.I find this interesting because why is the party that promotes healthcare for all cutting the little healthcare we have now? All and all the 53 votes fell short of the 60 majority needed to pass.
Obama has stepped to the late and recognized his own Instead impact on the national debt and said he will establish a similar panel by executive order. I hope republicans are blocked-out of this conversation like many panels and committees made by this executive administration but i appreciate his unwillingness to let the issue sit.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Team Google.
I really recommend reading this great article by New York Times writer Roger Cohen. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/opinion/15iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion
I never thought I could be so proud of my E-mail provider. Google is obviously so much more than my e-mail provider. I'm a google fanatic- google reader, google docs, google calendar. I have it all but everyone knows how influential and pervasive , not to mention transformative, the company is. My generation can have a myopic view of the world pre-google. Often I am in conversation revolving goggle as if i was the cell phone or the Internet-What did people do before google?
When a service becomes this much or a cornerstone of advancement and knowledge diffusion, it has some weight to throw around. And throw around, or should I say down, it did. While China reluctantly embraces change in the name of globalization, the governemts censorship permeates every sectior and leaves no rock, or server, unturned.
Google really isnt too pysched to have something censoring searches and tampering with accounts so in a monumental move for both foreign policy and globalzation- google is withdrawing google.cn.
Finally Chinas incompatible polices have met. Globalization is not possible without open market systems. But more than the predicament China faces, google has shown that there companies can be successful without compromising their ethics. Removing google.cn isn't a profitable move, but google realizes the revenue they would be receiving would be at the steep price of everything they stand for- freedom of information.
I never thought I could be so proud of my E-mail provider. Google is obviously so much more than my e-mail provider. I'm a google fanatic- google reader, google docs, google calendar. I have it all but everyone knows how influential and pervasive , not to mention transformative, the company is. My generation can have a myopic view of the world pre-google. Often I am in conversation revolving goggle as if i was the cell phone or the Internet-What did people do before google?
When a service becomes this much or a cornerstone of advancement and knowledge diffusion, it has some weight to throw around. And throw around, or should I say down, it did. While China reluctantly embraces change in the name of globalization, the governemts censorship permeates every sectior and leaves no rock, or server, unturned.
Google really isnt too pysched to have something censoring searches and tampering with accounts so in a monumental move for both foreign policy and globalzation- google is withdrawing google.cn.
Finally Chinas incompatible polices have met. Globalization is not possible without open market systems. But more than the predicament China faces, google has shown that there companies can be successful without compromising their ethics. Removing google.cn isn't a profitable move, but google realizes the revenue they would be receiving would be at the steep price of everything they stand for- freedom of information.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Students Rally For a Cause
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjtaPe4xj34
Students riot the streets! With anger and passion, students from University of Tennessee showed they can really unite and rally for a cause.
What were the chants of anger and passion about- healthcare? war? animal cruelty? child labor?
Something much more dire. Their college football coach, Lane Kiffin, left their program.
While I am sure their feelings of disappointment and betrayal were real, it made me reminisce for days i never saw. Days when students would hold walk-outs, sit-ins, and protests for reasons that were real and tangible. We are not living in a time that doesn't demand our voice. Two wars, an economic melt-down, main street and wall street failings- and what we rally around?
I think the students should have protested. They were passionate about a university failing and felt scorn. But I just wish more students felt the amount of emotion they feel for their collegiate football program for the future of their county, for the lives of soldiers, or really for anything that doesn't involve referees.
Students riot the streets! With anger and passion, students from University of Tennessee showed they can really unite and rally for a cause.
What were the chants of anger and passion about- healthcare? war? animal cruelty? child labor?
Something much more dire. Their college football coach, Lane Kiffin, left their program.
While I am sure their feelings of disappointment and betrayal were real, it made me reminisce for days i never saw. Days when students would hold walk-outs, sit-ins, and protests for reasons that were real and tangible. We are not living in a time that doesn't demand our voice. Two wars, an economic melt-down, main street and wall street failings- and what we rally around?
I think the students should have protested. They were passionate about a university failing and felt scorn. But I just wish more students felt the amount of emotion they feel for their collegiate football program for the future of their county, for the lives of soldiers, or really for anything that doesn't involve referees.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Airport security
Hey guys,
This is my first post and I hope it wont seem gloom and doom that my first post is on airplane security but I want this blog to be news oriented and today I have been watching coverage on why the Christmas plane explosion got as far as it did. I have personal experience of getting through liquids, that I didn't realize were in my purse, and friends getting tweezers and other banned objects past security. I think that tweezers and my perfume bottle are reasons to worried- but those are things we ARE looking for and they are not being caught. So it doesn't surprise me that things we haven't thought of, exploding man-diapers, are not being detected. I am really confused how after such horrible attacks like 9/11 and constant terrorist attacks around the world that there are scanners that could catch these very type of things but because of bureaucracy and privacy concerns they are not largely implemented. I dont understand how someone can really complain that the strangers can see their underwear over being blown -up. If people really feel this strongly because of religious or other concerns, then railways still run. Drive or take a train. Airplanes are not a right, they are a business and they deserve to set their own standard for the safety of their vessels and customers.
I talked to a friend of mine who is a naval officer and works with CIA and he said that airplane safety is rushed because of the strict takeoff times and that the future of air safety is tentative take off and arrival times. You would board your plane when everyone has been checked and run through databases. There would be an arrival cutoff and then everyone would get checked. Once that was done then the plane takes off. It would be hard with connecting flights but I think that people need to realize connivence is not to be sacrificed with safety and we arent living in the same world as we were 20 years ago. We watched the countries be plagued with terrorist attacks and thought that we could never be there. Now we know we can be there, and we need to pull out every measure to prevent any attacks.
I also watched the press conference with President Obama where he said that he was done with finger pointing and the buck stops with him. This sounds horrible to me. I want whoever is in change of connecting databases that would have send him or whoever didn't flag the fathers call about his son going rogue to Yemen with an extremist group to be fired. Finger pointing is useless but pointing out where things weren't wrong and fixing them by hiring someone who would do it better is not. This is not bureaucracy, this is how any high-level company would operate. At any news agency or large corporation there was a melt down of this capacity, there would be people who were fired. This also doesn't send a good message to terrorists abroad, they will know the same people that let this happen will still be in place the next time they try to attack us. They are learning from their failure as much as we are and now they know they wont have to worry about change of command and a change in mind-set. We still are only preparing for past attacks and not looking to the future, which wont be explosive underwear.
This is my first post and I hope it wont seem gloom and doom that my first post is on airplane security but I want this blog to be news oriented and today I have been watching coverage on why the Christmas plane explosion got as far as it did. I have personal experience of getting through liquids, that I didn't realize were in my purse, and friends getting tweezers and other banned objects past security. I think that tweezers and my perfume bottle are reasons to worried- but those are things we ARE looking for and they are not being caught. So it doesn't surprise me that things we haven't thought of, exploding man-diapers, are not being detected. I am really confused how after such horrible attacks like 9/11 and constant terrorist attacks around the world that there are scanners that could catch these very type of things but because of bureaucracy and privacy concerns they are not largely implemented. I dont understand how someone can really complain that the strangers can see their underwear over being blown -up. If people really feel this strongly because of religious or other concerns, then railways still run. Drive or take a train. Airplanes are not a right, they are a business and they deserve to set their own standard for the safety of their vessels and customers.
I talked to a friend of mine who is a naval officer and works with CIA and he said that airplane safety is rushed because of the strict takeoff times and that the future of air safety is tentative take off and arrival times. You would board your plane when everyone has been checked and run through databases. There would be an arrival cutoff and then everyone would get checked. Once that was done then the plane takes off. It would be hard with connecting flights but I think that people need to realize connivence is not to be sacrificed with safety and we arent living in the same world as we were 20 years ago. We watched the countries be plagued with terrorist attacks and thought that we could never be there. Now we know we can be there, and we need to pull out every measure to prevent any attacks.
I also watched the press conference with President Obama where he said that he was done with finger pointing and the buck stops with him. This sounds horrible to me. I want whoever is in change of connecting databases that would have send him or whoever didn't flag the fathers call about his son going rogue to Yemen with an extremist group to be fired. Finger pointing is useless but pointing out where things weren't wrong and fixing them by hiring someone who would do it better is not. This is not bureaucracy, this is how any high-level company would operate. At any news agency or large corporation there was a melt down of this capacity, there would be people who were fired. This also doesn't send a good message to terrorists abroad, they will know the same people that let this happen will still be in place the next time they try to attack us. They are learning from their failure as much as we are and now they know they wont have to worry about change of command and a change in mind-set. We still are only preparing for past attacks and not looking to the future, which wont be explosive underwear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)