Friday, March 05, 2004
Checking Out Creative Commons
I've noticed a number of times that Larry Lessig is always pimping for Creative Commons on his blog, and have always thought 'hmm, that must be a good thing.' Only recently did I have the brilliant idea to actually check it out and see what was there. So I poked around a bit and found one of their content aggregators, Magnatune. Magnatune (slogan: We Are Not Evil) has music from a good number groups/individuals which can be streamed in mp3 form for free and can be purchased for download at a cost of $5-$18 (your choice). So far I've managed to get completely hooked on music by a guy named Wade Williamson. Cool stuff.
Re: First Gay Marriage, Then Polygamy
There is another Reason.com article that discusses some of the thorny technical issues raised by the state allowing polygamous relationships.
"It would be financially ruinous to make a boss insure the seven husbands of one of his employees. The Internet is already brimming with offers of Asian brides in search of green-card husbands; how many sham marriages would the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service have to sift through once an American man could marry thirty Filipinas? What tax benefits will apply to a plural marriage? How can the authorities turn informants among a criminal gang whose members are all married to each other and thus have immunity from testifying in court?"
I think there are enough different issues here to show definite differences between two-person marriages and polygamous marriages where the law is concerned.
"It would be financially ruinous to make a boss insure the seven husbands of one of his employees. The Internet is already brimming with offers of Asian brides in search of green-card husbands; how many sham marriages would the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service have to sift through once an American man could marry thirty Filipinas? What tax benefits will apply to a plural marriage? How can the authorities turn informants among a criminal gang whose members are all married to each other and thus have immunity from testifying in court?"
I think there are enough different issues here to show definite differences between two-person marriages and polygamous marriages where the law is concerned.
Ninjas: The Real Ultimate Power
I had seen this before, but I happened across it again recently.. Behold The Official Ninja Webpage. It's a classic. The picture at the bottom of the page is the best.
First Gay Marriage, Then Polygamy--A Slippery Slope?
Reason Online has this article, which articulates many of the same points Ceci raises about why polygamy might be going too far.
Patrick Fitzgerald on the Prowl
Newsday reports here that Patrick Fitzgerald, the Chicago US Attorney who was appointed as special counsel to investigate the Valerie Plume affair, has issued a subpoena to the Bush administration seeking phone records from Air Force One for the week preceding the leak (Valerie Plume is former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife. Joseph Wilson, you may recall, challenged Bush's assertion in the State of the Union that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. Robert Novak revealed that Valerie Plume was an undercover CIA operative sometime after Wilson spoke out against the administration).
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Nader Comes Out of the Gates Strong
I have to say I'm a bit surprised by AP's most recent poll. Despite having done no significant campaigning, and after the beating he's taken in the press, Nader is polling at 6%, twice the percentage of votes he drew in 2000. A single poll this early in the process means approximately nothing, but it was a surprising number and bears watching.
Spitzer's back up to his old tricks...
and I love it. He is high quality. We definitely need more independent thinkers like him running things.
Crain's New York Business has this coverage.
And if you're interested in reading Eliot Spitzer's well-reasoned opinion--the one where he says New York statute does not permit gays to marry in the state, but gays can marry elsewhere and New York must recognize the marriage--here it is (it takes the form of responding to two attorneys from small cities (towns) in New York who requested that the AG clearly state its position on the topic).
I particularly like the way he deals with the Equal Protection issue--by punting:
"The Attorney General's Office traditionally does not issue opinions on the constitutionality of state laws, and we do not today opine on whether the federal or state constitutions require the State to permit same-sex marriage. New York courts have not yet ruled on this issue, and they are the proper forum for resolution of this matter. However, because these constitutional concerns are integral to the questions you raise, we outline them here to assist you in advising the local officials you represent. However, because these constitutional concerns are integral to the questions you raise, we outline them here to assist you in advising the local officials you represent."
I hear Spitzer saying: 'somebody please, please please sue us! And if you wanna sue us, here's how to do it.' I don't know how he would weigh in on the Equal Protection argument if somebody did sue, but I think it's a safe to bet that he would share the same position as those people who believe that equality is something worth protecting.
Crain's New York Business has this coverage.
And if you're interested in reading Eliot Spitzer's well-reasoned opinion--the one where he says New York statute does not permit gays to marry in the state, but gays can marry elsewhere and New York must recognize the marriage--here it is (it takes the form of responding to two attorneys from small cities (towns) in New York who requested that the AG clearly state its position on the topic).
I particularly like the way he deals with the Equal Protection issue--by punting:
"The Attorney General's Office traditionally does not issue opinions on the constitutionality of state laws, and we do not today opine on whether the federal or state constitutions require the State to permit same-sex marriage. New York courts have not yet ruled on this issue, and they are the proper forum for resolution of this matter. However, because these constitutional concerns are integral to the questions you raise, we outline them here to assist you in advising the local officials you represent. However, because these constitutional concerns are integral to the questions you raise, we outline them here to assist you in advising the local officials you represent."
I hear Spitzer saying: 'somebody please, please please sue us! And if you wanna sue us, here's how to do it.' I don't know how he would weigh in on the Equal Protection argument if somebody did sue, but I think it's a safe to bet that he would share the same position as those people who believe that equality is something worth protecting.
Haliburton Must Love This..
The BBC has a story covering a number of recent violent incidents in Iraq. The most interesting part of the story is a line that appears only in a caption of one of the pictures: "Overall damage to infrastructure in the war is put at $55bn". I'm not sure where that came from or how accurate it is, but if true, that's a staggering number. So far we've spent a total of $20-30bn on the rebuilding project, and I believe much of that has been spent trying to reconstitute Iraq's security forces. Apparently we've got a long ways to go (and I'm sure many more special funding bills as well). Awfully convenient that this spending is all kept off the official budget books.
The Real Beverly Hillbillies
I don't know what to say about this story. Kinda sad, kinda funny, definitely a sign of the times...
Monday, March 01, 2004
Country Rankings on Educational Policy
This site purports to summarize data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on a variety of topics, including education.
The stats I found most interesting were that US does not rank in top ten for reading literacy or scientific and mathematic literacy, but we have the greatest percentage of the population that has attained a secondary education (over 86%!). Most importantly, the US spends 5.2% of its GDP on educational institutions--12th overall.
The stats I found most interesting were that US does not rank in top ten for reading literacy or scientific and mathematic literacy, but we have the greatest percentage of the population that has attained a secondary education (over 86%!). Most importantly, the US spends 5.2% of its GDP on educational institutions--12th overall.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Re: Oh, the outrage
The Post has a great editorial on the issue. They disagree with Greenspan's assertion that the tax cuts should be made permanent, but commend his efforts to bring the issue of social security's long-term solvency into the national discussion. They also scold the President and his opponents for blowing off Greenspan's concerns. The Post concludes: "But at least Mr. Greenspan -- unlike the president and his allies -- acknowledges the need for trade-offs. Mr. Bush won't admit that something's got to give; his Democratic rivals seem determined to compete in fiscal dishonesty. And they all pretend to offer leadership."
As to the prospects of Kerry and his Clintonistas fixing the deficit, I'm considerably less than optimistic. There were three basic reasons why Clinton was able to balance the budget. 1) A substantial tax hike (which Kerry won't do), 2) a substantial reduction in military spending (which Kerry won't do), 3) the dot-com boom (which won't happen again). I fail to see any way that Kerry can either cut spending or increase revenue enough to even dent the deficit.
As to the prospects of Kerry and his Clintonistas fixing the deficit, I'm considerably less than optimistic. There were three basic reasons why Clinton was able to balance the budget. 1) A substantial tax hike (which Kerry won't do), 2) a substantial reduction in military spending (which Kerry won't do), 3) the dot-com boom (which won't happen again). I fail to see any way that Kerry can either cut spending or increase revenue enough to even dent the deficit.
Oh, the outrage...
Alan Greenspan testified on Wednesday before the Committee on the Budget of the House. He addressed the fiscal health of the nation, pointing out what seems to be obvious, but what most of our politicians do not want to address. Greenspan expressed concern over the rising budget deficits, particularly in the face of the looming crises in social security (SS) and medicare when the baby boomers begin to retire (only 4 years away, incidentally). As possible solutions, he proposed extending the current tax cuts to continue economic growth, also noting that it is easy to start government programs and nearly impossible to shrink or end them. He then goes on to say that corrective measures will be needed in social programs. Whereas much of the press seemed to immediately quote Greenspan as advocating a reduction in SS benefits, they might have done a better read of the transcript. Greenspan is actually proposing to stabilize the ratio of retirement-to-working. Because people continue to live (but not work) longer, the expenses of SS continually rise relative to revenue of working years. This is in addition to the problem of a rather large generation coming through the ranks.
Unless we are going to restructure the SS system (for instance creating personal accounts), this seems like a reasonable idea. Yet Greenspan was immediately rebuked across the board, most notably by Bush, Kerry, and Edwards (it reminds me of when Dean mentioned raising the retirement age - a similar result). Edwards stated that "it is an outrage for him to suggest that we should extend George Bush's tax cuts on unearned wealth while cutting Social Security benefits that working people earn." I would counter that it is an outrage that none of our representatives seems to have the will or the foresight to begin addressing problems that may devastate this country economically. They all rebuke Greenspan's ideas, and yet none of them has offered a plan to fix the budget deficit and these looming fiscal disasters.
The only disappointment I had in Greenspan's testimony was the scant mention of defense spending. This is an enormous chunk of our GDP. The fact that it is so much greater than any other nation suggests to me that our priorities are not well placed. Instead of talking about limiting retirement benefits or other social programs, why is there rarely mention of limiting the bloated Pentagon budget?
Clearly, difficult choices need to be made. Is anybody out there willing to make them?
Unless we are going to restructure the SS system (for instance creating personal accounts), this seems like a reasonable idea. Yet Greenspan was immediately rebuked across the board, most notably by Bush, Kerry, and Edwards (it reminds me of when Dean mentioned raising the retirement age - a similar result). Edwards stated that "it is an outrage for him to suggest that we should extend George Bush's tax cuts on unearned wealth while cutting Social Security benefits that working people earn." I would counter that it is an outrage that none of our representatives seems to have the will or the foresight to begin addressing problems that may devastate this country economically. They all rebuke Greenspan's ideas, and yet none of them has offered a plan to fix the budget deficit and these looming fiscal disasters.
The only disappointment I had in Greenspan's testimony was the scant mention of defense spending. This is an enormous chunk of our GDP. The fact that it is so much greater than any other nation suggests to me that our priorities are not well placed. Instead of talking about limiting retirement benefits or other social programs, why is there rarely mention of limiting the bloated Pentagon budget?
Clearly, difficult choices need to be made. Is anybody out there willing to make them?
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Deceit On the Campaign Trail
Two recent Washington Post columns Robert J. Samuelson addressed points I raised in my presidential candidates tirade regarding the complete lack of honesty in campaign discussions of budget policy and the economy.
Neither Bush nor Kerry intend to balance the budget by 2009, and both of their plans for not balancing the budget lack any grounding in reality. Take Kerry's plan as an example. He plans to undo the part of Bush's tax cut that applies to the highest tax bracket. As Samuelson points out, the CBO believes the tax cutting only accounts for about 30% of our current deficit. Ok, so let's say he's fixed 20% of the deficit, how about the other 80%? Kerry proposes massive increases in spending for college education, homeland security, $50b to provide economic assistance to states, a bank-breaking health care policy, all topped off by additional middle class tax cuts. This is supposed to reduce the deficit by 50%? Bullshit. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Bush's plan is no better. I believe this is one of the most critical issues in the election, and not only does neither candidate plan to fix it, neither of them can even be bothered to tell the truth about it.
Meanwhile I continue to believe that the state of the economy will be one of the most critical deciding factors in the November election, despite the fact that, as Samuelson rightly notes, there's really not much connection between the president and the economy. So here is a non-issue that due to the amount of bogus posturing and proclaiming coming from each camp (and the press) becomes a critical deciding issue.
I commend Samuelson for at least attempting to hold these guys to account. Too bad the rest of his colleagues are too busy worrying about the horse-race to bother worrying about the issues. If they did, who knows, we might even have a serious discussion of substantive issues during a presidential election. Imagine that..
Neither Bush nor Kerry intend to balance the budget by 2009, and both of their plans for not balancing the budget lack any grounding in reality. Take Kerry's plan as an example. He plans to undo the part of Bush's tax cut that applies to the highest tax bracket. As Samuelson points out, the CBO believes the tax cutting only accounts for about 30% of our current deficit. Ok, so let's say he's fixed 20% of the deficit, how about the other 80%? Kerry proposes massive increases in spending for college education, homeland security, $50b to provide economic assistance to states, a bank-breaking health care policy, all topped off by additional middle class tax cuts. This is supposed to reduce the deficit by 50%? Bullshit. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Bush's plan is no better. I believe this is one of the most critical issues in the election, and not only does neither candidate plan to fix it, neither of them can even be bothered to tell the truth about it.
Meanwhile I continue to believe that the state of the economy will be one of the most critical deciding factors in the November election, despite the fact that, as Samuelson rightly notes, there's really not much connection between the president and the economy. So here is a non-issue that due to the amount of bogus posturing and proclaiming coming from each camp (and the press) becomes a critical deciding issue.
I commend Samuelson for at least attempting to hold these guys to account. Too bad the rest of his colleagues are too busy worrying about the horse-race to bother worrying about the issues. If they did, who knows, we might even have a serious discussion of substantive issues during a presidential election. Imagine that..
Earning His "Vile Henchman" Boy Scout Badge
Wired News interviewed Georgetown law professor, assistant US attorney general, and co-author of the USA Patriot Act, Viet Dinh. The interview is a disappointingly softball affair. The questions consist of "some people think maybe this isn't the best" type critiques which Dinh happily glosses over. Maybe the author should have spent a few minutes at the ACLU's Patriot Act page to learn the relevant issues. Fortunately there is a slashdot discussion of the interview that provides some balance (in the form of about 600 posts ruthlessly bashing Dinh and his law).
Monday, February 23, 2004
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Re: Here Comes Nader
Ryan is correct--I misread the Reuters article (maybe I was influenced in part by this Fox News story). The New York Times today in this article quoted a spokesperson for Nader as saying that "this is pure speculation." I guess we all must and see.
As for Ryan's means-ends argument, I agree that it is far better for deliberative democracy to have more issues on the table and that is the reason I would encourage Nader to jump in. When it comes to voting time, where there are more than two choices the decision comes down to whether you want to vote for the best candidate or ensure that the worst candidate doesn't win. We should never have to make that choice, and so long as voters make the latter choice things will never change. But this time around I care more about getting President Bush out than promoting institutional change. In my humble opinion, another Bush term would do more long-term damage than would propping up the horribly botched electoral system for another four years. But all the same I believe Nader's presence in the next several months will be for the good. Someone must push the debate forward or Edwards and Kerry will drift more and more toward the middle. And while that may make good strategic sense, it does not bode well for progress.
As for Ryan's means-ends argument, I agree that it is far better for deliberative democracy to have more issues on the table and that is the reason I would encourage Nader to jump in. When it comes to voting time, where there are more than two choices the decision comes down to whether you want to vote for the best candidate or ensure that the worst candidate doesn't win. We should never have to make that choice, and so long as voters make the latter choice things will never change. But this time around I care more about getting President Bush out than promoting institutional change. In my humble opinion, another Bush term would do more long-term damage than would propping up the horribly botched electoral system for another four years. But all the same I believe Nader's presence in the next several months will be for the good. Someone must push the debate forward or Edwards and Kerry will drift more and more toward the middle. And while that may make good strategic sense, it does not bode well for progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
