http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/us/politics/in-turn-to-politics-facebook-starts-a-pac.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Facebook, the social networking site, is more politically involved that its average user base.
The company, which began its lobbying in 2007, represents the PAC as a method of letting their employees views be heard in Washington. But the thing is, the privacy issues surrounding social networking sites leave gray areas yet to be cleared up by legislation. The company's presence in D.C. could lead to even more abuse of users' information.
Google has a PAC too, it's not as new, it started in 2006, but it has already spent over $345,000 on congressional campaigns. The involvement of Google also calls into question the regulation of monopolies.
"Last week, Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google’s board and the former chief executive, testified before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue of competition.
Mr. Schmidt told the committee that Google is in “the area” of a monopoly, but is engaged in fierce competition with other companies. " Seems to be a contradictory statement.
Corporations shouldn't have any influence on politics. They are not human beings and therefore cannot be citizens and therefore cannot have freedom of speech, or any of the other rights held by American citizens.
Friday, September 30, 2011
A Good Old Bet
My Parents (yes, capitalized, they're very important people) have just made a wager. A $100 wager.
This is a result of my bringing up at the dinner table the fact that the tax rate in the forties and fifties the top marginal tax rate was over 90%, specifically under Eisenhower.
My mom is of the opinion that no one ever actually payed that much. My dad is banking on the fact that what they did pay after deductions was at least higher than what he payed before he was retired.
Apparently I'm "the consultant" who is "going to do the research" and be "payed" 10%. Ten dollars is not much of an incentive to hunt through the internet for very specific information.
Oh and I get "fired" if I can't do it in an hour.
But my dad will win anyway.
This is a result of my bringing up at the dinner table the fact that the tax rate in the forties and fifties the top marginal tax rate was over 90%, specifically under Eisenhower.
My mom is of the opinion that no one ever actually payed that much. My dad is banking on the fact that what they did pay after deductions was at least higher than what he payed before he was retired.
Apparently I'm "the consultant" who is "going to do the research" and be "payed" 10%. Ten dollars is not much of an incentive to hunt through the internet for very specific information.
Oh and I get "fired" if I can't do it in an hour.
But my dad will win anyway.
What am I?
Three political ideology quizzes later and the internet tells me exactly what I already know. I'm a "post-modern", not a word I've ever heard before, but a rose by any other name and all that. Basically it means I'm a centrist, maybe a little more liberal than conservative.
But that is an overarching view. When you get down to it, I'm a "filthy liberal" when it comes to social issues and "I don't really know what's going on" for everything else.
Because, let's face it, I am not qualified to be deciding who to tax and how to spend it. I lean towards the "tax the bejeezus out of the rich" idea, but I don't pay taxes. I also don't have a job (yet - hopefully this is a temporary situation, but I kind of missed the window to exploit the vacated positions when the college kids went back to school) so I don't pay social security. But I hope somebody fixes that particular program; people who have been paying into it should not have to treat it like a risky stock.
My point is, though, that I am not familiar enough with that whole system to be making judgments about how the talking heads go about fixing it. Let's be honest, a candidate can bark up a storm but if he ain't got teeth, then the bite is going to be worthless.
So the moderate views of fiscal matters is a default. We'll see how that changes as I am educated.
More importantly:
I don't like Virginia. They are one of the laxest states on gun control. They are one of the strictest states on allowing abortion. They are one of the many states that has not legalized gay marriage.
These are the things that are important to me. Money is transitory and therefore not important. But marrying the person you love is. Getting gunned in your university by someone with mental problems is. And neither is transitory.
Abortion falls into another category where morals and gray areas and religion rule the policy making. I am pro choice for many reasons. Very, very many reasons.
The book "Freakonomics" also posits the theory that the Roe v. Wade decision lead to a drop in crime rate twenty years later. This may or may not be a cause and effect relationship, but it is suggestive of inadequacies in the foster care system.
Michele Bachman has had 23 foster kids.
Rick Perry is proud of executing 234 Americans. How many came from underprivileged homes?
3. It costs $11,000 per year to raise a kid. Who's going to pay for that? Not the legislator deciding you must keep your baby, that'd be you. The person who maybe made one mistake. The person who maybe thought that one form of protection was plenty. Oh, and it's more if you want to send your kid to college.
Anything else is superfluous. I don't think the life of a non existent person should take precedence over someone two decades in the making.
I don't know this is what you wanted, Stroud, but shouting this out to the vast wasteland of the internet was very satisfying.
But that is an overarching view. When you get down to it, I'm a "filthy liberal" when it comes to social issues and "I don't really know what's going on" for everything else.
Because, let's face it, I am not qualified to be deciding who to tax and how to spend it. I lean towards the "tax the bejeezus out of the rich" idea, but I don't pay taxes. I also don't have a job (yet - hopefully this is a temporary situation, but I kind of missed the window to exploit the vacated positions when the college kids went back to school) so I don't pay social security. But I hope somebody fixes that particular program; people who have been paying into it should not have to treat it like a risky stock.
My point is, though, that I am not familiar enough with that whole system to be making judgments about how the talking heads go about fixing it. Let's be honest, a candidate can bark up a storm but if he ain't got teeth, then the bite is going to be worthless.
So the moderate views of fiscal matters is a default. We'll see how that changes as I am educated.
More importantly:
I don't like Virginia. They are one of the laxest states on gun control. They are one of the strictest states on allowing abortion. They are one of the many states that has not legalized gay marriage.
These are the things that are important to me. Money is transitory and therefore not important. But marrying the person you love is. Getting gunned in your university by someone with mental problems is. And neither is transitory.
Abortion falls into another category where morals and gray areas and religion rule the policy making. I am pro choice for many reasons. Very, very many reasons.
- When the health of the mother is at risk. It is self explanatory. In my mind, that extends to covering teen moms (but not the ones who are on sixteen and pregnant and darn proud of it). Teenagers are technically still children. We can't drink, we can't smoke, we can't drive for most of those years, we can't go see R rated movies, we can't go get our own ears pierced. Since when are we qualified to be growing babies, let alone raising them? The absolute most important growth period of a child is the first month of pregnancy. Kids do not eat healthily enough to support this growth (I won't even get into how drugs effect unborn babies). Kids can't mentally handle becoming a mother or a father nor can they really do what is right for the baby. So, in the end, it would be protecting the baby.
- Children of teen mothers often end up being adopted. Or not being adopted and put into the foster care system. Statistics show it is not the best environment.
- 54 % earn a high school diploma
- 2% earn a Bachelor’s degree or higher
- 84% become parents too soon, exposing their children to a repeated cycle of neglect and abuse
- 51% are unemployed
- 30% have no health insurance
- 25% experience homelessness
- 30% receive public assistance
The book "Freakonomics" also posits the theory that the Roe v. Wade decision lead to a drop in crime rate twenty years later. This may or may not be a cause and effect relationship, but it is suggestive of inadequacies in the foster care system.
Michele Bachman has had 23 foster kids.
Rick Perry is proud of executing 234 Americans. How many came from underprivileged homes?
3. It costs $11,000 per year to raise a kid. Who's going to pay for that? Not the legislator deciding you must keep your baby, that'd be you. The person who maybe made one mistake. The person who maybe thought that one form of protection was plenty. Oh, and it's more if you want to send your kid to college.
Anything else is superfluous. I don't think the life of a non existent person should take precedence over someone two decades in the making.
I don't know this is what you wanted, Stroud, but shouting this out to the vast wasteland of the internet was very satisfying.
Monday, September 26, 2011
I heart Michelle Bachman
When I look at Michele Bachman, it makes me feel better about myself.
But not very hopeful for the future of American politics.
Ignorance, when applied with the right mixture of republican ideals and good looks, and outrageous, attention grabbing statements, can take you a long way. This applies to all candidates. So it's all good. Even if you have to take everything back later, because you realized Social Security is not actually a ponzi scheme.
But not very hopeful for the future of American politics.
Ignorance, when applied with the right mixture of republican ideals and good looks, and outrageous, attention grabbing statements, can take you a long way. This applies to all candidates. So it's all good. Even if you have to take everything back later, because you realized Social Security is not actually a ponzi scheme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)