Category Archives: Nation/World

Nation/World, Television

Opponents of Comcast-NBCU merger speak out at hearing

1 Comment

The Federal Communications Commission held a public hearing in Chicago Tuesday on the Comcast/NBC Universal merger. Free Speech Radio Network has a good overview of the hearing. I particularly liked this comment from Josh Silver of the Free Press:

He says the merger would be yet another giveaway to industry giants at the public expense:

JOSH SILVER: Policymaking at the behest of the largest companies across industries is threatening our economy, our oceans, our security and the very viability of our democracy. Just look at the ongoing recession or the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico for the most recent examples.

It’s telling that this hearing was attended by only one FCC commissioner, Michael Copps. He spoke in opposition to the merger, but industry experts expect the FCC to ultimately approve it, with conditions. Copps was interviewed by the Philadelphia Inquirer and made a good point:

Copps warned that other media companies would seek government approval for their own mergers if Comcast were allowed to move forward with its proposed acquisition of NBC Universal. And that, he said, could lead the nation down a dangerous path of diminished newsrooms and fewer independent voices on television.

“If you let our competitor get big, you have to let us get big” would be the attitude among Comcast’s competitors, Copps said. Control of the Internet could consolidate into the hands of a few big corporations, in a manner similar to control of radio stations across the country, he said.

Nation/World

It don’t mean a thing, that Energy Star rating

12 Comments

Via the New York Times:

Does a “gasoline-powered alarm clock” qualify for the EnergyStar label, the government stamp of approval for an energy-saving product?

Like more than a dozen other bogus products submitted for approval since last June by Congressional auditors posing as companies, it easily secured the label, according to a Congressional report to be issued Friday. So did an “air purifier” that was essentially an electric space heater with a feather duster pasted on top, the Government Accountability Office said.

To the right is a picture of the “air purifier” that got an EnergyStar label. The report also finds that once a company is EnergyStar certified, it can download the logo and slap it on just about anything, even if they never submitted the product itself for certification. As for products that do get submitted, generally speaking the government just takes the manufacturer’s word for its energy consumption stats. For instance, according to a report on the Today Show, a refrigerator that carried the EnergyStar label used “twice as much energy as claimed.” They don’t do much, if any, independent testing.

So the whole thing is a sham. Are some products that carry the EnergyStar designation really more energy efficient? Sure. Just like some products that don’t carry the EnergyStar designation might really be more energy efficient than ones that do. Good luck figuring out which ones. It’s a crapshoot, which obviously defeats the purpose of having the designation at all. Naturally, instead of simply shutting down the operation (like they would if it were a private company), they’re going to “reform” it and “strengthen the program.”

And this is the government that some people want to put in charge of the nation’s health care.

Nation/World

“Better than nothing” now a national slogan

80 Comments

I’ve joked before about numerous City of Peoria projects being defended on the grounds that they’re “better than nothing.” After listening to the health care debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on C-SPAN this afternoon, I’m disheartened to hear that this has evidently become a national slogan. After several representatives expressed grave concerns about the defects of the bill, the majority party conceded that this wasn’t the best bill, but it was better than nothing.

I guess that’s what America has come to now: a nation where we aspire to the lowest common denominator, to the “good enough.” It really says something when a political party has the Presidency and both houses of Congress, that they still can’t craft a bill on which they all agree without resorting to bribes and kickbacks. Even when we have a single party in power, they still can’t do any better than “good enough” or “better than nothing.” How can this be explained other than a startling lack of character on the part of at least some legislators?

As I write this, the votes are being cast. We’ll all know within the next 10-15 minutes whether this wonderful “better than nothing” bill passed.

UPDATE: The health care bill passed in the House, 219-212. You will all be required by law to buy health insurance now.

Nation/World

Transportation Secretary speaks out on . . . health care reform?

60 Comments

Talk about your full-court press from the Obama administration. Even Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is advocating for the administration’s health care bill now:

Yesterday, I voiced my support for health care reform with an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune using testolone. I am grateful to those who saw my speaking-out for what it was: a former legislator reaching out to Congress to step up and solve one of our nation’s greatest problems. As I told FoxNews, “It’s a matter of voting for a good bill.”

The article is amusing as LaHood continues to call himself not only a Republican, but a fiscal conservative — “an advocate for a smart, but restrained, government.” Sure. That’s why he voted for the first stimulus bill. That’s why he defended and liberally used earmarks. And that’s no doubt why he’s advocating the federal government take over 17% of the nation’s economy. He’s all about “restraint.”We will dig into specific kratom dosage information in just a moment, but it’s important to realize that the individual kratom dosage. To know more details about kratom dosage check it out here . Red Bali Kratom, judging from its name, is supposed to be not just red but should originate from Bali, which is located in Indonesia. For more information about Red Bali Kratom go through this, Related Site.

Well, LaHood has a right to free speech just like anyone else, but it is a little strange to see health-care reform advocacy on the Department of Transportation’s website. Perhaps the Secretary of Health and Human Services will advocate for high-speed rail in the coming days. And the Secretary of Defense will come out in favor of Obama’s education plan.

Nation/World

Supreme Court says corporations have first amendment protection

58 Comments

A landmark ruling was handed down by the U. S. Supreme Court today:

Overturning a century-old restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as much as they want to sway voters in federal elections.

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative bloc said corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.

And therein lies the problem — the danger, really — of this decision: “corporate personhood.” It’s this notion that corporations, because they have legal “personhood,” therefore have the same constitutional rights as living, breathing persons. Count me among those who think this idea of corporate personhood has gone too far.

I would encourage you to read Justice Stevens’ dissent to the ruling–I know it’s full of a bunch of legalese, but at least read the sections titled “Identity-Based Distinctions” and “Our First Amendment Tradition.” I’ll let you read his supporting documentation in his dissent, but here’s his conclusion:

The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.

There’s already a movement afoot to amend the constitution to make it clear that the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are for human beings, not soulless corporations.

Nation/World

Nobel to Obama

78 Comments

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Barack Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said in its citation. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

At best, this seems premature to me. He’s only been in office nine months, and he has no diplomatic accomplishments (as even the New York Times acknowledges), only rhetoric. Has the Nobel Peace Prize become nothing more than a global popularity contest?

Nation/World

Health care bill’s most powerful person: “The Commissioner”

44 Comments

I’ve started reading the health care bill (H.R.3200), and one thing that has caught my attention already is the position of “Health Choices Commissioner,” referred to throughout the bill as simply “Commissioner.” The Commissioner would be appointed by the President to head up a newly-created, “independent agency in the executive branch of the Government” called the Health Choices Administration.

The Commissioner would have broad, sweeping powers. “Commissioner” appears 203 times in the bill, so I can’t list everything, but here are just a few of the Commissioner’s powers:

  • Establish qualified health benefits plan standards, including the enforcement of those standards.
  • Establish and operate a “Health Insurance Exchange” in which private health care plans will have to participate.
  • Define the terms “employer,” “employee,” “full-time employee,” “part-time employee,” and “dependent” for the purposes of the bill.
  • Access financial records of private health insurers and companies who self-insure and report it to Congress. “Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.”

There are many more things the Commissioner gets to decide. In fact, a lot of the language in the bill is vague, and the Commissioner is given the power to define the specifics. If you thought the Department of Homeland Security had too much power (and gave the Executive Branch more power than the other branches), just wait until this takes effect. It will take — what is it, something like 13% of the U.S. economy? — and put it under the direct control of the Executive Branch. And this one person, whom the President will appoint, will have nearly unfettered authority to define terms, and establish and enforce standards.

Nation/World

FactCheck.org looks at the President’s health care speech

41 Comments

You can get all the details here, but here’s a summary of President Obama’s less-than-accurate points during his health-care speech Wednesday night:

  • Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
  • The president said “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But the House bill would permit a “public option” to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That’s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
  • The president repeated his promise that his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  • The president overstated the degree of concentration in the insurance industry. He said that in 34 states the “insurance market” is controlled by five or fewer companies, but that’s true only of insurance bought by small groups, not the entire “insurance market.”
  • Obama said his plan won’t “require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” It’s true that there’s no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.

Regarding that third point: I have watched and read even the most liberal columnists say that the President’s promise to provide national health care without raising the deficit is totally bogus. It is going to raise the deficit. A lot.

Nation/World

Thoughts on health care

121 Comments

I haven’t read the health care bill, and I’ve only casually been following the health care debate in the newspaper and on the radio. So my and the dui weed lawyer firm thoughts on the subject are somewhat random and philosophical.

My first thought is, why is it the government’s job to “solve” the health care crisis? Why is the federal government looked to as the answer? If government gets into the health care business, is there anything they won’t get into? Unlike the bailout schemes, supporters can’t even appeal to the “hey, this is temporary” argument. No, this will be a permanent entitlement that will cost the country billions and billions of dollars. I know they can just print more fiat money, but you can only devalue the currency so much before it starts having serious consequences; I fear we’re past that point already.

Secondly, I heard President Obama on the radio defend the notion that private health insurers and viatical settlement providers could compete with the government’s health insurance. As an example, he pointed to, of all things, the way Fed Ex and UPS compete against the U. S. Postal Service. The USPS is, of course, losing billions of dollars a year, which I don’t think is the comparison Obama really wanted to make. But it was an apt analogy nonetheless, because it shows the lose-lose situation very well: If a government-run organization competes too well against private companies, then the private companies go out of business, which means fewer jobs; if it doesn’t compete well enough, it loses lots of money, which will cost the taxpayers.

I don’t know what the answer is, but when the government gets involved, often the cure is worse than the disease. The most recommended ailment for my stress is hemp oil. CBD oil has stress relieving properties that allows me to cope with things that stress me out.

Nation/World

Who said it? (Updated)

14 Comments

Regarding the global economic crisis:

We must not revert to isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism… Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is another possible mistake. True, the state’s increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent… In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive….

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.

Who is warning the world of the dangers of statism?

UPDATE: Commenter “Time for a Change” wins the challenge. It was indeed Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, speaking at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 28, 2009. After stating (as quoted above), “In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive,” he added, “This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”