And The Relative Specialty* of President Obama!
A. The General Theory: Attack what works!
B. The Theory of Special Relativity: Congress makes the laws!
The General Theory of Karl Rove: *Attack what works*. The Theory of Special Relativity of Obama. "Congress makes the laws, and he can't rein(or reign o'r) cats or dogs.* (partial translation: laws are a product of committee think) It is not surprising that it is difficulty reading and two courts can read it different.
...
And congress can Bane or...
---
Focus/Highlight: 2nd Video w/ Chris Hayes
BTW: don't count on my physics but who knows?
*[Rough draft in progress.]
Q ED
6th edgy?
7-30-14
PARDON MY SPACIOUSNESS: WINDOWS/EXPLORER COMPATABILITY ANOMALY
Maslow's[?] woah.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query rein. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query rein. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Air We Breathe...
The Information Horizon: OK, I mixed metaphors which I will let others complete, as I thought of the air waves and the information highway and the rising tide and being in the same boat. Well, maybe I took it one thread too far.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TO THE FCC and CONGRESS
Take Action! [**] <<== CLICK HERE And for more action ==>HERE
The FCC must not further deregulate the air waves. It is bad enough that the public airwaves are controlled by conglomerations already, that should be remedied. But to allow the expanded ownership by the print media should be prohibited. The whole purpose of the FCC should be to regulate something that is supposed to be free, but is limited. It turns out to be quite profitable, and the print media is not on hard times, except for the competition which arises from the same conglomeration. If these cannot be regulated to be serving the public good, then they should be making a profit for the public good.
This is not just an economic issue, it is a power issue. You will use yours for good, or you will use it for power and profit. If it is the latter, you should have neither.
I was not going to make a major production out of this, and I suppose I could have included of few statistics rather than just seemingly pull this out of the air waves, but here is an example I stumbled upon today. In doing a background check (google) on Joseph Stiglitz, "Making Globalization Work",
I came across a review in my local paper by Bruce Ramsey and embedded in that piece is the following:
While this may seem "fair and balanced" [*], or at least I feel that Ramsey believes he is being so, his conclusion is slanted to the freeing up of the luck, after admitting it is a combination of the two. You, ladies and gentlemen, should be working hard to make sure not only hard work is rewarded, but that you are not making it easier for those getting something for free (the air waves) while making it harder work and harder luck to compete.
[Update: A New Optimism - -A New Pre-emption - - An old Foundation]
[Update: Pre-Empting Crimes ]
[*] And not in the FOX way, but here is a fairly powerful and balanced take on the media and democracy: The Proper Imbalance ]
[**] SEE COMMENT regarding Senate Bill 2332, the "The Media Ownership Act of 2007.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TO THE FCC and CONGRESS
Take Action! [**] <<== CLICK HERE And for more action ==>HERE
The FCC must not further deregulate the air waves. It is bad enough that the public airwaves are controlled by conglomerations already, that should be remedied. But to allow the expanded ownership by the print media should be prohibited. The whole purpose of the FCC should be to regulate something that is supposed to be free, but is limited. It turns out to be quite profitable, and the print media is not on hard times, except for the competition which arises from the same conglomeration. If these cannot be regulated to be serving the public good, then they should be making a profit for the public good.
This is not just an economic issue, it is a power issue. You will use yours for good, or you will use it for power and profit. If it is the latter, you should have neither.
I was not going to make a major production out of this, and I suppose I could have included of few statistics rather than just seemingly pull this out of the air waves, but here is an example I stumbled upon today. In doing a background check (google) on Joseph Stiglitz, "Making Globalization Work",
I came across a review in my local paper by Bruce Ramsey and embedded in that piece is the following:
His book is flavored with a deep distaste for inequality. "Those who are concerned about inequality see much of it arising out of luck -- the luck of being born with good genes or rich parents or the luck of buying a piece of real estate at the right time," he writes. "Those who are less concerned feel that wealth is a reward for hard work."
It is, of course, a combination of the two. Free-traders would give freer rein to luck in order to maximize overall economic gain. Stiglitz would not.
While this may seem "fair and balanced" [*], or at least I feel that Ramsey believes he is being so, his conclusion is slanted to the freeing up of the luck, after admitting it is a combination of the two. You, ladies and gentlemen, should be working hard to make sure not only hard work is rewarded, but that you are not making it easier for those getting something for free (the air waves) while making it harder work and harder luck to compete.
[Update: A New Optimism - -A New Pre-emption - - An old Foundation]
[Update: Pre-Empting Crimes ]
[*] And not in the FOX way, but here is a fairly powerful and balanced take on the media and democracy: The Proper Imbalance ]
[**] SEE COMMENT regarding Senate Bill 2332, the "The Media Ownership Act of 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)