Court tosses state ban on felons' body armor Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/19/BASN1B6DOO.DTL#ixzz0aCmMUN60

TOday, a California ban on bulletproof vests was repealed. It was a decade old ban that banned possession of body armor by anyone with a violent felony conviction. This ban was ruled unconstitutional because people wouldn't be able to tell the prohibited vests from teh non-prohibited vests. The ban was passed to protect police officers. The ban could send a person to up to three years in prison for wearing an illegal vest or body armour.

There is another law linked to this that can put someone up to five years in prison for committing a crime while wearing body armor.

What do you guys think about this?

U.S. repeals funding ban for needle exchanges

On friday, the a ban on needle exchanges was repealed. This is definitely a victory for AIDS for prevention. The Ban was a 21 year old ban, which is very long considering the effect AIDS has. The ban was a small part of a larger bill that involved $163.5 billion. Now disease-prevention can use federal funds to get clean needles.

This is great, because now that there are more needles, there will be less disease, especially AIDS spreading around. "Hundreds of thousands of Americans will not get HIV/AIDS or hepatitis C, thanks to Congress repealing the federal syringe funding ban,"

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/18/MNKM1B5S7L.DTL#ixzz0aCkrPOOc

New grants for needle exchange programs will now exact thanks to this new law.

The ban that was just uplifted was enacted in 1988. The supporters of the ban stated taht if the ban was uplifted, there would be more illegal and dangerous drug use.

"Bush's surgeon general, David Satcher, said scientists had found that needle-exchange programs were effective and did not encourage drug use. A 1997 study said HIV infection rates had dropped by 5.8 percent in 29 cities around the world with the programs, and increased by 5.9 percent in 52 cities without them."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/18/MNKM1B5S7L.DTL#ixzz0aClh6YT4

YAY!!! This is great and i support this. I certainly do not want a sex disease or another disease. More needles will help protect more and more patients.

Fake blood-clotting products to heal wounded soldiers

"Scientists say they have made a synthetic blood-clotting agent that could help wounded troops and patients."

Scientists have discovered a way to create fake platelets which can reduce bleeding in half and last longer than real platelets from donors. This new discovery could be available very soon.

The creators of this interesting now discovery are James Bertram and Erin Lavik. Using biodegradable polymers, they were able to design them so they link up with patients' own platelets. They hope this sort of thing can help the soldiers who get injured during war.

These new fake platelets have many advantages. First, they do not create the complications taht come with donated platelets, like rejection. Second, they also should have a longer shelf life than the donated ones, which is only five days.

Hopefully they do get this up and running soon. This could help injured soldiers recover and return home safely.

Death Sentences Dropped, but Executions Rose in ’09

The death penalty is a very important issue today.

In the New York times, an article stated that although there has been a drop in death sentences, the number of executions rose.

Over the past seven years, the number of death sentences has been steadily decreasing. Today, the number of death sentences is one third of what it was in 1994. Basically, the number has been going down for about a decade.

However, the number of people being execute has been slowly growing. In 2009, 59 people have been executed, which is ten more then last year.

World's most random post

Warning: The following is the world's most random post. Please do not read if you have something against randomness.

Mariusz Pudzianowski, (the only man to ever win the world's strongest man competition 5 times) just recently won his mma (mixed martial arts) debut.

Yeah... sorry, I was bored.

DNA clears Fla. man after 35 years behind bars

In 1974, James Bain was sentenced to life in prison for kidnapping and raping a 9-year-old-boy. Now, 35 years later, he has been released thanks to DNA testing which has proven him innocent. Bain spent more time in prison than any of the other 246 people found innocent by DNA testing. The longest-serving before Bain was James Lee, who was released last year after spending more than 27 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. The 54-year-old Bain used a cell phone for the first time and called his elderly mother to tell her that he had been released. He stated that he was not angry, and that he was looking forward to some fried turkey and Dr. Pepper. The courage of this man is unfathomable. I really hope that the rest of this man's destroyed life is full of joy.

House approves $154 Billion jobs package

In response to my earlier post, the House has a recently approved a bill extending deadline for unemployment benefits. More importantly, the House narrowly approved the $154 billion job creation package. Before the lawmakers leave for winter recess, Congress has urgently been trying to get this extension passed. Right now, the deadline is December 31, and if the deadline extension is accepted, then it would be extended to February. Costing about 13 billion dollars, this needs to get accepted and become reality.
There could be bad conseuqences if Congress is unable this extension up. About 1 million unemployed could lose there benefits in January. Many of these people rely on benefits because they can not afford things on their own.

THe job creation bill that was narrowly approved with a 217 to 212 vote.
This bill is overwhelming important because it helps create jobs that many Americans need. 1 in 10 americans are unemployed, and these new jobs could give them more opportunities.

Poll: Obama approval dips below 50 percent

For the first time ever, Obama's overall job approval rating is below 50%. It is currently 47%, according to this article on msnbc.com. Also, for the first time since September 2007, 45% see the Democratic party in a "negative light". 55% believe that the country is on the wrong track. This is the highest in the Obama presidency.

Personally, I believe that these feelings are only natural during times of economic crisis. But hey, what do you folks think?

Raising the debt limit by a 'little'

There was talk by lawmakers to up the legal limit on the National Treasury Debt by 1.9 trillion dollars. This was going on last week, but now there is a new plan under consideration by lawmakers. This considers raising the limit by just a "coupled hundred billion dollars", which is enough for two months, the house majority leader stated.

The present debt ceiling is at 12.104 trillion dollars, which is an increase from Monday, in which it was 12.071 dollars.

Lawmakers need this change because if it is not changed, the nation will likely default the debt. This default could lead to a devalue of of US bonds and harm its reputation around the world with creditors. Lawmakers do not want this to happen at all costs.

However, the major opponents to this change are fiscal hawks. Lawmakers need these hawks' votes in order for this to pass.

House to vote on $167 billion in jobs measures

On Wednesday of this week, the house plans to have a vote. If the vote succeeds, then there would be $167 billion dollars worth of measures for jobs. This would help the unemployment woes that the US has experienced during the recession. These new measures would help create more jobs and create a "safety net".

These new measures would help people that were most negatively affected by the recesssion. It would extend unemployment benefits and help provide more food stamps for the less fortunate.

The vote taht is being held on Wednesday will be a part of the defense spending portion of this bill. Many members of Congress, like the Senate and other lawmakers, have been pushing for extensions on unemployment benefits.

In addition, the house plans to have a vote to decide the fate of a 154 billion dollar job creation package. "The bill would take $75 billion from the remaining Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money to fund $48 billion in infrastructure spending, as well as send about $27 billion to the states to prevent the layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters, according to sources within the House Democratic leadership. Some funds would also go to providing credit for small businesses."

This will pump money to highways and mass transit, and clean water projects and also for repairing and building of homes. The rest of the money would fund schools.

I think this is great that they are considering this. Much needed jobs will help desparate people who are in desperate times. Everyone should be given an opportunity to succeed.

Many in Illinois town hope locating Gitmo detainees there helps business

Once again, the title says it all. Obama has set the Guantanamo Bay-closing deadline for January 2010. All those prisoners need to go somewhere. And it has been decided that as many as 100 Gitmo inmates could be transferred to a prison in Thompson, Illinois. The residents there are surprisingly happy because they believe that this transfer will bring some business to their town. "I'll have lots of guards coming by for their bait" said Todd Baker, who owns a "bait and tackle" shop.

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn are expected to meet with the White House to talk the whole thing over. Quinn said that this transfer could provide up to 2,000 jobs and $1 billion in federal money to the area!

What do you folks think about all of this?

22 million missing Bush White House e-mails found

Once again, the title says it all. Computer technicians have found 22 million missing White House e-mails from the presidency of Mr. Bush. For more info. go to

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_white_house_e_mail;_ylt=As8tS0N1hjK8fsrq7dueqxSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrYTNrczUxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjE0L3VzX3doaXRlX2hvdXNlX2VfbWFpbARjY29kZQNyYW5kb20EY3BvcwM0BHBvcwMxBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDMjJtaWxsaW9ubWlz

Obama urges banks to find ways to increase lending

The title says it all. Obama has challenged top bankers to find "every possible way" to increase lending. He says that it is the responsibility of the banks to do so after being rescued by taxpayers. He asked the banks to "take a third and fourth look" at their small-business lending.

Do you guys think that banks increasing their lending is a good idea?

A Modern Day Caveman

In Utah, a man lives in a cave where his diet consists of ants, lizards, and roadkill. Sometimes, he brews tea out of almond leaves. As for hygiene, he regularly bathes in a nearby creek. He has been living like this for three years.

His reasoning for this unusual state of living is that "when I lived with money, I was always lacking...Money represents things in the past (debt) and things in the future (credit), but money never represents what is present." He has stopped using money, and lives a content life.

Without the fear of being laid off, the anxieties of piling debt, and no mortgage to pay, you might call this man intelligent. Or you might call him crazy. Although I admire this man's determination and thought process, I doubt I would be able to live without a warm bed and the availability of hot showers. What do you think? Would you consider living in a cave to evade the crisis of the downsizing economy?

-Molly Cheng

Jail Attack frees "high risk" inmates in Philippines

Hurray, my first post. In Isabela City, Philippines, 70 heavily armed men broke into a jail, and freed 31 of its inmates. All of these inmates were being detained for being violent "Muslim guerrillas". Of these inmates, many were members of the Abu Sayyaf terrorist organization, a rather violent group with links to al-Qaida. Two of the escaped inmates were accused of beheading 10 marines in 2007.

But hey, I'm sure this was totally unexpected and a once-in-a-blue-moon kind of a thing. Right? Wrong! 3 Abu Sayyaf inmates also accused of beheading those 10 marines escaped in December of last year after overpowering their guards. At least 16 people, including 4 Abu Sayyaf members, escaped in 2007. And in the biggest jail break, 53 violent inmates escaped in 2004 after overpowering their guards using 100 machine guns! No. 50 machine guns!! No.
Try a smuggled pistol!!!

Maybe it's just my opinion, but if you are going to put a whole ton of mentally-deranged terrorists in one prison, at least make sure they can't overpower their guards with a pistol.
What do you folks think?

Sweeping bank reform clears House

First time I had actually seen anything about the bill. Basically,

"The bill, which passed 223-202, imposes more oversight and stronger capital cushions for the largest banks and Wall Street firms. It forces them to pay a total of as much as $150 billion into an emergency fund that could be tapped when a troubled company needs to be taken over and broken up."

And also according to Rep. Barney Frank,

"The bailouts of AIG and Bear Stearns would be not possible -- made illegal -- under this bill," Frank said. "If a company fails, it'll be put to death."

I'm glad they decided to do something to try to prevent another financial crisis. It would stop future bailouts of companies. I was actually surprised that I just learnt about this bill, I had not yet seen it before even though this bill has very significant changes that could prevent another financial crisis. The only questions are if the Senate would pass it and if the bill would end up being effective and properly enforced.

Map of New York City

The link above goes to a website that shows the income levels of citizens when you click on certain neighborhoods in New York City. (They should have one for California...) I just thought this was interesting!

-Molly Cheng

Mysterious Spiral of Light over Norway

So. Failed Russian missile test, or successful new fireworks design?

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009

Finally taking the time to try and change the rules of Wall Street, the House passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act yesterday with a 223-202 vote. No Republicans voted for the bill and 27 Democrats voted against it.

The bill as passed would create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, increase oversight of hedge funds and credit rating agencies, and impose regulations on the derivatives market. An amendment that passed 304-124 would create an exception from these derivative regulations for nonfinancial companies that use derivatives as a hedge against risk instead of as speculative investments; it would also exempt those businesses deemed too small to have an impact on the financial system. The existence of these exceptions run contrary to what President Obama had originally envisioned for regulations of the derivatives market. The bill also grants the FDIC the power to monitor the economy for systemic risk and the authority to manage a $150 billion fund to help take apart failed financial corporations. The bill would allow the GAO to audit monetary policy decisions made by the Federal Reserve. One amendment that failed to pass (241-188) would have allowed bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.

The bill will now head to the Senate, where it will undoubtedly be changed in committee and take its time going through the system. It is unexpected that a Senate version of the bill would be passed before next year. And of course, the longer it takes to pass the bill, the less the need for such a bill weighs on the public's mind. If companies lay low and do the intelligent thing, like Goldman-Sachs limiting executive compensation even though, having already paid back the TARP money, it is no longer subject to 'pay czar' Kenneth Feinberg's rules, public outrage will die down as the economy improves. And, once some heavy lobbying takes place, the final version presented to President Obama could be even weaker than what we currently have.

The Perks of Being An Entrepreneur

Because of the current state of our economy, some economists believe the best way to get out of the financial crisis is to create new goods and services, which promote growth. This can be seen in the form of entrepreneurs, people who take risks and have new ideas to create new products. The desired effect of this, the article declares, is more competition in the market and more jobs.

However, it seems like this is a solid long-term solution rather than an immediate solution. Data shows that since 2000, approximately 5 trillion dollars have been spent on research and higher education (crucial steps that lead to innovation), but employment has remained the same and even fallen in some areas.

Perhaps the key is to be patient (but still stay determined) in these trying times.

-Molly Cheng

A bill of attainder case!!!!

I am thunderstruck. Every time I write something on the board about Congress, up pops a current day example.

More legal analysis here. The post author, Eugene Volokh, is a principled, moderate libertarian, and his resume is just ridiculous. As in, he graduated from UCLA with a computer science degree at age 15. Now he teaches law there. The comment thread to this post should be highly intelligent.

Republican Flip-Flopping

Here's a picture, courtesy of Talking Points Memo, that illustrates how Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's staff is reacting to the Democrat's proposal to sell Medicare insurance to people that are 55-64 years of age.

20 years to cut carbon emissions

(Click title for full story)
According to UMKO if our emissions don't peak by 2020, keeping global temperature rise under 3.7F (2C), would be impossible. Although 2C (3.7F) might not seem like a lot at first glance it is actually quite significant and if the emissions are limited it may even get worse. Even if we have our emissions peak by 2018 and have them shrink by 4% a year, we would still only have "50% chance of keeping warming below 2C". To at least attempt this we would probably have to start making efforts now to reduce our emissions, if we wait too long the situation will probably only get worse.

Why do we have 2 parties?

Answer here.

War and Peace

Obama gave a speech in Oslo after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. In his speech, he acknowledges the controversy surrounding him being awarded the prize, and states that there are many people who are more deserving of the award than him. Obama then continued speaking on the relation between war and peace and how the world might head into a war-free era.

Speaking of his decision to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, Obama states that war and violence will not end in our lives, and "There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified." He states that he must live in the real world and face facts, the facts being that non-violence movements will not convince Al-Qaeda to stop their fighting and be friends with us. There exists in the world a strong necessity for military power, as only with power can certain actions be prevented. The presence of a strong American military force in the world can help maintain security and peace and even further the development of democracy in various places.

Obama acknowledged that war is unpopular and that the concept of war is incompatible with the concept of peace. However, he maintained that military might is sometimes necessary and can occasionally be the only solution to a problem. The use of that might, according to Obama, should be strictly controlled and only used in extreme cases. "All nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force." Citing his closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison and his prohibition of torture, Obama claims that even when fighting against those that do not follow the rules, countries like the United States must always abide by those rules, as not following those rules even in the hardest of times would be not honoring them and eventually losing sight of why those rules ever existed in the first place. Obama also claimed that in the large and complex world that now exists, "America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace." A nation cannot impose its own will on the world if the rest of the world does not agree. Consensus must be formed in order to maintain the appearance of an absence of selfish national interests and a disingenuous official agenda hiding some secret ulterior motive.

Obama, quoting the words of President Kennedy, said that a global peace and an end to the necessity of armed might would happen not through "a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." He believes that in order to begin that gradual evolution, those countries that flout the law must be dealt with in ways other than violence. Alternatives must be found that can create a significant impact on the misbehaving nation such that the government can feel it. Obama emphasized that sanctions taken against such countries must be strict and consistent, such that a nation will actually believe the global community would go through on its promise in a manner that is actually effective. For Obama, the way to achieve that is through a united front made up of all the world's nations. Citing the situation in places like Iran, North Korea, Darfur, the Congo, and Burma, Obama again said that the international community cannot be lenient; it must be willing to take harsh measures to prevent actions that endanger the global peace, and it must be willing to follow through on those measures and punish those nations if they do not hold up their end of the deal, so that those nations cannot "game the system." Obama stated that, if true peace were to ever exist, articles such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must truly be universal. There is no excuse to deny humans their rights, and that act of denying will only incite anger among the population that will erupt in violence. Obama further stated that negotiating peace cannot be about gain; the reasoning for doing so cannot be based in some attempt to accrue political capital. Often times, diplomacy with repressive regimes can be seem humiliating and worthless, but diplomacy is needed in order to help these regimes get onto the path of peace.

Obama defined peace as not being limited to a state of no war, stating that "true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want." He called for nations to not only try and promote human rights and decrease the amount of war, but also to help others in education, and economies, and come together on world-wide threats like climate change, so that the people will be able to have the freedom to enjoy their lives and not be denied any opportunities. He finishes by saying that, although humans are not perfect, we can still attempt to achieve ideals and make the world a better place. People must always hold tight to certain core, 'universal' values, or else peace is lost.

In his speech, Obama attempts to justify his choice in sending more troops to Afghanistan, claiming that it was a necessary step to maintaining peace. The rest of his speech  continues to expound that idea, laying the foundation for Obama to justify further unpopular military moves, such as not doing an instantaneous withdrawal from Afghanistan in July of 2011 like some are pretending he will. Other possible future actions that this speech attempted to justify include negotiations with unpopular governments like Iran and North Korea leading to either bending over backwards to get them to concede something meaningful or pushing the government into a corner where they might take radical actions in their desperation. Obama's speech also essentially paints America as a great, wonderful country; one that takes unpopular actions not because of flaws in reasoning and morals, but because of "enlightened self-interest." Obama seems to believe that the world will not achieve true peace until every country is just like America. I'm sure that'll go over well.

Text of the speech can be found here.

Bernanke Nomination Makes Colbert Report

Francis already posted on the nomination of Ben Bernanke to continue on as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, but since that has sunk down the page, let me recommend the first 10 minutes of Tuesday's Colbert Report. I have pitched this to my 1st period, and now I see today that one of the top economists in the country has posted it on his blog (without any comment or analysis, unfortunately). So it isn't just me! :)

Rules Committee Drama

The first part of this article illustrates the role of the House Rules Committee. Apparently there is some kind of override function under current House rules that might change the terms of debate that were presented by the Rules Committee. Sending a bill to the floor with no amendments allowed is relatively rare; clearly the bill's sponsors and the House Democratic leadership believe amendments could lead to poison pills or water down the effectiveness of the policy.

Legislators often have this dilemma: is it worth supporting a watered-down bill? If you do and it passes, you will not get another chance to pass legislation in that area for years, and if the watered down policy doesn't work, it could create arguments against further action. Sometimes you can't compromise on things (you can't "split the baby in half") because the efficacy of one part of the bill depends on another part that has been lost in the compromise. If you don't support a flawed bill, again, you may not get another chance, and if the compromise is better than nothing, you have made the perfect the enemy of the good. So it is with this financial regulation bill, and with health care as well.

This article also paints the moderate Democrats as corrupted by corporate lobbyists, which I have no way of evaluating even though I believe banking reform is sorely needed. I respect Barney Frank's intellect and therefore his policy analysis, but questions remain about the role of the Community Reinvestment Act in the subprime mortgage debacle, a law which he advocated for, so I'm open to believing that the new reforms need scrutiny and amendment. FDL is definitely on the left side of the Democratic spectrum.

Endangered Species: A Man's Best Friend?

It is always sad news to hear that a species has ended up on the endangered animals list, and it's even worse when an animal is about to be extinct. This has happened to the Christmas Island pipstrelle bat in Australia. There were only 20 of these bats sighted in February, and scientists are currently unsure if the animals are extinct or not.

To make efforts to ensure that extinction will not happen in the future, a professor at the University of New South Wales has suggested raising endangered species as pets. The idea is to raise animals and breed them until there are a sound amount of them to release them into the wild again. It's important to note, however, that not all species are fit to be raised domestically (for example, the koala).

I'm not sure how to feel about this proposal. Although this idea has reason, in the long run most animals need to live in a specific, fragile ecosystem that suits their needs, and science labs do not fulfill these requirements. What do you think?

-Molly Cheng

Obama’s Speech on Job Creation and Economic Growth

President Obama gave a speech Tuesday in the Brookings Institution on the state of the economy and how he plans to hasten job creation. Obama mentioned how the signs seemed to be pointing up for the economy and commended himself and his administration on a job well done He claims that by using some of the money to boost the economy, the economy will get back on its feet faster and the government will earn more tax revenues as well as decreasing costs on agencies such as unemployment insurance, effectively helping to decrease the deficit. Obama also noted the poor employment situation in the nation (10% unemployment in November). Obama outlined some proposals of his to spur job creation. However, the plans listed by Obama worked indirectly to create jobs, and did not have the complete focus on job creation that some might want. Obama said that he wanted to “generate the greatest number of jobs while generating the greatest value for our economy.” He does not want to create jobs for the sake of creating jobs itself; no one is going to be paid to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up again. Instead Obama will only create jobs that he feels would have a beneficial effect on the long-term economy.

Obama split his plan up into three parts: “small business, infrastructure, clean energy.” He stated that small businesses create 65% of the jobs in America, and thus his most direct efforts would be focused on these businesses. He proposed extending tax credits for businesses, having Geithner and the Treasury increase lending to small businesses through the TARP, and creating a tax incentive for small businesses to hire more employees. Amongst his jabs at the opposition party, he addressed the concerns over using TARP money that was intended to help pay back some of the public debt. Geithner has already extended TARP so that it will not end until October 3, 2010; the program was originally set to end this year.

Obama wanted to focus a great deal on improving the United States’ infrastructure. He mentioned how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had provided funding for many projects to create bridges and roads and rail lines, increase broadband availability, and repair water systems. While the funding from that act and those projects start ramping down, he wants another boost to these areas. He also wants to improve areas like the computers of public utility systems, saying that ‘modernizing the physical and virtual networks that connect us” will allow companies to be more efficient and save money, thus allowing the industries to be in better shape once the recession ends.

On clean energy, Obama believes that “the nation that leads in clean energy will be the nation that leads the world.” In order to help this industry, Obama is proposing a tax rebate to homeowners that retrofit their houses to be more energy-efficient. He also wants to expand sections of the ARRA that provide a boost for clean energy businesses in the form of increased lending, funding for R&D initiatives, and tax incentives to clean energy companies. He claims that these measures not only help create jobs in the industry, but it will also save families money as they will pay less money as things become more energy efficient. Obama also mentioned how the Recovery Act created a fund to raise overall student math and science literacy. 

Obama's proposed methods have angered members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Republicans are angry over the devotion of TARP funds to tasks other than what was originally intended, namely that of paying back some of the public debt. Some Democrats are also not going to like Obama's plan. In addition to concerns that it does not do enough to curb unemployment, Democratshad been working on a bill for job creation that would take its money from TARP. Obama's plan uses TARP funds for only activities such as loaning to small businesses; the deficit might not increase, but the money for some of Obama's other proposals will not come from leftover TARP funds. Some people are even wondering if Obama's plans will even be effective in creating jobs. A CEO of a company that produce wheelchairs states "You have to have a customer for that employee to serve -- so I'm confused how a tax credit would stimulate anything." His reasoning being that tax credits and more loans are all well and good, but if aggregate demand simply isn't high enough, there would be no reason to hire a new employee as that employee would have nothing to do and, tax credit or no tax credit, would only exist as an unnecessary cost that negatively affects the company's bottom line.

A video of the speech and a transcript.

Is a college degree worth less?

"Employers and career experts see a growing problem in American society — an abundance of college graduates, many burdened with tuition-loan debt, heading into the work world with a degree that doesn't mean much anymore."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1946088,00.html#ixzz0ZGNogXcL

Because of the growing number of college graduates, competition has increased and looking for a job with a degree isn't as easy as before. With record high unemployment rates for recent grads at 10.6% and with the cost of tuition rising by an average of 6.5% this fall, has the value of a college degree declined?

Though recent graduates do have a harder time getting a job than maybe 30 years ago, the economy does have a factor in this. The recent conditions of our economy have definitely made jobs more scarce and have reduced the amount of new job opening. But even if the economy was back to normal college grads will still have a harder time looking for jobs than about 30 years ago. I believe that even though it is definitely tougher now to find a job with degree, it is still worth a lot and will continue to be. Most well earning jobs would be very hard to get without at least a bachelor's degree or higher. As the economy improves, new job openings will likely open and reduce the rate of unemployment of recent grads. But a big difference is that you won't be able to rely simply on a degree to get a job as easily anymore, you will need to do or find something that distinguishes yourself.

The Need to Be Thin: A Lost Cause?

Despite America's efforts as a whole to lose weight, a third of our citizens are obese. This article states how exercising can actually cause people to gain weight because after a rigorous workout, individuals are more likely to be hungry and eat large amounts of food than if they had gotten no exercise and ate a normal amount of food.

Studies show that even though advertisements glamorize the idea that exercising will help weight loss, exercise researcher Eric Ravussin says that "In general, for weight loss, exercising is pretty useless".

So what does this all mean? People may exercise to burn off fat, but working out may make it more difficult to lose weight if a person exercises only to eat more food after due to fatigue.

-Molly Cheng

Clemency on Trial

Here's an interesting analysis of the politics of clemency/pardons, triggered by the recent story in which a prisoner released early by Mike Huckabee (former Republican Governor of Arkansas, who won some GOP primaries in 2008 and might run for President again) killed 4 cops, threatening Huckabee's career. This site and author have a libertarian point of view, fwiw. I like the distinction between pardons to correct mistakes and pardons to offer a chance for someone to be rehabilitated. This one crime will hurt many actually-rehabilitated convicts as Governors around the country will be less likely to take a chance on them. A pity.

Ben Bernanke Before Senate Committee

The Senate Banking Committee began holding hearings last Thursday to consider whether to confirm President Obama’s nomination of Ben Bernanke for a second term as Federal Reserve Chairman.  Chairman Bernanke claims that the Fed’s actions under him helped prevent a more serious crisis from occurring. The members of Congress seem to be split between praising his efforts in curtailing the effects of the recession and blasting him for failing to prevent its occurrence in the first place.  Some Senators, like Bernie Sanders of Vermont, are angry over the bailouts and the size of corporate executive compensation. Sanders has said that he will place a hold on Bernanke’s nomination.

Congress is also considering if they should change the scope of the Federal Reserve’s role in the economy. A bill that is working its way through the House proposes subjecting all of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions to review by a congressional watchdog agency, hurting the independence of the Fed. Others, like Senator Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, while they favor an independent Fed, believe that the Federal Reserve has too many responsibilities to handle and this has resulted in a mishandling of these various responsibilities. Senator Dodd states that, “the country is best served by a strong, focused central bank – not one that is saddled with so many diverse missions and competing responsibilities that its independence and competency are called into question.” In order to rectify this situation, Dodd has proposed the creation of “new entities outside of the Federal Reserve to focus responsibility for bank regulation, consumer protections, and systemic risk, so these important duties will not need to compete for the Federal Reserve’s attention.” The hope is that if the burden is shared amongst multiple organizations, the chances of another recession occurring could be reduced as the economic situation will be more closely monitored and problems can be spotted earlier.

The creation of additional organizations to help manage the economy could help safeguard against future economic turmoil by catching any mistakes the Fed might make. Of course, it also raises fears that the new congressional watchdog agency would be too influenced by the political process, possibly attempting to force the Federal Reserve to make policies beneficial to certain interests instead of policies beneficial to the health of the economy. Will the creation of these new agencies improve the Fed’s capacity to implement good monetary policy and lead to effective regulation of the financial sector, or will their creation introduce bureaucratic red tape and set conflicting interests against each other, thus neutering the Federal Reserve’s efficacy and hindering any future attempts to make fast and effective economic responses when they are needed?

The Senate Banking Committee will hold its vote on December 17.

Support for the Current Health Care Reform Proposals

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight has found an interesting Ipsos-McClatchy poll (currently the fifth poll on this page). This poll reveals some interesting things about American support for the current health care reform bills. Overall, 34% of Americans support the bills and 46% oppose them. However, this poll also asks of a perosn who opposes or supports the proposals why they do so (albeit in a limited fashion). Of the 46% who oppose the bill, 25% of them oppose them despite favoring health care reform overall because they feel that it doesn't go far enough. Funnily enough, 10% favor the bills because they believe that the bills in their current state will keep health care reform from occurring.

Some more statistics from the poll:
22% favor a single-payer system. 72% oppose such a system.
52% favor a public system to compete with private health insurance companies. 36% oppose a public system.
57% favor non-government run insurance co-operatives. 31% oppose such entities.
An overwhelming 76% favor regulations to ensure patient rights. Only 13% oppose such regulations.

Suspected U.S. Missile Strike In Pakistan, 3 Dead

Two missiles, fired from a suspected U.S. drone, struck early Tuesday morning in Pakistan's North Waziristan region, killing three militants. This missile strike comes after a suicide bomber killed 10 people in Peshawar and two bombs killed 49 people and injured over 100 in a market in Lahore, Pakistan's second biggest city. All of this happened just the day before. These bombings are part of a renewed Taliban counteroffensive that began in October after the death of Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistan branch of the Taliban. Since October, more than 400 people have been killed in various attacks.

Obama is planning to send additional troops to Afghanistan, but there is also sizeable dangers across the border in Pakistan. There is an incredible danger if Pakistan becomes extremely unstable, considering that the nation possesses a nuclear arsenal. Supporters of the troop increase in Afghanistan might say that we cannot allow the Taliban to regain a foothold in Afghanistan, but arguably, allowing them to gain a foothold in Pakistan could be even more dangerous. Pakistan protests the missiles, calling them "violations of its sovereignty", so it appears as if Pakistan has limits as to how much American intervention it can withstand. But, if it comes to it, would the United States be forced to "invade" Pakistan in order to stabilize the current government and provide security?

EPA: greenhouse gases bad for human health

Greenhouse gases are gases from sources (both human and nonhuman) that warm up the earth by trapping heat that normally reflects off the earth into space, much like how an actual greenhouse traps heat. Examples of nonhuman greenhouse gases include water vapor and sulfur emitted from volcanic activity. Examples of human greenhouse gases widely include carbon dioxide emitted from cars and coal burning factories. These same gases that contribute to global warming have now been found by the EPA to be detrimental to human health as well as the health of the earth. The EPA says that some of these dangerous gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. However, there's good news. In 2016, all newly produced cars will have greenhouse gas emissions standards as well as a raised fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon.


I'm actually not really all that surprised that greenhouse gases would be bad for us humans. Given the fact that cellular respiration creates waste in the form of CO2 that our body tries to get rid of by exhalation, I don't think that breathing in more CO2 would exactly be good for us. As for the new emissions standards, I think that's brilliant. I drive a Toyota Camry and always thought of it as decently gas efficient. It gets 19 miles per gallon city and 29 miles per gallon highway, giving a combined total of 25 miles per gallon. However, it seems that my car isn't quite fuel efficient enough. I'd like to see how fuel efficient the Camry is when it is produced in 2016. I also am skeptical that most of the SUVs that we see today will ever evolve to attain 35 miles per gallon. I read an article on Yahoo recently that talked about the worst cars of 2009. The top of the list? A SUV that only got 13 miles per gallon.

Airlines learning from birds

"V for victory" as the article is titled. Airlines are now attempting to find new ways to cut fuel consumption of planes. Leading companies such as Boeing and Airbus have made airplanes lighter, and thus consuming less fuel. However, a group of researchers at Stanford University are advocating another approach to greener flying. Birds, when naturally flying in a group, naturally form a V formation. This V formation, though it looks pretty neat, is actually advanced physics in the sense that flying in a V formation eases flying for mostly all of the birds in the formation. The Stanford researchers reasoned that if birds can use physics to their advantage, planes could too. In a test, three passenger jets that flew in a V formation conserved 15% of its overall fuel. Even the armed forces are now considering a V formation program to investigate and calculate exactly how to get an efficient V formation without compromising safety.

I think it is definitely awesome that we are learning from nature... but shouldn't this have been though up sometime earlier? The article says that a report from 1914 confirmed the efficiency of the V formation, yet almost a century later no one has really considered using it for commercial aeronautics. I especially like the coincidence of how nature is helping us help it, in the sense that nature is helping us become more green.

The Economics of ... McDonald's?!

In October, McDonald's had a "Monopoly" advertising program which mimicked the original treasured board game. When a customer bought certain products on the menu (for example, large fries), there would be two stickers on the food item that, if peeled, revealed monopoly properties. If a customer won some of the rarest monopoly pieces, there was a potential to win big prizes such as an Xbox or even money, in the value of a million dollars.

However, this article shows that although a million dollars may seem like a lot, over time, the amount paid to the winner is not a million dollars exactly. Since the reward is paid in annuity payments of $50,000 over twenty years, the resulting money is not as much as it seems. Say that the inflation rate is 3.5%. After taxes, and going by the $50,000 per year that McDonald’s pays its winners, the total value would be around $500,000. McDonald's organized this advertising program in the hopes that many people would not take the time to actually think out the economics of its money prizes, and understand the slim possibility of winning the game.

Would you play the monopoly game at McDonald's? Does the monopoly advertising motivate you as a consumer to spend your allowance at this fast food restaurant in the hopes of winning?

-Molly Cheng

How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the FTC hosted an open workshop in order to explore the effects of the internet on the news industry and come up with various ways in which these corporations could transition to the digital age. Some ideas that came up include news corporations receiving special tax exemptions, not being subject to antitrust laws, and modification of copyright law so news aggregators would be forced to pay the news sites for their content.

Rupert Murdoch, CEO and Chairman of News Corp., is extremely angry at companies like Google, who allow users to click on a link and be directed to a full WSJ article for free and bypass the normally required subscription. In his words, “To be impolite, it’s theft.” Murdoch believes that the news aggregators are unfairly profiting off of him, taking his articles and using those articles to help create content for their own sites. Managing editor of the Wall Street Journal Robert Thomson recently said, “There is a collective consciousness among content creators that they are bearing the costs and that others are reaping some of the revenues -- inevitably that profound contradiction will be a catalyst for action and the moment is nigh.”

That moment is definitely very close, as Murdoch is reportedly considering delisting all News Corp. articles from Google’s search engine and is in talks with Microsoft to have the articles listed solely in Microsoft’s Bing search engine, presumably at a cost. Murdoch’s action appears to be attempting to deny the news aggregators a free source of articles, and forcing them to pay for it if they want it. The question here is how much revenue would such a partnership between news provider and news aggregator bring? Would it be sufficient to make up for the amount of advertising revenue lost by no longer being accessible through Google News? Keep in mind that decreasing subscription and paper ad revenues have to be made up for somehow as well. Also, in the case of the Wall Street Journal, he is attempting to avoid the mass market advertising based revenue model and instead focus on a niche audience that is willing to pay a subscription fee. Would enough people find enough value in the articles to be willing to pay a subscription fee? Even if it did work for the WSJ, how effective would that model be for other news providers?

Arianna Huffington also spoke at the workshop, and criticizes what Murdoch has planned for News Corp. in a blog post. According to her, delisting all News Corp. articles from Google would be a terrible idea. She argues that if News Corp. were to limit access to their articles, it would not result in people being pushed into paying the subscription fee in order to gain access to those articles, but rather those people would completely ignore the existence of News Corp. and read about the news they’re looking for elsewhere. News Corp. would be trying to shift from one source of revenue to the other, but end up losing revenue on both fronts.

Arianna Huffington’s proposed model is the link economy. The Huffington Post would write some article about some interesting tidbit of news and then some other site would link to the article and all the viewers of that site that follow the link would then land on the Huffington Post website, where they can then contribute to the Huffington Post’s ad revenue. The Huffington Post would similarly have links to articles from other websites, directing viewers there and fueling their ad revenue.

The idea of the link economy revolves around the idea of advertising-based revenue streams, which Murdoch obviously opposes. But does he have a choice? New media proponents argue that news corporations must drop any kind of subscription requirements or limitations to site access in order to survive, the theory being that if a company makes money off of advertising, it is going to make more money by increasing site traffic, and forcing subscriptions and delisting itself from search engines will definitely harm site traffic and possibly lead to it being unable to turn a profit. After all, there’s no incentive to pay a subscription to get news from one site if a person can get the same news from other places for free. Somebody who uses Google News to find out about the world’s events is probably not going to suddenly notice that they never come upon any WSJ articles anymore and suddenly want to purchase a subscription so they can keep reading its content. They’ll just read what they already have and be satisfied.

Cap and Trade

Many people have been feeling optimistic about the climate talks in Copenhagen. Many developing countries, including the world biggest carbon dioxide emitter China, have agreed that climate change is something that needs to happen, and participation among countries is necessary for a solution. I think it's good that China is taking up some leadership roles and recognizing that change needs to happen. Although there will be outcries against the talks saying that global warming is a hoax and that our economy will be destroyed, studies have shown that cutting greenhouse gasses will is affordable and necessary, and will only hurt our economy minimally. This is because with cap and trade (what will probably result from Copenhagen), businesses have to buy permits to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide and other GHGs. Essentially, they can increase their profits by polluting less, and the government makes money because the companies need to buy permits. Of course the businesses are going to object to this, but by using cap and trade we can reduce GHGs while making only a small impact on our economy. In my opinion, it's worth it.

New execution involves sleeping until you die

An Ohio inmate sentenced to execution could be the first in the country to be put to death using a single injection. Regularly, execution comprises of three fast acting injections that literally stop the heart of the unfortunate. The catch of this single injection is that it is very, very slow, putting the condemned into a sleep that is so deep that the person stops breathing entirely. Debate over the traditional three injection process sparked a controversy of whether or not the seven minute execution was painful. However, this new process will take around fifteen minutes, experts say. Experts also argue that the new process will be virtually pain free, as the drug used in the injection is just a heightened anesthetic. If this new process is used, it could encourage other states to switch the traditional method with this new method.

If it were me getting executed, I think I would want it to be painless. Even though it might take longer, time passes by quickly when you're sleeping. Of course, that might also be because I have an intense fear of needles- the thought of three at a time just gives me the willies. I also think it is more ethical to not have inmates suffer while they die. I have always disapproved of the death penalty, but I think that the newer method may be more ethically acceptable.

Reindeer dung jewelry sold at Illinois zoo

Pretty much what the title says. Random, but also funny. $7.50 for an ornament or $15 for a pendant necklace. Don't worry though, they're sterilized.

Don't laugh too much either; the zoo can make an estimated $16,500 selling these to offset $200,000 that it lost under state budget cuts this year.

bin Laden eludes US intelligence.... for 8 years now

Ever since the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centers, the United States has been trying to capture Osama bin Laden. But to no avail. Though the Obama administration has recently been given intelligence that bin Laden has been moving to and from Afghanistan to a secure shelter in Pakistan, Pentagon chief Robert Gates says that the United States has lacked good intelligence on the whereabouts of bin Laden for years. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration have asserted that bin Laden has taken refuge in Pakistan for years now. However, national security adviser James Jones broke new ground by suggesting that though bin Laden takes refuge in Pakistan, he periodically goes to and from Afghanistan. Everything points to the fact that the United States simply does not have proper intelligence to point to where bin Laden has been hiding for more than eight years.

Though I think it is kind of sad that the United States and its allies have failed at finding bin Laden for eight years now, I also think that it underlines how brilliant Osama bin Laden is. Being able to evade US intelligence as well as controlling his terrorist organization from afar is quite a feat for bin Laden, I must say. However I feel that the United States should devote more of its resources to finishing off the war in Afghanistan by making the Afghan government do more of the work. Since Obama has set a flexible withdrawal date for Afghanistan, I think that if we do not find bin Laden by then, the Afghan government should take over the search for bin Laden.

What do eco labels REALLY mean?

I found this interesting article about eco labels and what they really mean. The link is embedded in the title. This reminds me of how the media "spin" people into over exaggerating or believing slightly false things. The labels aren't necessarily lying, but they aren't necessarily telling the whole truth either. Check them out.

Hybrid Garbage Trucks

New Yorkers saw the new hybrid diesel-electric powertrain garbage truck roll through the streets for the first time today. One of only a few hybrid garbage trucks, this one looked just like regular trucks, with the exception of the giant mural painted on its side. Just like everyday garbage trucks, this one can compact and store up to 13 tons of garbage. Though it may not seem like a big difference for a few of these to replace regular garbage trucks, the savings of energy is tremendous. One hybrid 18 wheeler can save more fuel than two dozen hybrid regular cars. That's a lot of Pruises. Large and heavy duty trucks consume about a third of the nation's total fuel, so if more of these trucks switched to hybrid energies, the fuel savings would be great. Right now in New York City, they are testing different models to determine which one saves the most energy.

This replacement of garbage trucks is definitely a small step towards achieving a green evolution. I especially liked how they are testing different models to see which one is the most green. Though I always knew trucks used a lot of gasoline, I never knew that they could consume a third of our nation's fuel. I think it would be a great idea to see some of these in California after they determine which model is the most efficient.

Who gets what, and who gets punished

When is nominating someone you know for a job reviewed by ethics people? Recently there has been some talk about Senator Max Baucus. He had nominated someone he was having a romantic relationship with for a spot as a US attorney. There have been other issues similar to this, other government officials that are helping people get jobs, as with President Sarkozy and his son. This however all leads to the ideas of nepotism and conflicts of interest. Nepotism is when someone hires or nominates mainly someone of their family or someone they are close to, for a job. This is bad because then the ideas arise of whether they treated the other people unfairly and gave their friend an advantage over the others. If this keeps happening then this single person can gain more power because the people they hired will in turn help them with their newly attained powers. To an extent I think this is bad, but if someone truly believes that that person is right for the job, then I believe that it should just be reviewed by other people and then let them say the final verdict.

Martial Law and the Suspension of Habeas Corpus

Two weeks ago, in a southern Philippine Province, 57 people were killed in a massacre said to be headed by the Ampatuan family (a powerful political family). Over this weekend, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo proclaimed martial law in Maguindanao; the reason was a breakdown of law and order. Since then, nearly 50 people have been detained. Among those detained were the Ampatuan Family, and when their house was raided the military found forty firearms, including Armalite assault rifles and ammunition. The Ampatuans used to be among Arroyo's closest allies in the south, but now they have been removed Arroyo's political party. Arroyo has been under pressure to call martial law because of the deaths of dozens of people, including reporters, supporters, and even relatives of the rival political leader (Mangudadatu). The victims were on their way to file Mr. Mangudadatu's papers for candidacy when they were stopped on a national highway and taken to a hilltop where they were shot, hacked, and buried. Many claim that martial law, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the arrest of of suspects without a warrant was necessary because of the violence and brutality. However, others like Fidel Ramos calls it an "overreaction" and that martial law was too extreme. Amidst all this, some Filipinos are grateful for Mrs. Arroyo's decision.

Martial law, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the arrest of suspects without a warrant should not be taken lightly. In history we have learned what a big deal it is to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I think Mrs. Arroyo was under a lot of pressure to impose martial law because of all the deaths and violence. I don't agree that it was an "overreaction", but I do think her decision was prompted somewhat by all the pressure put on her. However, imposing martial law may have been the only thing to do in order to quell the rebellion because it wasn't just the one family committing the massacre; it was the supporters of the family as well.

Student Loans in the Developing World

A mere three months ago, Vitanna.org was nothing but a small organization co-founded by three guys. Now, Huffington Post has chosen Mr. Chakrabarti (one of the co-founders) as "The Ultimate Game Changer in Philanthropy". Now Vitanna, an organization that pioneers student loans in the developing world, is big among charities. For "the Ultimate Game Changer in Philanthropy", Chakrabarti beat out big time charities like DonorsChoose and well known people like Mayor Bloomberg of New York. The nonprofit organization gives loans to individual borrowers through microfinance institutions. They get money from individual lenders to back loans for students seeking education but have no resources to come by it. In developing countries, some mainstream banks offer students loans, but they are often very expensive and thus unavailable to many people. Vitanna has partners in Peru, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and soon Mongolia. Most loans requests average about $1,000. Vitanna has helped make loans in Paraguay- $2,000 to five students and five more loans are being set up.

I think it's really good that an organization like Vitanna exists, and I think the organization truly is an "ultimate game changer". Student loans like we have in America do not exist in other countries, and Vitanna is bringing opportunities to people whose existing opportunities are meager.

Second Gay Biship

Yesterday, the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles elected a lesbian to be assistant bishop. This woman is the second openly homosexual in the global Anglican fellowship; the first gay bishop elected was V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire (elected in 2003). When the first gay bishop was elected, there was a huge uproar and there was a break among the church: breakaway Episcopal conservatives formed a rival church called the Anglican Church of America. The vote on Saturday is likely to cause even more damage among Episcopalians, Anglicans, and other Christians. I find the breakaway to be a natural thing because if one part of a group ardently objects to something, they are likely to break apart. I find it similar to the secession of the South when they wanted to keep their southern institution of slavery so badly. I'm not calling it an exact comparison, but the cases are similar in that one group disapproved of the other and separated from it. I don't see the separation as a tragic thing because it only makes sense that the others would separate if they don't approve. However, I do think they should be more accepting. It's a wonderful thing that homosexual bishops are being elected- it just shows how accepting people can be.

An Arm and a Leg to Survive for a Few Months

In September, a drug designed to treat cancer was released. This drug is unique because it is the only one designed to treat a certain type of cancer: peripheral T-cell lymphoma. It is also unique because it costs $30,000 a month. This rare and aggressive cancer kills about 5,000 people a year. The drug's manufacturer, Allos Therapeutics, won't start advertising it until January, but it is available to patients now. The drug costs so much because it is the only of its kind. Allos defends the price of the drug by saying that they invested a lot to produce this drug, and others say that "there is no other choice" and that the users or Folotyn won't be using it for long anyway. This is because Folotyn doesn't kill the cancer entirely, it just shrinks the tumors. Because this cancer, is so aggressive, the patient are likely to die within a few months and will only be using Folotyn for that long. Since there are no other drugs on the market, do you guys think people will be using Folotyn and spend this much money in their last months of living?

Afghanistan troop buildup is key... Obama's isn't

Though much of the current news on Afghanistan is devoted to Obama's troop surge, I found an article that deals with how the United States' troop surge is not nearly as crucial as Afghanistan's own quiet troop buildup. Afghanistan Defense Minister General Abdul Rahim Wardak said that every Afghan defense unit in the southern part of Afghanistan would receive an additional 17% percent of troops to significantly increase the strength of counter terrorism in the area. The additional 17% would mean a swell of almost 50,000 Afghan troops by Halloween, 2011. The article talks about how the success of the Afghan troops directly affects Obama's plan to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011. If the Afghan troops fail, then it will be extremely hard for the United States to withdraw from Afghanistan safely.


This article caught me by surprise because I had always thought that the United States' troop surge was the key on the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. However, I now know that the United States is merely helping Afghanistan become independent in order to fight its own battles. I sure hope it works. Also, I found this article interesting because it highlighted the media's focus on AMERICA and not on the country for which we are helping. Had the media focused on Afghanistan more, it would be more widely known that Afghanistan plans to have a troop surge of its own. I, for one, did not have any idea that Afghanistan was planning on raising a bigger army. Or maybe that just goes to show how much I read the news.

No more recycling??!?

In July of this past summer, the state of California cut processing payments to its more than 2400 recycling centers by 85%. Bad news? Yes. What's even worse is that on November 1st, the state suddenly cut all processing payments to all of its recycling centers. The state's action causes many severe consequences such as the ones outlined in this report by "Californians Against Waste". Some include: closure of 1100 recycling centers, 5000 people employed in the recycling industry out of work, a $100 million increase in consumer prices for beverages and the closure of 90 recycling centers already.

Why is this happening? Too much recycling. Since 1986, California has charged its customers a small price for every beverage container bought. When Californians recycle at a recycling center, the money is reimbursed to them, cycling money from the recycling industry back to the people. However, since for the past decades the recycling rate was only about 50%, the recycling industry ran a huge surplus. The excess money was usually used to help the recycling program's administrative services as well as shipping and handling of recyclables. However, now that the recycling rate has soared (85% as of 2009), yes the environment is saved, but the money that is usually gained when people don't recycle is now back in the pockets of the people who do recycle. However, this takes away from what the money used to be used for: administrative services for the program. As more and more centers shut down, the recycling rate also drops. One recycling center manager said that it might even drop to the level it was decades ago, defeating the purpose of recycling in the first place.

Gov. Schwarzenegger last month vetoed Senate Bill 402, which would have increased the recycling program's revenue by including recycling of more containers, including those that contain soy and vegetable drinks. Why he vetoed it... I don't know.

I really don't know what to say about this terrible news. I have always strived to recycle, but what happens if there's no centers to do the recycling for me? It's certainly disappointing that California, which I thought of as a green leader of the United States, cannot even recycle correctly anymore. I wonder if it would be plausible to send California's recyclables to another state's centers. I'd hate to see all those perfectly good resources go into a landfill.

Manufacturing areas show growth in economy

Amidst all of the other negative effects of the recession, it seems that areas with high reliance on manufacturing income are showing improvement: enough improvement to show huge employment gains, meaning jobs in the manufacturing sector are available. This is the complete opposite effect that some economists predicted when they thought that widespread layoffs in manufacturing labor would prevent any growth in this area of the economy. Despite their predictions, counties with high reliance on manufacturing income have been shown to outperform the average United States county (based on economic state). Economists now point to the "cash for clunkers" program, a weak American dollar to boost exports, the use of temporary workers, and other factors to explain this trend in manufacturing counties. However, economists are unsure whether or not this trend will last.

Though the overall unemployment rate is still on the rise and there are a bajillion other problems with our country right now, I feel that this is at least some relief from the otherwise pessimistic and negative media. However, I say that we should take this relief with a grain of salt. The catch is that a lot of these factory workers may only be hired temporarily. As an economist in the article stated, "in five years... those same workers [that were hired] may be out the door". This means that all the gains in the manufacturing areas may only be temporary; once demand decreases, so will the work force. I think that a main problem is encouraging demand- enough demand to keep jobs in place. With the "cash for clunkers" program, there are only so many more cars people need to buy to replace their "clunkers". Once those people have met their quota and all have new cars, where is the demand for new cars then? But anyways yeah, this article was a good relief, but I hope we can solve this problem if indeed this is only a temporary bandage.

Taliban and the West (with unrelated side note)

In a recent statement put out by the Taliban, they said that would make a "legal guarantee" not to interfere with the West. Their main condition was that all international troops be taken out of Afghanistan. This guarantee however was not stated in what form it would look like. Whether it be a legal document, by word, etc. Many US officials however are not sure how they can trust the Taliban in this issue due to past actions. US officials do say that if the Taliban really does want this to work, they should openly denounce terrorism. I believer we should get out of Afghanistan but not right now. We should leave troops there for a bit but pull them out in not to long of time.

Sidenote:
I've been looking around the net since I was bored and I came upon a site that presented 50 "kickass" websites that were under the radar. I got interested and started reading a few of them, and i must say a lot of them are pretty cool. I also found a cool website for news junkies (where i got this article).
50 sites: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/50_awesome_websites?page=0,0
news: http://newsmap.jp/
hope u guys enjoy it

Where is our unemployment drop?

Hello again,as the week draws to a close Washington reports a heart ((and by heart I mean job)) warming "Story".In the article I choose today Washington is said to have a .2 drop in unemployment this is very good for the peoples morale more then anything else. and what I mean by that is an unexpected .2 drop makes people think "Hey were(the economy) getting better" I personally believe this unexpected .2 drop is very good and a sign to tell people just keep going. Hey California, can we have a sudden unexpected drop in unemployment? It'd be really nice.While this "Respite" as the post may call it may be temporary I believe,maybe over optimistically,that the unemployment rate will stay the same if you are given a little bit of hope.Hopefully California will get one of these drops.


Anyhow That is all for me See you all tomorrow
Tim Dyer
P.S.
To all who know:Lost the game

Four More Schools Closing Down

The New York City Department of Education just announced yesterday that they would be shutting down four more schools for bad performance. The schools that will be shut down are: a technical school in Brooklyn, a school in the Bronx, and two more in Manhattan. The closings need to be approved by the Panel for Educational Policy, which is headed by the mayor (who proposed the closings of the schools in an attempt to overhaul the city's school system). The closings are determined by the school's report cards, and schools with especially low grades like D's or F's are the most at risk. One of the schools that were announced to be closed Wednesday is Maxwell, where 990 students received an F on the school's report card three years ago, but the new principal has turned it around to a D. Although this improvement is small, teachers were given bonuses for their hard work. Still, the school has been announced to close because even though the new principal has enforced a strict behavior and attendance rules, there are still problems. One sophomore at the school said that "Kids be smoking in the hallways".

I think that although it is sad that schools need to close and people will lose jobs, it seems like a necessary thing to do. If the students aren't improving and "smoking in the hallways", something needs to change. However, shutting down the school and sending them somewhere else- is that sending them the right message? Or is this something that just needs to be done?

Debates on Larger Airplane Passengers Paying More

Since the release of the photo showing a large airplane passenger blocking the aisle, there has been in increase in the debate about whether or not larger travelers should have to pay for two seats or be allowed to sit in one. One man complained that he suffered physical injury because he had to sit in a contorted position while seated next to a larger passenger. Others express sympathy for the larger passenger, and think that they should just be treated equally and pay the same amount as other people. Flight attendants claim that it is a hazard, and in the case of an evacuation the larger passenger would be a hindrance. The debate over making larger passengers pay more can be centered around one question: is this appropriate?

Museum to honor Little Rock Nine

For those of you that were not in AP US History last year, the "Little Rock Nine" were nine black students who volunteered to help integrate Little Rock Central High School, which had previously been an all white school. As they integrated the school, they faced angry mobs, physical attacks and other horrendous things including being forced away from the school by Arkansas's own national guard. In honor of their bravery and commitment, there will be a museum in their honor. This museum was Daisy and L.C. Bates's home; the "Little Rock Nine" met here everyday before school to prepare themselves for the rough day at school to come. This site, marked as a national historic site, is going to be fully restored and renovated. Over the past three years, the site has been gradually renovated; the roof has been replaced and architects have managed to find replicas of the furniture of the 1950s in order to make the house look just like it did more than half a century ago.

I think it is definitely important to keep historic sites so that people can remember the progress that the "Little Rock Nine" made in desegregating America. By keeping these sites intact, I think that it gives more Americans to opportunity to look back on the past so that we never repeat it in the future. Also, I believe that the "Little Rock Nine" deserve a lasting commemoration to reward them for their good deeds more than 50 years ago. Maybe someday I will visit this historic site for myself.

Gingrich supports Obama's "political courage"

Newt Gingrich, yes the same Newt Gingrich as the one in the People and the Power Game that we watched today commended Obama for his "political courage" in regards to Afghanistan. The former Speaker of the House said that sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan was the right thing to do and stated that the president was "facing reality". Though Gingrich praised Obama for being courageous enough to possibly split his party when he stated he wanted 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, Gingrich was also honest when he said that Obama's plan of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in mid-2011 was unrealistic. Gingrich predicted that in 2012, there would still be American troops in Afghanistan.


I find it interesting that this relates to my earlier blog about some Marines' opinion toward Obama's proposed troop surge. Gingrich reacted much like many of the Marines as well as similar to my opinion. The Marines in the aforementioned article were also skeptical that Obama could start pulling troops out in 2011, or that it might not be such a good idea. However, relating back to Gingrich, I think that it is great that Gingrich, though he is a Republican, praises Obama for his courageousness in taking control of the Afghanistan war. I think that this may be a step towards depolarizing political beliefs. Which is good.

Job creation = "painfully slow"

I found it interesting that though this article is very similar to the one that Nick found, as posted earlier, it has a different opinion on the future to come. Though both articles came from the Associated Press, mines was authored by Chris S. Rugaber while Nick's was authored by Tom Raum. Rugaber, unlike Raum, is pessimistic that the new jobs offered within the next two years will be enough to combat our steadily growing unemployment rate. Though employers have cut less jobs this month (130,000 vs. 190,000 last month), the unemployment rate has stayed the same at a 25-year high, 10.2 percent. Rugaber talks about how economic experts say that the unemployment rate may peak at a whopping 12 percent before it finally begins to drop. However, some argue that "we're not far from seeing the labor market begin to stabilize and create jobs".

I sure hope so. Though twelve percent is not that much more than ten percent, when we are talking about millions of people, it makes a big difference. Also, I like the differences in optimism and opinion between the two authors that wrote about the same subject. Though Raum talks more about Obama's promises on a white house forum, all in all it seems that he is more optimistic. Which is good. I think that optimism rather than pessimism will really drive us toward economic recovery. However, what's bad is that Rugaber is also right. If the unemployment rate soars to twelve percent, that means that a lot of jobs will have to be made available to the public in order to combat the rising unemployment rate.

Some credit card advice

I came across this blog from TheMotleyFool today while surfing the net and thought it has some connection to what we talked about in Econ today. Basically, the article gave some advice on how to handle credit card debt, especially in today's economy when people don't have the money to pay their bills. The part that related to class was about spending money you have in savings accounts that pay back small amounts of interest instead of letting it sit. Since you're not making any money off of having your savings sitting in a bank account, you might as well spend some of it on paying off your credit card debt. This also helps your credit score, making banks more likely to give you a loan.

For all your credit card holders out there who might want to take a peak at the website, here it is:
http://finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance/article/108261/ignore-your-credit-cards-minimum-payment

More jobs... the sooner the better

"With unemployment levels above 10 percent, Obama said 'We cannot hang back and hope for the best.'"
Obama is now trying to make jobs for people as the unemployment levels rise to highs that haven't been seen in awhile. He is pushing for energy efficiency and saying that we don't need new technologies for this and that this area can be one of the best ways to get businesses up and running again. At the same time the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, stated that the government would use money originally meant for the Wall Street bailout for use on roads, brigdes, and in an attempt to save jobs. She however didn't say much they were planning on using but because of a House Democratic aide speaking on background, the estimates will be near $70 billion.
There are still meetings happening to as what will exactly be done, but Obama is taking ideas from all over, even from people that oppose him inlcuding a Republican economist that doesn't hold Obama's views to closely.

SF muni Makes Some Changes

On Saturday, the SF Municipal Railway will start making changes to its network. Most of the routes with fewer people on it are going to be canceled, while the busier buses are going to be traveling more frequently. The service changes are driven by a $129 million budget deficit for the fiscal year that started in July. Representatives say that the route changes will actually NOT save any money, but the way they are designed will decrease the hours a driver is needed, thus saving them about $3.2 million a year. In order to lesson the confusion about the already complicated network, "ambassadors" have been placed on the buses to hand out brochures and advise people where to go and when to go. I think this is helpful because the system confuses some people, and the changes don't help. Having someone around to offer advice and hand out schedules/brochures is a smart thing to do.

People that frequently use the muni are having mixed feelings about the changes. One woman stated that the route she normally takes is extremely "useful" and better than the others because it is "less crowded". Others feel the same way, but one man stated that he "understood why they're eliminating it" because not enough people are using a certain route. Although they will not be pampered with the luxury of a half empty bus anymore, it has to be done because of the new routes.

India Announces Plan to Slow Emissions

India announced that it would slow the growth of the nation's green house gas emissions by 2020. India is focused more on improving energy efficiency rather than accepting limits on total emissions. The Indian government was previously hesitant to take any action like this before because they thought it would hinder the growth of the economy. But, I think it is important that the Indian government is taking control and showing leadership qualities to their citizens. Hopefully this sets a model for the rest of the country and future government. India has a huge population and is continuing to grow at an incredibly fast rate, and they are well on their way to polluting more and more each year. It currently ranks fifth GLOBALLY in goverall emissions and will continue to go up as the economy grows (and it will). Although their promise to slow the growth of GHG emissions, the emissions will go up, just at a slower rate. However, the officials say that there is a window open for further improvements. This appears to just be a first step.

I think this is important because India is among the fastest growing countries and their emissions are growing with them. Any effort to try and slow this growth is beneficial, in my opinion. Although I think more should and can be done, for now at least this step shows that India is concerned.

And suddenly the sales rise drops.

Hey guys so today I was searching for something to blog about and I found this article about how Retailers reported a surprise drop in November sales. I personally found this off setting considering my post yesterday on how stocks and so forth are increaseing. In the artical it says retailers reported a 0.3 decrease in sales, and while to us 0.3 percent decreas isnt that bad when it comes on top of a free fall that had come out last november it is quite worrisome to retailers atleast. also later on in the article it says that the retailers are going to have to offer even more discount which as I learned in econ is good for us but if it goes on to long it turns deadly.



Wow that's depressing right after a post about stocks increasing and slowly recovering
Anyways I am off for now see you all tomorrow ((Maybe tonight if I find an interesting article))
Tim Dyer

Estate Tax Sunset Provision -- Changing after all?

Well, here's another news story about something that came up in Gov class this week, specifically, the Estate (inheritance) tax. The House voted to freeze the rates at this year's level, not letting it go to zero next year before resetting to the levels before the Bush tax cuts went into effect for 2011. I don't know the prospects for Senate action on this, so as it stands the estate tax will disappear for one year only starting January first and then come back at a higher level than it has been for several years. If you have a terminally ill wealthy benefactor, encourage him or her to hold on tight for the rest of the month... and then pass gently sometime during 2010. (If the Senate passes this and Obama signs it, the timing will be irrelevant because the rates will be fixed with no sunset.)

Amendments to health care plan

"The U.S. Senate backed a plan on Thursday to make it easier for women to get preventive health services such as mammograms as it cast its first votes on a sweeping healthcare overhaul."
Amendments are being introduced and passed in the Senate with the health care bill that are helping woman in the US. The vote for this amendment passed with a close 61-39 with 2 Democrats voting against the amendment, but 3 Republicans voting for the amendment. Personally I believe this is a major improvement for health care across the nation, and I'm just hoping that the other parts of the health care bill that could help people like me will also pass.

Time Magazine Person of the Year: 1 candidate is Iranian Protestors

As I am sure (or hope) many of you know over the summer Iranian "president" Ahmadinejad won re-election. There were many protests around the world to show that these results were not right. For the most part those in other countries were non-violent. However, the protestors in Iran tried to lead a path of non-violence as well but were brutally attacked by the Iranian National Guard and Basij militia. All summer these protests went on. After the death of Michael Jackson, the media stopped covering the protests in Iran. The protestors did not give up, many of them still have not given up. That is why Time Magazine has listed them as a candidate for Person of the Year. I for one, believe this is a great idea it will bring media spotlight back onto the issue. Also, I support what is known as the green movement (if you havent noticed my numerous green bands you will now) in Iran, and really hope that the Iranian protestors win Person of the Year. They truly deserve it because of all they have put up with and their perserverance.

Link: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1939691_1939704_1939715,00.html

Young, Gay Asian = New Mayor of Campbell

In a meeting Tuesday night, Evan Low, 26, was promoted from vice mayor to a one term mayor. Low, who currently attends San Jose State University, is working on his master's degree in public administration. He previously earned an undergraduate degree in political science. Upon receiving the promotion, Low commented that he was "...passionate and energetic about everything I do".

Despite his young age, I think that Low is perfectly competent in handling the duties of being Campbell's mayor. The fact that he is both gay and Asian AND extremely young really reflects, or at least in my opinion, how diversity is really spreading amidst our nation. I also really like his attitude toward his new role. He commented that his promoted status "...is not work for me. This is something I enjoy". With that mindset, I think he will excel as a mayor.

Follow up on NY same-sex marriages

Well i had apparently had too much of an optimistic attitude before. The bill that had been passed in one chamber already three times and while the mayor was already ready to sign the bill, got defeated by 14 votes, 38 to 24. With NY being such a liberal state I believed that this bill would pass with little resistance, but now the protesters are parting because of their victory. Though I am sad, and a little angry, that this bill didn't pass, this is what sometimes happens in our democracy.

Great Lakes Threatened by Asian Giant Carp

A giant, super competitive fish, also known as the Asian Giant Carp, has invaded the Mississippi River. This fish can grow up to four feet long and weigh as much as 100 pounds. It consumes half its weight in plankton everyday and environmentalists fear that it will starve off other native, but fragile fish ecosystems in the Great Lakes. Originally an imported farmed fish, it wound up in the Mississippi after floods took them away from their farms. However, due to an electrical barrier that has a primary purpose of keeping invasive species out of the Great Lakes, this invasive fish has not yet entered the Great Lakes. While this electrical barrier is closed off for maintenance, Illinois officials have been pouring poison into the river to prevent the carp from entering the Great Lakes while the barrier is off. Environmentalists have vouched for permanently separating the Mississippi and the Great Lakes in order to prevent what the article mentioned as a "ecological disaster". However, permanently separating the Mississippi and the Great Lakes would disrupt the movement of millions of tons of products that use the waterways to transport.

To me, this seems to be a clash between environmentalists and industrialists. While the fish and other invasive species do pose a menacing threat, a physical barrier between Mississippi and the Great Lakes would cause the price of many products to go up. This is because the products on the ships would have to be transported by car or truck across Illinois instead of by sea. However, I think that the environmentalists are right. Constructing a physical barrier is a very good preventive method, and I think that if the Asian Carp were to be introduced into the Great Lakes, it would destroy the fishing economy there... unless Asian Carp is extremely popular all of the sudden.

South Africa Issues Broad AIDS Policy

South African government has enacted a new policy regarding HIV/AIDS and treatment. They are now issuing more drugs to treat AIDS and taking measures to ensure that babies are born healthy. Additionally, they are treating people with HIV for tuberculosis earlier, when their immune system is stronger so that they can stay healthy later. They have been advised by the World Health Organization (WHO) because tuberculosis is kills the most HIV infected people in South Africa. In his address, Mr. Zuma claimed that the government will be treating more HIV positive people sooner, and helping the HIV positive people stay healthy for a longer amount of time. Additionally, Mr. Zuma encouraged the people of South Africa to "use condoms consistently and correctly during every sexual encounter".

I think it's important that the South African government take control and provide treatment for HIV positive people. Not only does it allow them to live healthier lives for longer, but it improves the survival chances of the younger members of the society. More importantly, though, I think Mr. Zuma did the right thing when encouraging the use of protection. Even more importantly, I think the people of South Africa should be educated about the risks of unprotected sex (obviously they know about HIV, but do they really know what they are getting themselves into when they don't slide on that condom? Some don't even know how to properly use a condom). Education combined with abundant availability of protection is the best prevention method against HIV, and I think the South African government is beginning to recognize that.

Wolf Hunt

Earlier this year, protections were lifted on the gray wolf (they were considered extremely endangered just thirty years ago, in the 1970s). These protections were lifted because the wolf population made a great comeback UNDER the protection of the Endangered Species Act. And the comeback was noticeable. Wolves were pouncing on many of the rancher's sheep, cattle, and other animals for a little snack (; and this obviously disturbed the ranchers. Also, hunters complained that the wolves were devastating game (most importantly elk). So, when the protections were lifted, Montana and Idaho hurried to approve wolf hunting seasons. There was a cap on 75 wolves for Montana and 220 for Idaho, but even with these caps I think hunters should be careful when hunting wolves. Even though they have made a comeback, they can easily slip back into endangerment. Although the population of wolves has made a remarkable comeback, that doesn't necessarily justify the hunting of wolves. Environmental scientists claim that the population is not yet at a sustainable level, putting the wolves at harm for endangerment again.

And the wolf isn't just there to kill. They perform critical jobs in the ecosystem that help it thrive. If wolves didn't exist, then smaller animals would thrive more and eat more plants and reproduce more and more would survive and then they would kill more plants and etc.. it would get very out of hand. The wolf is necessary to keep these in check.

I can see why people are angered at the wolf because it kills animals and game, but they also serve a function that shouldn't be ignored. I see how the hunting season for wolves are necessary (because of the killing of livestock), but I think the protections shouldn't be lifted until the wolf population is sustained and healthy.

Senate Hold Example

Twice today I was asked about how Senators can put a hold on something, usually a nomination for an executive branch post. Here's an article with a much better example than my own.

As a matter of fact, William Weld was nominated to be ambassador to Mexico by Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush. His nomination was scuttled by Jesse Helms, but not by a hold, which would probably have been overridden, but because Helms was the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, and he refused to hold hearings or have a vote on the nomination.

Health Care for American Indians

Last month, the leaders of 564 American Indian tribes were invited to Washington DC to talk with President Obama and cabinet leaders about their concerns. Among the concerns, the most heated was health care. The health care overhaul being debated in Congress could possibly bring improvements to the Indian health system. The representatives at this meeting called Obama's administration the "most positive" because of their concern for American Indian health. Obama mentioned to the press that the American Indian health system should get more attention because so many natives die of tuberculosis, alcoholism, diabetes, pneumonia, and influenza compared to other Americans. One specific woman had breast cancer and did not NEED a mastectomy, but chose to have the operation anyway because she did not have the resources or time to travel five hours roundtrip to get radiation. The operation was not necessary at all and she her condition could have been treated with radiation and other methods, but the other methods simply weren't in her reach. Even though many Americans complain about health care, they should at least be grateful that they don't need to travel five hours to get radiation treatment. I think Obama and his administration are headed in the right direction with caring about American Indians, because the US certainly doesn't have the best history with the natives (breaking treaties, removing them from land, putting them in reservations, killing their bulls..)


One man stated that the "first Americans" are living in third world conditions, and this is and has been true. Some people argue that the Obama administration shouldn't be so concerned about the American Indians and focus more on repairing our economy. But I think part of Obama's appeal is that he is concerned for a wide scope of issues, not just the "big ones".