Oh, the humanity!
It seems I have just been hit by a large truck that will permanently disable me for the remainder of my blogging career. I will be unable to perform my duties as a blogger for the duration of my time on this Earth and therefore I will retire.
It is with my deepest regret that I answer some final questions:
Analyze your first blog -- did you reach your goal?
My first blog post is here. It talks about religious freedom but I never touched that topic again, diverging towards patents and technocratic interests instead.
So, if by "did you reach your goal," you mean "completely diverged from the original topic" then yes!
How did your blog evolve over the semester?
"Oh No Government" started out with an OH NO scale that determined how bad things were, but later posts became fairly irrelevant to that (like the Lemon Test post) and that kind of petered off over time.
Also I started talking about patent law a ton and sometimes not.
Analyze your best blog entry - what made it so and does it still resonate today?
The Foxconn Riot post is more relevant than ever with Apple becoming the new big business. Definitely the most well-written considering the suicide of that many employees at the same time really needs to be covered, and it hardly is.
If you had the chance to do it over, how would you approach it differently? Give advice to novice bloggers.
Be more broad and opinionated and relevant.
That's all! I must go nurse my wounds. Farewell!
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Free Riders
Here's a quick run-down of how democracy works.
Someone makes a law that says "people cannot wear silly hats," and everyone loves it. No longer will anyone roam the streets with unrelated headwear in the presence of the citizenry. Everyone loves it, except the Silly Hats Crew.
Oh, no, they hate it.
They're going to lobby for change. They'll run around the city setting up bake sales and putting posters on trucks, they'll throw eggs at the mayor's house. And sooner or later, they start getting arrested; some for misconduct, some for public nay-saying. Others for wearing silly hats.
But there's a good percentage of them that stay silent. These are known as Free Riders. They watch as their interest group hashes itself over for the right to wear silly hats, and they're simply on the sidelines. Maybe it's apathy? Maybe.
Logically speaking, it doesn't make any sense to join a movement. One can simply wait and reap the rewards when everyone else joins. Of course, if everyone follows this logic, there's an issue: the movement never occurs. This is the Free Rider Problem.
Historically, some groups have fought this issue by creating incentives for members. Some labor unionists get free transportation for lobbying. Others get more power in the group's structure.
This is prominent in virtually every movement in modern times. Look at, say, the Occupy Wall Street movement. It's possible that you may be against the economic climate of today's world, but there's no reason to protest when everyone else is going to be doing that for you. And if a good percentage, say, 30%, of people think this way, then you get a massive decline in participation that kills the collective interest.
OH NO SCALE: OH NO
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Debt Ceiling
The growing federal debt has left many Congressmen worried over the future of the country; if it hits the debt ceiling, it would cripple not just the U.S. economy but those of all that depend on U.S. dollars.
In his first weekly address of the year, President Obama claimed the “fiscal cliff” compromise as “one more step in the broader effort to grow our economy and shrink our deficits”, but believes that another “manufactured crisis” over the debt ceiling could be detrimental to the economy.
Continuing his effort to frame the looming fight over the nation’s debt limit, Obama makes clear “one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up.”
“If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic,” he said. “The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it.”
Obama promised to do his best to lower tax rates but that is only something the future can claim.
In his first weekly address of the year, President Obama claimed the “fiscal cliff” compromise as “one more step in the broader effort to grow our economy and shrink our deficits”, but believes that another “manufactured crisis” over the debt ceiling could be detrimental to the economy.
Continuing his effort to frame the looming fight over the nation’s debt limit, Obama makes clear “one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up.”
“If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic,” he said. “The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it.”
Obama promised to do his best to lower tax rates but that is only something the future can claim.
Gun Violence
Admist the Connecticut school shootings, many Congressmen have decided to press for tighter gun restrictions.
“I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration – and if the Washington Post is to be believed – that’s way, way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about. And it’s not going to pass,” said Heitkamp, a member of the National Rifle Association.
Heitkamp further stressed the importance of mental health, which many believe to be the true source of the issues.
The effort to address gun violence by the White House was after 20 children were shot and killed last month in Newtown, a city in Connecticut.
The major acclamation by the public is over gun rights and whether or not certain guns should be protected or banned. The Constitution clearly states that one should have the right to bear arms but there has been controversy over which arms are dearly necessary to the protection of the citizen. Assault rifles, for instance, are very strictly offensive and are not needed in a defensive situation.
Personally, I believe that the stance that guns must be kept for defensive situations is a bit bogus. There are better ways to defend a household, such as tasers or pepper spray. Guns for recreational use should be regulated. Meanwhile, the main focus should be on mental health; the true violence lives there.
“I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration – and if the Washington Post is to be believed – that’s way, way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about. And it’s not going to pass,” said Heitkamp, a member of the National Rifle Association.
Heitkamp further stressed the importance of mental health, which many believe to be the true source of the issues.
The effort to address gun violence by the White House was after 20 children were shot and killed last month in Newtown, a city in Connecticut.
The major acclamation by the public is over gun rights and whether or not certain guns should be protected or banned. The Constitution clearly states that one should have the right to bear arms but there has been controversy over which arms are dearly necessary to the protection of the citizen. Assault rifles, for instance, are very strictly offensive and are not needed in a defensive situation.
Personally, I believe that the stance that guns must be kept for defensive situations is a bit bogus. There are better ways to defend a household, such as tasers or pepper spray. Guns for recreational use should be regulated. Meanwhile, the main focus should be on mental health; the true violence lives there.
Tracking Polls
One of the first successful polls came in the form of Literary Digest’s presidential polling in 1916 where, they created a straw poll. A straw poll is extremely unscientific and based solely on luck, and therefore when they predicted Woodrow Wilson’s victory, the public was amazed, describing it as “uncannily accurate.” However, twenty years later, it predicted that Alfred M. Landon would defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the opposite actually occurring – by a landslide as well.
This sparked the need for more scientific approaches to polling. Political analysts and statisticians began to track the errors of Literary Digest. The first was fairly clear; it sampled from largely the middle class by gauging opinion from telephone directories and automobile owners. Wealthy Republicans were therefore overrepresented in the sample.
The second error was timing in which questionnaires were mailed to sample subjects in September, neglecting the two years after in which the results would change.
The third and final error occurred due to the method of sampling; only those individuals who cared about the election greatly would respond while the majority (78%) simply did not respond to the surveys.
The Gallup Organization responded by making its own poll which was much more scientific than the techniques used by Literary Digest. Gallup was much more successful than the Literary Digest, predicting almost every election until 1948 when he miscalculated the very close competition between Thomas E. Dewey and Harry S Truman.
Polling has nonetheless become a lucrative industry of its own.
Jurisdiction
The Judiciary Branch of the United States is often neglected in the public view of government, with much more press being directed to Congress and the President of the United States. There are, in fact, many courts that make up the judiciary branch; the Supreme Court only sees a few cases per year.
Most of the cases begin in district courts, or trial courts, where original jurisdiction occurs. Original jurisdiction is the first time a case is heard in court; often this is used to determine the facts of a case. Almost every case filed ends in the trial court, with 90 percent of cases ending in a court of original jurisdiction.
Very few, therefore, make it to appellate courts. Appellate courts deal with appellate jurisdiction (surprise!) in which they are only applicable in reviewing the decisions of trial courts below them. They do not have original jurisdiction and often hear appeals of cases from U.S. regulatory commissions, legislative courts (such as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals), and of course, lower federal courts such as district courts. Even fewer, about 0.1% of these cases, then make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court handles cases from appellate courts but also those from the U.S. courts of appeals, the Court of Military Appeals, and the highest state courts.
However, unlike the Court of Appeals, it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear a case of original jurisdiction in cases between two states or when the dispute is international, relating to foreign ambassadors and diplomats.
Luckily, most disputes never even make it to court at all, as disagreements are often settled between the two parties.
Executive Law-making Ability
The drafting of laws is typically the realm of the Legislative Branch of the United State government. They are the only branch with law-making power in that they can propose a bill to the floor of Congress. The executive branch can only approve or deny the bill once it reaches his office. Therefore, he acts as a check on the law-making branch and nothing more.
However, this does not run true. The President's power to veto a bill (in which he rejects and kills it unless Congress can provide an overriding opinion of at least 2/3rd) often shapes a bill, in that lawmakers make concessions to prevent a veto from ever happening. In this sense, the President can pre-emptively influence laws before they reach his desk.
It is, in fact, very difficult to override a veto once one happens. Congress must have a majority in favor of the bill (2/3rd) which is extremely difficult to attain; in over 200 years, 2,500 presidential vetoes have occurred and only about a hundred were successfully overridden. Therefore, a veto is essentially an outright rejection in most cases.
There are different forms of veto. A regular veto occurs when the President simply denies a bill that arrives at his desk. A pocket veto occurs when a President refuses to respond to a bill after 10 days while Congress is in recess (if Congress is active then the bill becomes law). Many Presidents use the pocket veto to subtlely declare his disapproval without outright rejecting it.
However, this does not run true. The President's power to veto a bill (in which he rejects and kills it unless Congress can provide an overriding opinion of at least 2/3rd) often shapes a bill, in that lawmakers make concessions to prevent a veto from ever happening. In this sense, the President can pre-emptively influence laws before they reach his desk.
It is, in fact, very difficult to override a veto once one happens. Congress must have a majority in favor of the bill (2/3rd) which is extremely difficult to attain; in over 200 years, 2,500 presidential vetoes have occurred and only about a hundred were successfully overridden. Therefore, a veto is essentially an outright rejection in most cases.
There are different forms of veto. A regular veto occurs when the President simply denies a bill that arrives at his desk. A pocket veto occurs when a President refuses to respond to a bill after 10 days while Congress is in recess (if Congress is active then the bill becomes law). Many Presidents use the pocket veto to subtlely declare his disapproval without outright rejecting it.
Filibusters
After a committee referral of a bill to the House of Representatives or the Senate, passing both committees, it is moved to the floor of the House and Senate. In the House, debate is limited, but in the Senate, two tactics can be used to slow down the process of a bill, even to the point of outright killing it; the hold and the filibuster.
The hold is when a senator asks for time to be informed of a bill, preventing debate from continuing until he is given time to be consulted by a sponsor of the bill. More interesting, however, is the filibuster due to its recent potency in Obama's first term.
A filibuster is when a senator takes the floor and presents a speech so long that a vote never takes place, or takes place after a long period of time. It's interesting its almost comical nature -- the speech in question doesn't even have to be related to the bill. Once a senator has the floor of Congress, he keeps it until he is finished. The only requirement is that he is physically capable of continuing the speech. Therefore, the most potent filibusters are those in which the speakers are the most physically fit to continue talking nonsense for as long of a time as possible.
During Obama's first term, the House was dominantly Republican. Obama, being a democratic President, found it extremely difficult to pass any bill due to Republican filibuster blocking power. There is only one way to stop a filibuster, and that is with the cloture rule. Sixty senators must vote to cut off debate. This super-majority is extremely difficult to attain, and therefore it is very difficult to stop a filibuster once it has begun.
It's a mechanism considered heavily bureaucratic and slows down congressional proceedings greatly.
The hold is when a senator asks for time to be informed of a bill, preventing debate from continuing until he is given time to be consulted by a sponsor of the bill. More interesting, however, is the filibuster due to its recent potency in Obama's first term.
A filibuster is when a senator takes the floor and presents a speech so long that a vote never takes place, or takes place after a long period of time. It's interesting its almost comical nature -- the speech in question doesn't even have to be related to the bill. Once a senator has the floor of Congress, he keeps it until he is finished. The only requirement is that he is physically capable of continuing the speech. Therefore, the most potent filibusters are those in which the speakers are the most physically fit to continue talking nonsense for as long of a time as possible.
During Obama's first term, the House was dominantly Republican. Obama, being a democratic President, found it extremely difficult to pass any bill due to Republican filibuster blocking power. There is only one way to stop a filibuster, and that is with the cloture rule. Sixty senators must vote to cut off debate. This super-majority is extremely difficult to attain, and therefore it is very difficult to stop a filibuster once it has begun.
It's a mechanism considered heavily bureaucratic and slows down congressional proceedings greatly.
Redistricting vs. Gerrymandering
Redistricting is the process in which state legislatures redraw district lines in their state during elections. Elections don't work in the fashion of a straight vote; each district is worth a certain number of electoral votes, and the majority of the votes in that district wins the district in an all-or-nothing fashion. Therefore, it is possible to theoretically group all Republicans in as few districts as possible, or to draw the lines so that they lose out on the district by only a few votes in order to win as many districts as possible for the Democratic Party. Of course, the opposite also possible. When there is a biased intention during redistricting, it becomes known as gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is no doubt a serious issue, with the possibility of overthrowing entire elections (the most obvious example being the 2000 election, where President Bush won the electoral vote without winning the popular vote). Therefore, may attempts are made to reduce the effects of gerrymandering. Such rules are as follows:
Gerrymandering is no doubt a serious issue, with the possibility of overthrowing entire elections (the most obvious example being the 2000 election, where President Bush won the electoral vote without winning the popular vote). Therefore, may attempts are made to reduce the effects of gerrymandering. Such rules are as follows:
- Districts must be apportioned based on population.
- District lines must be unbroken.
- Purposeful gerrymandering is illegal.
- Redrawing districts in favor of minority representation is constitutional if it is not based on race.
- States may redistrict more than every 10 years.
Many of these, mainly 3 and 4, are difficult to regulate. Gerrymandering is a problem that consistently plagues democracies around the world.
Many have suggested ways to avoid gerrymandering, the most obvious being to switch to a direct popular vote, abolishing the Electoral College altogether. However, this leads to problems of its own. The Electoral College helps to protect state rights by giving each state a set number of votes. Small states would be at a severe disadvantage, as representatives typically have little use for them and therefore they typically get less political weight. The Electoral College helps to offset this effect and getting rid of it would be detrimental.
Marvel semiconductor company pays $1.17 billion lawsuit
Marvel, a company that manufactures semiconductors for use with integrated chips and technologies such as motherboards and microcontrollers, found itself at a crossroads with Carnegie Mellon University, which sued them for a whopping $1,169,140,271, making it the largest patent verdict in history, beating the Apple vs. Samsung fiasco earlier this year.
The patents describe a way to remove electronic noise from chips that allows them to be more accurate, which is vital especially in the common case that the chip is a part of a much large implementation of the device; a single error can adversely affect the entire system.
Marvel sold nearly 2.34 billion infringing chips to companies such as Seagate and Western Digital.
Intellectual property lawsuits have been increasing in number ever since the growing amount of globalization and the growth of fields such as communications. Universities specifically have been becoming more adamant with companies violating their patents, with Stanford University suing Roche for an HIV testing patent (which failed) and Cornell University suing Hewlett-Packard over a computer-processing patent (which succeeded with a payout of $53.5 million).
The reason universities tend to be so aggressive on suing based on intellectual property is simply because they have no true products of their own to be countersued; they are purely on the offensive. Some may even declare universities to be the new "patent trolls." However, this is not the case; many universities end up losing money from their patents.
Marvell has continued to press for a retrial.
The patents describe a way to remove electronic noise from chips that allows them to be more accurate, which is vital especially in the common case that the chip is a part of a much large implementation of the device; a single error can adversely affect the entire system.
Marvel sold nearly 2.34 billion infringing chips to companies such as Seagate and Western Digital.
Intellectual property lawsuits have been increasing in number ever since the growing amount of globalization and the growth of fields such as communications. Universities specifically have been becoming more adamant with companies violating their patents, with Stanford University suing Roche for an HIV testing patent (which failed) and Cornell University suing Hewlett-Packard over a computer-processing patent (which succeeded with a payout of $53.5 million).
The reason universities tend to be so aggressive on suing based on intellectual property is simply because they have no true products of their own to be countersued; they are purely on the offensive. Some may even declare universities to be the new "patent trolls." However, this is not the case; many universities end up losing money from their patents.
Marvell has continued to press for a retrial.
Pharma Regulations
Ever since the new millenia of the 20th century, many people feared doctors. Their treatments often worked, often didn't, and when the happenstance was of the latter, people were not the happiest of people.
Ben Goldacre outlines the process of how bad pharmaceuticals come to market in his book, "How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients." The process goes something like this:
A drug is manufactured for the market. The drug is then tested thoroughly by the Federal Drug Association and associated corporations; however, the only regulation is that the drug must be better than a placebo. It's an extremely lax regulation.
However, often the drug is tested by the manufacturer themselves. This means that they can simply throw away all of their negative trial data and put forth only the positive in order to set their product to market.
Side effects are only tested by a few thousand people. Therefore, niche communities and sub-populations are not tested. Meanwhile, when follow-up studies are conducted, many negative results are still not published (nearly five times as many positive results are, however). Therefore, a grossly incompetent or outright unhealthy drug can stay on the market for years before it is finally removed from pharma shelves.
Often, screening is lackluster in the first place, with drugs only being tested for a short period of time. It is difficult to test drugs for the entire lifespan of their trials due to the length of modern lifetimes and therefore many settle for indicators of health, such as blood pressure, that indicate whether the drug is helping or hurting a patient. However, failure to investigate long-term effects can lead to drastic mis-prescriptions.
Public health is a federal concern. It is the government's responsibility to tighten these regulations in order to minimize the number of deaths caused by medical complications of lackluster-screened drugs. However, it isn't quite so simple, as often the government must put a drug on the market immediately during a crisis (such as Tamiflu during the bird flu scare a few years ago). Life-long screening and follow-up studies are impractical to do in such scenarios, and often times there is no true way to solve the pharma crisis aside from a wait-and-see approach.
OH NO SCALE: Very bad
[1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/profits-over-your-dead-body/
Ben Goldacre outlines the process of how bad pharmaceuticals come to market in his book, "How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients." The process goes something like this:
A drug is manufactured for the market. The drug is then tested thoroughly by the Federal Drug Association and associated corporations; however, the only regulation is that the drug must be better than a placebo. It's an extremely lax regulation.
However, often the drug is tested by the manufacturer themselves. This means that they can simply throw away all of their negative trial data and put forth only the positive in order to set their product to market.
Side effects are only tested by a few thousand people. Therefore, niche communities and sub-populations are not tested. Meanwhile, when follow-up studies are conducted, many negative results are still not published (nearly five times as many positive results are, however). Therefore, a grossly incompetent or outright unhealthy drug can stay on the market for years before it is finally removed from pharma shelves.
Often, screening is lackluster in the first place, with drugs only being tested for a short period of time. It is difficult to test drugs for the entire lifespan of their trials due to the length of modern lifetimes and therefore many settle for indicators of health, such as blood pressure, that indicate whether the drug is helping or hurting a patient. However, failure to investigate long-term effects can lead to drastic mis-prescriptions.
Public health is a federal concern. It is the government's responsibility to tighten these regulations in order to minimize the number of deaths caused by medical complications of lackluster-screened drugs. However, it isn't quite so simple, as often the government must put a drug on the market immediately during a crisis (such as Tamiflu during the bird flu scare a few years ago). Life-long screening and follow-up studies are impractical to do in such scenarios, and often times there is no true way to solve the pharma crisis aside from a wait-and-see approach.
OH NO SCALE: Very bad
[1] http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/profits-over-your-dead-body/
Paperless Patent Trolling
An unregistered entity known as Project Paperless LLC has been sending out lawsuits aplenty to average businesses, suing them for using everyday electronics such as scanners and fax machines and not paying licenses. The lawsuits range from $900 - $1,200 dollars in value per employee using the devices.
Steven Vicinanza, the founder of BlueWave Computing, was a victim; if he were to pay the claims, he would owe a total of $130,000 dollars.
Steven Hill, the attorney at Project Paperless, claimed that they had a patent that covered the process of scanning and sending PDF documents. All patents in question (numbers 6,185,590, 6,771,381, 7,477,410 and 7,986,426) are attributed to the inventor Laurence C. Klein.
Patent trolling is no small issue in the world of IT and communications. People can file for patents or use legal loopholes to sue companies for using their technologies. They attack both startup companies and extremely large tech giants. It works because often their demands are petty enough that legal action would be more expensive than simply paying their settlement.
Project Paperless eventually split up into a variety of bogus six-letter companies that constantly changed names and credentials, including AdzPro, GosNel, and FasLan. The difficulty of tracking credentials of patent trolls is what makes it so hard to take legal action against them.
However, interestingly enough, the new companies did not file lawsuits. In fact, they may simply be a scheme to intimidate small business owners to pay the settlement.
Ars Technica outlines one specific conversation with AllLed, one such company:
Steven Vicinanza, the founder of BlueWave Computing, was a victim; if he were to pay the claims, he would owe a total of $130,000 dollars.
Steven Hill, the attorney at Project Paperless, claimed that they had a patent that covered the process of scanning and sending PDF documents. All patents in question (numbers 6,185,590, 6,771,381, 7,477,410 and 7,986,426) are attributed to the inventor Laurence C. Klein.
Patent trolling is no small issue in the world of IT and communications. People can file for patents or use legal loopholes to sue companies for using their technologies. They attack both startup companies and extremely large tech giants. It works because often their demands are petty enough that legal action would be more expensive than simply paying their settlement.
Project Paperless eventually split up into a variety of bogus six-letter companies that constantly changed names and credentials, including AdzPro, GosNel, and FasLan. The difficulty of tracking credentials of patent trolls is what makes it so hard to take legal action against them.
However, interestingly enough, the new companies did not file lawsuits. In fact, they may simply be a scheme to intimidate small business owners to pay the settlement.
Ars Technica outlines one specific conversation with AllLed, one such company:
“Thank you for calling the legal department,” said a youngish-sounding man. “This is Kevin, how can I help you?”
I was calling about a letter I was holding from AllLed, I explained. Kevin asked for my letter’s “file number,” which was the one thing I couldn’t give him—it would have revealed the source from whom I had received the letter. I told Kevin I was a writer who had been given the letter by someone else. All I wanted to do was contact AllLed, LLC directly—so how could I do that?
“We don’t have any information on the entities that send the letter,” he said. It was just an answering service. “We don’t have their contact information.”
“Well, who are you the ‘legal department’ for?” I asked.
“Hmmm,” said Kevin. “Legal department.”
“I don’t get it—is ‘Legal Department’ a real company?” I persisted.
“Hmmm,” said Kevin again. “We’re just Legal Department.”
“Well, you work for someone, right? What company do you work for?”
“This is Legal Department. That’s all we can say.”
Trillion Dollar Coin?
In order avoid a financial collapse of the United States economy, Wall Street analysts and economists have suggested that the United States print a trillion dollar coin. The U.S. mint would melt and mold the high-value coins to send to the Federal Reserve, which they would then use to help pay the debt of the government to foreign agencies.
There are laws regulating the amount that a specified amount of metal can hold in values of currency. Gold, silver and copper are controlled in this regard. Therefore, they cannot be used to mint coins of considerable value, most definitely including trillion dollar coins. However, due to the rarity of such a material, there are no regulations against the minting of platinum. Therefore, the rare material will be used for the trillion dollar coin if such a need arises.
However, such a proposition can lead to considerable bureaucratic concerns. The design of the coin must be a dead person, and the proposition must be voted on by the American people. This design must then be passed through legislation, leading to the possibility of a filibuster blocking the proposal.
According to Gregory J. Krieg of ABC News:
"It goes like this: Should Congress fail to extend the U.S. debt limit — reached again on Dec. 31 — the president could ask the Treasury to begin printing trillion dollar coins (in a process explained mostly seriously by Jim Pethokoukis on his American Enterprise Institute blog), a number of which could then be put toward fulfilling debt obligations in the event new legislation stalls in Congress.
While there are laws in place to regulate how much paper, gold, silver or copper currency can be circulated by the government, there is nothing so clearly stated when it comes to platinum. That door open, the Treasury could have the U.S. Mint melt and mold a few trillion dollars of it, then ship the goods over to the Federal Reserve for safekeeping until the time comes to pay the bills."
There are laws regulating the amount that a specified amount of metal can hold in values of currency. Gold, silver and copper are controlled in this regard. Therefore, they cannot be used to mint coins of considerable value, most definitely including trillion dollar coins. However, due to the rarity of such a material, there are no regulations against the minting of platinum. Therefore, the rare material will be used for the trillion dollar coin if such a need arises.
However, such a proposition can lead to considerable bureaucratic concerns. The design of the coin must be a dead person, and the proposition must be voted on by the American people. This design must then be passed through legislation, leading to the possibility of a filibuster blocking the proposal.
According to Gregory J. Krieg of ABC News:
"It goes like this: Should Congress fail to extend the U.S. debt limit — reached again on Dec. 31 — the president could ask the Treasury to begin printing trillion dollar coins (in a process explained mostly seriously by Jim Pethokoukis on his American Enterprise Institute blog), a number of which could then be put toward fulfilling debt obligations in the event new legislation stalls in Congress.
While there are laws in place to regulate how much paper, gold, silver or copper currency can be circulated by the government, there is nothing so clearly stated when it comes to platinum. That door open, the Treasury could have the U.S. Mint melt and mold a few trillion dollars of it, then ship the goods over to the Federal Reserve for safekeeping until the time comes to pay the bills."
Colorado Theater Killings Trial
Amidst the fatal Colorado theater shootings last year, suspect James Holmes is expected to stand trial. The shootings caused the deaths of 12 people and the injury of 70 others. Evidence is so strong that many believe a plea agreement can be accepted even before a trial occurs, but legal analysts believe this may well be simply an opportunity for the defendant's lawyer to gather information regarding the trial.
Preliminary hearings "are often the first step to resolving the case, a mini-trial so both sides can see the writing on the wall," Levenson said.
Judges rarely throw out a case at this stage because prosecutors must only meet a "probable cause" standard — much lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for a guilty verdict at trial, said Mimi Wesson, a professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School.
The suspect has had over 160 counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder and it is very unlikely that the defendant will avoid a guilty plea.
Preliminary hearings "are often the first step to resolving the case, a mini-trial so both sides can see the writing on the wall," Levenson said.
Judges rarely throw out a case at this stage because prosecutors must only meet a "probable cause" standard — much lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for a guilty verdict at trial, said Mimi Wesson, a professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School.
The suspect has had over 160 counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder and it is very unlikely that the defendant will avoid a guilty plea.
Hostess Closing
The beloved creator and manufacturer of the classic American food "Twinkies," Hostess has closed due to bankruptcy and a strike by its underpaid union workers.
The company had been plagued by bankruptcy and financial mismanagement for years before a worker's strike on November 9th thoroughly crippled the company. The closing will remove the jobs of 18,500 workers.
It is difficult to pin the blame on any one party. Many claim that mismanagement on the side of Hostess, with vast underpayment of its workers and employees, has caused a strike, while some may blame the closings on the simple decline in the market. However, it is unlikely that the public will not see the Twinkie brand as they are currently scrambling to sell the brands to competitors who will extend the life of the foodstuffs.
According to an article on CNN:
"The Bakery Workers union has repeatedly said that mismanagement and the debt placed on the company by its current and past owners were the reasons for the company's failure, not the strike. It said its membership was overwhelmingly opposed to the wage and benefit concessions agreed to by other Hostess employees, including the majority of the 6,700 members of the Teamsters' union at Hostess."
The company had been plagued by bankruptcy and financial mismanagement for years before a worker's strike on November 9th thoroughly crippled the company. The closing will remove the jobs of 18,500 workers.
It is difficult to pin the blame on any one party. Many claim that mismanagement on the side of Hostess, with vast underpayment of its workers and employees, has caused a strike, while some may blame the closings on the simple decline in the market. However, it is unlikely that the public will not see the Twinkie brand as they are currently scrambling to sell the brands to competitors who will extend the life of the foodstuffs.
According to an article on CNN:
"The Bakery Workers union has repeatedly said that mismanagement and the debt placed on the company by its current and past owners were the reasons for the company's failure, not the strike. It said its membership was overwhelmingly opposed to the wage and benefit concessions agreed to by other Hostess employees, including the majority of the 6,700 members of the Teamsters' union at Hostess."
Is Google a trust?
Trust laws have been a fragment of the government of the United States for over a century when they were first put in place during the Reconstruction times post-Civil War. They helped to protect economic competition between industrial giants (some would say "robber barons") that would use vertical and horizontal integration to defeat their competitors -- taking advantage of the manufacturing process and absorbing rival companies to become their own.
On Tuesday, Google was attacked for their position as a possible trust, given their history of a wide range of market products, from GMail to their consolidation of YouTube and now the takeover of the ISP market with Google Fiber. The Federal Trade Commission decided in a trial that Google was ultimately beneficial to competition rather than detrimental, and that they would not press charges against the company.
Google was "quick to claim victory."
However, Google has been criticized in the past for its practices, which many believe are harmful to the state of the industry. It tends to favor its own search results in its search engine, which is criticized by its rivals and even the United States Congress. Regardless, the search results tend to be beneficial rather than harmful to its customers, and therefore it does not violate any anti-trust laws. In order to stage a lawsuit on the company, the plaintiff would have to prove that Google has compromised its potency as a search engine and a communications network for its customers, of which there is little evidence of insofar.
Even if such a lawsuit were claimed, it would be difficult to file simply due to the vast complications of Google's operations. Google's search engine algorithm is constantly changing and therefore difficult or outright impossible to stage evidence for.
Even then, Google has a great variety of rivals, including Microsoft's Bing, who are constantly staging legal wars against the company. The company has dodged anti-trust lawsuits for now but in the future it will be difficult to say.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/03/technology/google-ftc/index.html
On Tuesday, Google was attacked for their position as a possible trust, given their history of a wide range of market products, from GMail to their consolidation of YouTube and now the takeover of the ISP market with Google Fiber. The Federal Trade Commission decided in a trial that Google was ultimately beneficial to competition rather than detrimental, and that they would not press charges against the company.
Google was "quick to claim victory."
However, Google has been criticized in the past for its practices, which many believe are harmful to the state of the industry. It tends to favor its own search results in its search engine, which is criticized by its rivals and even the United States Congress. Regardless, the search results tend to be beneficial rather than harmful to its customers, and therefore it does not violate any anti-trust laws. In order to stage a lawsuit on the company, the plaintiff would have to prove that Google has compromised its potency as a search engine and a communications network for its customers, of which there is little evidence of insofar.
Even if such a lawsuit were claimed, it would be difficult to file simply due to the vast complications of Google's operations. Google's search engine algorithm is constantly changing and therefore difficult or outright impossible to stage evidence for.
Even then, Google has a great variety of rivals, including Microsoft's Bing, who are constantly staging legal wars against the company. The company has dodged anti-trust lawsuits for now but in the future it will be difficult to say.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/03/technology/google-ftc/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)