Celeb Graduates - The Daily Beast
As my friends from college struggle with their current employment or finding a job, I thought this slide show was interesting. Many of these celebrities dropped out of college; others studied exactly what you would expect. The CEO of eBay studied economics. The creators of Google studied computer science and math at the University of Maryland. It seems those people followed their career paths from college to their heights.
Some people on this list were really surprising. Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of Staff, studied dance at Sarah Lawrence before getting a masters at Northwestern in speech and communication. Natalie Portman took a break from acting to get a degree in research psychology at Harvard. James Franco studied furiously to get a degree in English with an emphasis in creative writing at UCLA. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, set out to study physics and switched to computer science when quantum mechanics stumped him. Kate Beckinsdale was a withdrawn wall-flower at Oxford studying French and Russian before she dropped out to pursue acting.
I found another list of celebrity college majors that also proved interesting. Will Ferrell studied sports broadcasting. Maggie Gyllenhaal was an Eastern Religions student.
More still from another list: Jon Stewart was a psychology major at William and Mary. Fashion designer Vera Wang left her ice skating career at 20 and studied art history at Sarah Lawrence. And singer John Legend was an English major in college before pursuing music.
So don't despair, liberal and fine arts majors. There is always a career for you, even if it is not exactly what you studied.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Citizen B's Favorite News: Let's move to Middle America!
Pack up your belongings and look for a job in McAllen, TX.
Living in a farming community or a big city may be a struggle right now, but mid-size cities in the United States are actually prospering in the midst of an economic crisis. With their local banks having few toxic loans and an economy not based on manufacturing or real estate, these 400,000 people cities have dodged the worst of the recession.
While logically speaking you will find more job postings in New York City than in Huntsville, Alabama, you're more likely to keep a job in Huntsville than New York City. If banks are able to continue giving new loans in these areas, setting up a small business in a mid-size city is easier than a large one, or a very small one. In addition the cost of living is far less in Omaha, Nebraska than it is in someplace like Chicago, meaning you are less likely to go broke paying rent.
Living in a farming community or a big city may be a struggle right now, but mid-size cities in the United States are actually prospering in the midst of an economic crisis. With their local banks having few toxic loans and an economy not based on manufacturing or real estate, these 400,000 people cities have dodged the worst of the recession.
While logically speaking you will find more job postings in New York City than in Huntsville, Alabama, you're more likely to keep a job in Huntsville than New York City. If banks are able to continue giving new loans in these areas, setting up a small business in a mid-size city is easier than a large one, or a very small one. In addition the cost of living is far less in Omaha, Nebraska than it is in someplace like Chicago, meaning you are less likely to go broke paying rent.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Citizen B's Favorite News: Enemy Number 1- The Fraudulent Citizen
The FBI has declared the fraudulent American citizen Enemy Number 1.
Corporate fraud and mortgage fraud are occupying all of the FBI's time. Instead of catching terrorists, they are investigating 2,500 fraud cases. It leaves me to wonder how much money has been taken in these cases. How much more is it costing the government to investigate these cases than fighting more violent threats such as terrorists, gangs, and drugs? White-collar crime is often referred to as victimless crime. But are victims here? The American taxpayer whose money was swindled, who have lost savings? Or is taking the focus off of the violent criminals worse?
Corporate fraud and mortgage fraud are occupying all of the FBI's time. Instead of catching terrorists, they are investigating 2,500 fraud cases. It leaves me to wonder how much money has been taken in these cases. How much more is it costing the government to investigate these cases than fighting more violent threats such as terrorists, gangs, and drugs? White-collar crime is often referred to as victimless crime. But are victims here? The American taxpayer whose money was swindled, who have lost savings? Or is taking the focus off of the violent criminals worse?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Citizen B's Favorite News: Give It Back, AIG
The House of Representatives passed a 90% tax on the bonuses paid to executives after receiving federal stimulus money.
Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball had two congressman this afternoon debating whether or not it was constitutional to put that high a tax on any person's income.
I'm going to try sparking a little debate here. Pick a side and let me know how you think this should be handled.
Side A: Tax Those AIG SOB's!
American International Group received taxpayer money, saying without it the company would fail, putting millions of Americans out of work, stopping the flow of credit in the United States.
This is taxpayer money. The taxpayers through their Congressional Representatives should decide how it is taxed the same way they vote to raise or lower other federal taxes. The purpose of the bailout was not to save executives. It was to make sure the company could continue to function, to keep credit flowing. They were "too big to fail."
These employees should not keep a bonus for failing to do their job. Tax it. Give it back to the government.
From The New York Times:
Side B: Call the ACLU! This Is Unconstitutional!
America was built with the principle that there should be no unfair taxation of its citizens. The bonuses were an already standing part of the executives' salaries. These bonuses, even at their highest, were not exorbitantly taxed by the government. Is it right to levy a tax against this small group of people?
From The New York Times:
The loan had no stipulations on executive pay. It was therefore not an illegal use of the funds to pay its employees. It was protected. Without that bonus, the employees may move on to other companies. These employees are also American citizens who pay taxes, who will spend this money on gas, food, mortgages, buying cars, plane tickets, and other goods and services. Some of these employees have already volunteered to return the entirety of their bonuses.
Passing legislation this quickly does not allow for a full debate and examination of its merits and weaknesses. It also does not allow for changes. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional to tax a citizen ex post facto, after the money was received when no such tax existed.
Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball had two congressman this afternoon debating whether or not it was constitutional to put that high a tax on any person's income.
I'm going to try sparking a little debate here. Pick a side and let me know how you think this should be handled.
Side A: Tax Those AIG SOB's!
American International Group received taxpayer money, saying without it the company would fail, putting millions of Americans out of work, stopping the flow of credit in the United States.
This is taxpayer money. The taxpayers through their Congressional Representatives should decide how it is taxed the same way they vote to raise or lower other federal taxes. The purpose of the bailout was not to save executives. It was to make sure the company could continue to function, to keep credit flowing. They were "too big to fail."
These employees should not keep a bonus for failing to do their job. Tax it. Give it back to the government.
From The New York Times:
“The people have said ‘no,’ ” Representative Earl Pomeroy, Democrat of North Dakota, shouted on the House floor. “In fact, they said ‘hell no, and give us our money back.’ ”
“Have the recipients of these checks no shame at all?” Mr. Pomeroy continued. Summing up his personal view of the so-far anonymous A.I.G. executives, he said: “You are disgraced professional losers. And by the way, give us our money back.”
Side B: Call the ACLU! This Is Unconstitutional!
America was built with the principle that there should be no unfair taxation of its citizens. The bonuses were an already standing part of the executives' salaries. These bonuses, even at their highest, were not exorbitantly taxed by the government. Is it right to levy a tax against this small group of people?
From The New York Times:
The inspector general for the TARP program said on Thursday that Bush administration officials knew at the time of the November agreement between the Treasury Department and A.I.G. on bailout funds that A.I.G. intended to pay bonuses. The contract between the company and Treasury “specifically contemplated the payment of bonuses and retention payments to A.I.G. employees, including A.I.G.’s senior partners,” Inspector General Neil Barofsky told a House Ways and Means subcommittee, Bloomberg News reported.
The loan had no stipulations on executive pay. It was therefore not an illegal use of the funds to pay its employees. It was protected. Without that bonus, the employees may move on to other companies. These employees are also American citizens who pay taxes, who will spend this money on gas, food, mortgages, buying cars, plane tickets, and other goods and services. Some of these employees have already volunteered to return the entirety of their bonuses.
Passing legislation this quickly does not allow for a full debate and examination of its merits and weaknesses. It also does not allow for changes. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional to tax a citizen ex post facto, after the money was received when no such tax existed.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Citizen B's Favorite News: Watch Where You Point That Criticism
I had to post this picture from PunditKitchen.com because it fits so perfectly with this article.Tucker Carlson of MSNBC believes that comedian Jon Stewart is a horrible pundit, incorrect and annoying. This article from The Daily Beast starts by railing on Stewart for railing against Jim Cramer.
You'll remember my post about spin. This is a good time to look at the author and consider this editorial (it's an editorial, not a news article). Tucker Carlson was the former host of CNN's Crossfire, on which he got into a heated argument with Jon Stewart in 2004.
In this editorial he is angry that Jon Stewart does not ask hard questions in his program. It's as if Carlson forgot that Stewart is on Comedy Central. If Carlson thinks Stewart should be reprimanded for not asking politicians hard questions, then he really should criticize Ellen Degeneres, Regis Philbin, and The View, all of whom have had politicians on their show and talked about fluff subjects.
Since Carlson doesn't believe Stewart is a serious journalist (and he's not supposed to be- he hosts a comedy show), he seems quite annoyed that Stewart stayed after the show to continue arguing for his case. Is that passion, knowledge on the subject or is it just pride?
The Daily Show is a comedy show based on a daily news format, poking fun at the news. He has a right to an opinion just like Rush Limbaugh does. It seems to me reading this article and watching the Crossfire segment that Carlson is moping about Stewart being popular.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Citizen B's Favorite News: St. Patrick's Day
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
In real Irish news today, Northern Ireland is struggling to maintain it's 11-year-old peace after two British officers were shot this weekend.
I vaguely remember the Troubles in Northern Ireland from the time I was a child. Upon reading the above article, I am reminded how many terrorist organizations are active in Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA, the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, and Oglaigh na hEireann to name just a few are currently active and linked to murders and other illegal activity this last year. That's more terrorist organizations in one country than I can name in Afghanistan or Iraq. (If you can name an Iraqi, Saudi, Afghani, or Iranian terrorist organization, not government, apart from Al-Qaeda, please tell me. I honestly don't know any others.) There are terrorists in the world who are not jihadists.
So before knocking back a pint of Guinness tonight, remember that Northern Ireland is still trying to maintain national stability after 3,600 deaths during the Troubles.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Citizen B's Favorite News: Escaping Abuse
This is an inspiring story of a woman who escaped an abusive relationship.
I saw Susan first appear on Oprah a few years ago. After 14 years of escalating violence, her husband had their 13-year-old son tape him beating his wife. After 51 videotaped minutes of kicking, punching, and slapping her, he screams at her that she will follow him "to a T." Her offense? She asked if she could make him a sandwich for lunch. That's almost an hour of documented domestic violence. Susan says her husband had often made an audio recording of his tirades against her so he could listen to them later. This was the first and only time he videotaped the abuse.
Now Susan's husband is serving a 36 year sentence, the longest sentence on record for domestic violence.
The videotape was not the only evidence that convicted her husband. Susan's boss started keeping a daily record of signs of abuse before confronting her employee the day after the videotaped assault. When Susan came into work the next day, her boss called the police and together Susan, her boss, and the police came up with a plan to convict Susan's husband.
Without her employer's record of Susan's injuries, absences, and victim behavior, the videotape alone would have only proved one instance of assault, punishable by one year in jail. Because someone else was vigilant and was willing to testify, Ulner Lee Still will not be able to abuse another woman or any of his children for years.
I saw Susan first appear on Oprah a few years ago. After 14 years of escalating violence, her husband had their 13-year-old son tape him beating his wife. After 51 videotaped minutes of kicking, punching, and slapping her, he screams at her that she will follow him "to a T." Her offense? She asked if she could make him a sandwich for lunch. That's almost an hour of documented domestic violence. Susan says her husband had often made an audio recording of his tirades against her so he could listen to them later. This was the first and only time he videotaped the abuse.
Now Susan's husband is serving a 36 year sentence, the longest sentence on record for domestic violence.
The videotape was not the only evidence that convicted her husband. Susan's boss started keeping a daily record of signs of abuse before confronting her employee the day after the videotaped assault. When Susan came into work the next day, her boss called the police and together Susan, her boss, and the police came up with a plan to convict Susan's husband.
Without her employer's record of Susan's injuries, absences, and victim behavior, the videotape alone would have only proved one instance of assault, punishable by one year in jail. Because someone else was vigilant and was willing to testify, Ulner Lee Still will not be able to abuse another woman or any of his children for years.
Citizen B's Favorite News: A Slice of Humble Pie
I am thankful to have a job.
I've read stories of people who were barely making it who just lost their jobs. These are the people my heart goes out to, because I know that could be me at any point. I've had a harder time empathizing with people like Alexandra Penney, who moaned in her Daily Beast entries about having to sell her second house in Florida.
There were a few stories that struck me with unusual sympathy. How much sympathy do you feel for the people who made 70,000 a year who lose their jobs? Normally I would say very little. Some people have learned to have a little humility in this crisis. A friend of mine said she was really humbled when she found herself going to a food pantry after losing her job.
This story posted on CNN today about a banker who lost his cushy job and found himself advertising on craigslist.com. He talks about moving in with his 75-year-old mother. There were some details that had me cringing. (Crying while you look for a job on craigslist? Welcome to the life of the college graduate.) But the article didn't answer something. When what I will call the "fallen fortunate" find themselves looking for work with regular Americans, how do they change? Do they have gratitude? Are they thankful for their new jobs? Do they donate to charities to help others who aren't so fortunate?
What do you think? Do you have sympathy for them?
I've read stories of people who were barely making it who just lost their jobs. These are the people my heart goes out to, because I know that could be me at any point. I've had a harder time empathizing with people like Alexandra Penney, who moaned in her Daily Beast entries about having to sell her second house in Florida.
There were a few stories that struck me with unusual sympathy. How much sympathy do you feel for the people who made 70,000 a year who lose their jobs? Normally I would say very little. Some people have learned to have a little humility in this crisis. A friend of mine said she was really humbled when she found herself going to a food pantry after losing her job.
This story posted on CNN today about a banker who lost his cushy job and found himself advertising on craigslist.com. He talks about moving in with his 75-year-old mother. There were some details that had me cringing. (Crying while you look for a job on craigslist? Welcome to the life of the college graduate.) But the article didn't answer something. When what I will call the "fallen fortunate" find themselves looking for work with regular Americans, how do they change? Do they have gratitude? Are they thankful for their new jobs? Do they donate to charities to help others who aren't so fortunate?
What do you think? Do you have sympathy for them?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
On The Media: Spinning The Subject
I've read countless letters from viewers and comments from readers on every news website. I have determined that the general public does not understand "spin" in news, or in fact how news is written. I will try to explain here.
First I will explain spin. Spin is a very general term used in the media for how we tell a story. This applies to everything. Do you talk about the sub-prime mortgage crisis just in numbers- how much has been lost and by whom? Do you instead talk to the people who have lost houses and jobs as a result, making it a very personal story? Do you cover the political side, asking Congress what they plan to do about the situation? Which would you choose? Congratulations. Your choice can be called a spin.
Journalists are people. They have political beliefs, religious beliefs, families, biases, childhoods, brand loyalties, likes, dislikes, and thoughts just like every person does. The difference is we must not allow these beliefs to impose upon our work.
There are some people who are paid to be journalists for a particular cause. Their role in a news organization is to be the conservative pundit, the liberal pundit, the military expert, the science expert, etc. When you read these journalists' articles, they will have a view they are specifically supporting. If you listen to David Brooks, you will hear a conservative Republican viewpoint. If you listen to Mark Shields, you will hear a Democratic viewpoint.
This isn't bias. As long as equal time is given to each viewpoint, journalism ethics require that both pundits are given a voice. However, even hard-news stories are accused of being biased. What's funny to me is that it does not seem to matter what the story is about. Conservatives will view the news as too liberal. Liberals will view it as too conservative. It depends on what they agree with.
I will be the first to say that journalists and reporters are not perfect. We have gotten facts incorrect in the past. But I can tell you we do our damnedest to make sure that we are right. Every article, TV news segment, and radio sound bite is scrutinized by editors, producers, other reporters, and fact-checkers (that is someone's job) to be sure everything is correct. We nitpick for hours over which words are used. We call back our sources and make sure our notes were correct. During the election we counted the minutes on air we gave each party candidate to make sure it was even.
So what is considered bias by journalists' standards? If we get the Democrats' view on a policy or law, but neglect to ask the Republicans that is bias. Unless of course, our story is specifically on the Democrats' point of view, or on the Democratic Party. We may have to make that our story if no one on the Republican side of the aisle will talk to us. Is it bias to not ask what the Green Party thinks? That depends. Does the Green Party have a voice in Congress? Is the Green Party a crucial part of the story? Most likely it isn't. We have done stories on the Green Party, but the reason minor political parties do not have a lot of coverage in the mainstream media is because they are usually not making a lot of news. If the Green Party stormed Congress demanding a bill on water conservation be passed, we would cover it, and ask every Green Party member everything we could.
We cover news based on what we believe is important. I don't care if the American Socialist Party is holding a meeting on Tuesday if the meeting does not relate to the larger discourse. We pick up on what people are interested in now, and what people need to know. That is what the news does. If it's not generating interest (especially an interest to our audience), we're not printing it. It's that simple.
And yet the news does print stories on every angle of every subject. All you have to do is browse a few news sites to find journalists questioning the Iraq War from day one, or warning about the stock market crash, or interviewing politicians on earmark reform. It may not have always been front page, but if someone could find the information and found it newsworthy, it was printed somewhere.
There are very few absolute truths in this world. Politics hold none of them. If you disagree with coverage of someone in the news or of an event, then check the facts yourself, and be sure you use good sources. Write your Congressman, your Senator, or call your mayor. Call the person in question. You can actually read all bills proposed in Congress on the internet in their entirety. Read the stimulus bill, and see how you feel about it. News journalism exists to inform the public, asking the questions because the entire populace is unable to do so every day. If you think it's a spin, consider your own biases first.
First I will explain spin. Spin is a very general term used in the media for how we tell a story. This applies to everything. Do you talk about the sub-prime mortgage crisis just in numbers- how much has been lost and by whom? Do you instead talk to the people who have lost houses and jobs as a result, making it a very personal story? Do you cover the political side, asking Congress what they plan to do about the situation? Which would you choose? Congratulations. Your choice can be called a spin.
Journalists are people. They have political beliefs, religious beliefs, families, biases, childhoods, brand loyalties, likes, dislikes, and thoughts just like every person does. The difference is we must not allow these beliefs to impose upon our work.
There are some people who are paid to be journalists for a particular cause. Their role in a news organization is to be the conservative pundit, the liberal pundit, the military expert, the science expert, etc. When you read these journalists' articles, they will have a view they are specifically supporting. If you listen to David Brooks, you will hear a conservative Republican viewpoint. If you listen to Mark Shields, you will hear a Democratic viewpoint.
This isn't bias. As long as equal time is given to each viewpoint, journalism ethics require that both pundits are given a voice. However, even hard-news stories are accused of being biased. What's funny to me is that it does not seem to matter what the story is about. Conservatives will view the news as too liberal. Liberals will view it as too conservative. It depends on what they agree with.
I will be the first to say that journalists and reporters are not perfect. We have gotten facts incorrect in the past. But I can tell you we do our damnedest to make sure that we are right. Every article, TV news segment, and radio sound bite is scrutinized by editors, producers, other reporters, and fact-checkers (that is someone's job) to be sure everything is correct. We nitpick for hours over which words are used. We call back our sources and make sure our notes were correct. During the election we counted the minutes on air we gave each party candidate to make sure it was even.
So what is considered bias by journalists' standards? If we get the Democrats' view on a policy or law, but neglect to ask the Republicans that is bias. Unless of course, our story is specifically on the Democrats' point of view, or on the Democratic Party. We may have to make that our story if no one on the Republican side of the aisle will talk to us. Is it bias to not ask what the Green Party thinks? That depends. Does the Green Party have a voice in Congress? Is the Green Party a crucial part of the story? Most likely it isn't. We have done stories on the Green Party, but the reason minor political parties do not have a lot of coverage in the mainstream media is because they are usually not making a lot of news. If the Green Party stormed Congress demanding a bill on water conservation be passed, we would cover it, and ask every Green Party member everything we could.
We cover news based on what we believe is important. I don't care if the American Socialist Party is holding a meeting on Tuesday if the meeting does not relate to the larger discourse. We pick up on what people are interested in now, and what people need to know. That is what the news does. If it's not generating interest (especially an interest to our audience), we're not printing it. It's that simple.
And yet the news does print stories on every angle of every subject. All you have to do is browse a few news sites to find journalists questioning the Iraq War from day one, or warning about the stock market crash, or interviewing politicians on earmark reform. It may not have always been front page, but if someone could find the information and found it newsworthy, it was printed somewhere.
There are very few absolute truths in this world. Politics hold none of them. If you disagree with coverage of someone in the news or of an event, then check the facts yourself, and be sure you use good sources. Write your Congressman, your Senator, or call your mayor. Call the person in question. You can actually read all bills proposed in Congress on the internet in their entirety. Read the stimulus bill, and see how you feel about it. News journalism exists to inform the public, asking the questions because the entire populace is unable to do so every day. If you think it's a spin, consider your own biases first.
Citizen B's Favorite News: When Wall Street Affects Sesame Street
Big Bird may get the boot.
Sesame Workshop, which produces the popular PBS kids' show Sesame Street, announced today it will lay off 67 of its 355 employees. The show was first televised in 1968, and has since grown into an international company, producing children's programs in South Africa, India, Indonesia, Northern Ireland, Brazil, Israel, Australia, Russia, Mexico, Egypt, France, Japan- the list goes on.
I imagine these cuts are primarily administrative, although certainly a lot of good muppeteers and muppet artists will lose their jobs. This is just another example of non-profits' struggles. (For the record, Sesame Workshop brings in about $145 million a year, and takes $141 million to produce.)
As a young adult who was raised on Sesame Street, I would be very sad to see this program go. One of the most education children's programs on television, I fear what would happen if we allow programs like this to go extinct. I'm sure PBS won't let this happen. The program is one of the staples that keeps PBS on air, but even PBS has a hard time coughing up cash when no donations are coming in from viewers like you.
Sesame Workshop, which produces the popular PBS kids' show Sesame Street, announced today it will lay off 67 of its 355 employees. The show was first televised in 1968, and has since grown into an international company, producing children's programs in South Africa, India, Indonesia, Northern Ireland, Brazil, Israel, Australia, Russia, Mexico, Egypt, France, Japan- the list goes on.
I imagine these cuts are primarily administrative, although certainly a lot of good muppeteers and muppet artists will lose their jobs. This is just another example of non-profits' struggles. (For the record, Sesame Workshop brings in about $145 million a year, and takes $141 million to produce.)
As a young adult who was raised on Sesame Street, I would be very sad to see this program go. One of the most education children's programs on television, I fear what would happen if we allow programs like this to go extinct. I'm sure PBS won't let this happen. The program is one of the staples that keeps PBS on air, but even PBS has a hard time coughing up cash when no donations are coming in from viewers like you.
Citizen B's Favorite News: You Stink When You Lie
While the technology is in its infancy, the Department of Homeland Security wants to identify you not only by your fingerprint, but by your body odor. They hope to develop the technology as a lie detector. That's right- when you lie, you stink.
Bloodhounds know each human scent is unique. But can a machine really tell if you're omitting an odor when you lie? What if a hapless victim of TSA was simply unable to shower because they were being held for questioning upon discovery of their lotion bottle? I think that even the innocent will sweat if interrogated.
Bloodhounds know each human scent is unique. But can a machine really tell if you're omitting an odor when you lie? What if a hapless victim of TSA was simply unable to shower because they were being held for questioning upon discovery of their lotion bottle? I think that even the innocent will sweat if interrogated.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
A Simple Explanation of Bad Banks
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not a economic genius. In fact, I'm very confused by this whole recession. I'm sure some of you are too, so I've found some good explanations.
I'm a big fan of public radio and public television. This is the best and simplest explanation of sub prime mortgage crisis.
I'm a big fan of public radio and public television. This is the best and simplest explanation of sub prime mortgage crisis.
This American Life: Bad Banks
This is another good public news discussion on how to handle the crisis:
Citizen B's Favorite News: An Interesting Way to Fix the Economy
These guys have an interesting plan to fix the economy. Abolish the US copyright and patent system.
Michael Boldrin and Daniel K. Levine of Washington University in St. Louis are both professors of economics. They say that the US patent and copyright laws are having a negative effect on invention and therefore the US economy. Levine and Boldrin compare the modern US system to medieval trade monopolies. By creating so many laws and expensive patent applications, and punishing people for what they consider really minor infractions, potential inventors and innovators are discouraged from developing.
It's a radical idea, but an interesting one. For anyone out there who understand the law or the economy, could something like this work?
Anyone else have any radical ideas to save the economy?
Michael Boldrin and Daniel K. Levine of Washington University in St. Louis are both professors of economics. They say that the US patent and copyright laws are having a negative effect on invention and therefore the US economy. Levine and Boldrin compare the modern US system to medieval trade monopolies. By creating so many laws and expensive patent applications, and punishing people for what they consider really minor infractions, potential inventors and innovators are discouraged from developing.
It's a radical idea, but an interesting one. For anyone out there who understand the law or the economy, could something like this work?
Anyone else have any radical ideas to save the economy?
On The Media: Some advertisements you will never see
The media has come a long ways in gender equality. There are more women working today in news, television, entertainment, and advertising than ever before. But I'm afraid there's still sex discrimination in something.
Where are all my women's products spam??!!
I get emails all day long to increase the size of my non-existent penis, to hold erections longer, to grow back my hair. It's as if every spammer out there believes I'm a man.
Here are some spams I've never seen in my inbox:
Vagina tightening pills- no more hot dog down a hallway!
Breast enhancement- Get off the itty-bitty-titty committee!
Cheap breast reduction- Relax the back pain!
Super tampon sale- Be super-prepared for Aunt Flo!
Yeast-B-Gone- I've yet to get spam about ancient Chinese medical secrets for zapping away a yeast infection fast
And finally, the one I've never seen in my mail:
Free Birth Control Pills! Just register on this list!
I'm not saying I want spam. No one likes spam. I'm just saying I want to be spammed with things that at least apply to my sex.
Here are some spams I've never seen in my inbox:
Vagina tightening pills- no more hot dog down a hallway!
Breast enhancement- Get off the itty-bitty-titty committee!
Cheap breast reduction- Relax the back pain!
Super tampon sale- Be super-prepared for Aunt Flo!
Yeast-B-Gone- I've yet to get spam about ancient Chinese medical secrets for zapping away a yeast infection fast
And finally, the one I've never seen in my mail:
Free Birth Control Pills! Just register on this list!
I'm not saying I want spam. No one likes spam. I'm just saying I want to be spammed with things that at least apply to my sex.
Welcome to News and Views! A greeting from Citizen B.
Welcome to my blog! I'm a young person in the world of broadcast journalism. I created this blog because I don't believe a lot of people understand how news media really works. Here you will find lots of posts titled On The Media, where I will explain how the news world works as honestly as possible.
This is also a personal blog, so I will post websites, bands, movies, and events that I like, and tell you a bit about myself.
Welcome, and enjoy.
This is also a personal blog, so I will post websites, bands, movies, and events that I like, and tell you a bit about myself.
Welcome, and enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)