Excess Government Spending: Defined

Here’s just a few of the highlights from the proposed NINE-HUNDRED-BILLION ($900,000,000,000) stimulus bill being debated in the Senate.  I’ll be quick, so that I can get back to work and generate more tax revenues to prop up Amtrak…

• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STDs
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters
• $246 million for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film
• $2 billion to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint

All in all, the NINE-HUNDRED-BILLION ($900,000,000,000) equates to a charge of about $3000 for each of these United States’ 300 million people… but I expect everyone in the middle will be covering for the babies that refuse to pay their fair share [don’t worry, we’ll get back at them when we pass our debt to their children].

Sarcasm?

Blogger-in-Chief

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.  The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace.  Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.

— President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address

While the world watched over the inauguration of Barack Obama with hope and anticipation, the first signs of change were already underway with the re-launch of whitehouse.org.  Though currently only enabling one side of the dialogue that democracy requires (no comments?!), it nonetheless is an important recognition of the fact that “we the people” demand more transparency and deserve more input into our elected governance in the years ahead.

As referenced in his innagural address, forty-three Americans have preceded Obama into office; but among many other firsts, he will certainly be our first Blogger-in-Chief.  I can only hope this first step evolves into more than a thinly-veiled megaphone for pre-approved talking points.

Product Placement: This Post Brought to by…

Look out, Jack!  The FCC has set its sights on the next goldmine of needless government regulation: product placement.  MediaPost reports that the agency “has begun a formal inquiry into altering its regulations governing product placement [and] is seeking comment on whether greater disclosure of so-called ‘embedded advertising’ is needed.”  One proposal would force networks to run on-screen notices lasting up to four seconds.

This is the sort of slippery slope regulation that warms the heart of a government bureacrat, especially FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein who believes that viewers have a legal right to know every product within the frame:

“Reality TV should mean informing viewers about who is secretly pitching to them in the TV shows they are watching.  The true reality is that news and entertainment alike are practically being turned into undisclosed commercials. Many current practices fly in the face of viewers’ legal right to know who is pitching to them.”

Be careful what you wish for.  Companies of all sizes have taken to product placement as a subtle way to push their wares into the mainstream — and most of this activity is directed not by Fortune 500 ad agencies, but by savvy productions looking to stretch their budgets as far as possible.  Such regulation will only increase the barrier to entry for anyone but the multinationals it is attempting to curb and, far worse, transform entertainment into a tag sale not unlike Fight Club’s vision of consumerism run amok, in which case the audience will suffer the most.  Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer to enjoy a scene without having every prop brought to my attention (whether it was paid/bartered for or not).

Sure, you say, the FCC wants to ensure that you know American Idol contestants don’t really drive around in a Ford singing covers of a forgotten artist looking for a reunion tour and drinking Coca-Cola all day.  Perhaps they are just doing their patriotic duty to protect us from our desire to enjoy the suspension of disbelief that makes entertainment so engrossing.

Beauty and the Backslash: Immigration Reform

I’m really torn on this one. Our innovation-driven economy demands that we continue to import the brightest minds from around the globe; but every visa that goes to an AJAX guru or systems architect is one more unavailable slot for a supermodel (cruel world, I know).

Fortunately, Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York’s 9th District has introduced a bill before Congress that will create a new “nonimigrant” classification allowing up to 1,000 foreign models to enter the country, and thereby creating new openings for technology geeks. Problem solved! According to InformationWeek:

The United States makes 65,000 H-1B visas available each year. But the new allotments are typically snapped up within the first weeks of availability, leaving hopefuls to wait another year for a chance to work in the country. American tech vendors, along with Indian firms with stateside offices, typically use the lion’s share of the allotment to import programmers into the country.

While this isn’t exactly the “comprehensive immigration reform” we’ve been waiting for — and I’m sure Congress has more pressing matters to attend to — this is at least one government program that everyone can rally behind. Like many acts of Congress, however, it may not actually address the issue: Silicon Alley Insider points out that most supermodels (like Nobel Prize winners) enter the country under O-1 visas… no doubt for their “extraordinary abilities”.

The Art of Argument

We all disagree, some simply do it better than others. In an essay entitled “How to Disagree” Paul Graham points out that as the web has become both the catalyst and facilitator of worldwide conversation, people are finding more opportunities for debate. “If we’re all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well,” he writes, before proceeding to examine each stratum of argument: from the familiar to the effective.

CreateDebate, a democratic social utility aimed at powering logical discourse, has constructed a “Maslowtized” hierarchy of debate which is interesting but distorts the point of Graham’s worthy essay in one critical way: while Maslow uses essential needs as a base for further development, the art of effective argument requires bypassing its lesser forms entirely to focus with precision on “Refuting the Central Point”. The proper visualization, therefore, is not a pyramid but a bullseye:

Sadly, name calling and ad hominem rebuttals have become the accepted staple of discourse in media and politics, eroding the value of purposeful debate into a chorus of picture-in-picture spokesholes that wield everything but logic. The very structure of this familiar battleground is itself a fallacy in that it suggests that all arguments are equal, regardless of truth. Sure, most of life comes in shades of gray, but the sky is still blue whether you accept it or not. It would seem the act of debating is often more prized than the actions it hopes to shape.

“That’s the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you’re never wrong.”
— Nick Naylor, Thank You For Smoking (2005)

So why do I bring this up now (besides the fact that Graham offers an applicable and well-constructed premise)? Primarily because the glut of critical issues facing our country world in the years ahead demand better. Effective democracy requires material and logical disagreement, and all too often it is lost for the sake of soundbites and ratings. The art of argument can certainly elevate the persistent worldwide conversation that is the web, but I’m far less concerned at the moment with “Name Calling” in a message board than with the fact that the worthless tactic is just as commonplace among our current and would-be leaders. [via @jowyang]

Related:

• How Do You Argue? (Jeremiah Owyang)
• Crimes Against Logic [Amazon.com ]
• American Creation [Amazon.com ]