Wikileaks: my two cents

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I know that we've had a boatload of posts on the Wikileaks controversy, but it usually takes me longer than most to sift through what I really think about an issue. In this case, what has finally emerged for me is a weird picture where I cannot fathom the level of hyperbole on both sides of Mr. Assange's project -- either the odd calls for him to be strung up as a "traitor" or the declarations of his impending martyrdom and elevation to a hero of journalism.

( As far as I can tell, the man is neither. )

Dr. Ken Miller offers compelling evidence regarding evolution

[prader.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine posted this fascinating video awhile back regarding a recent (at least to me) discovery about the human genome.

One of the things Dr. Miller says is that creationists and intelligent design advocates simply have nothing to say about this so I was curious to see what, if anything, creationists and intelligent design advocates in this community might have to say about it.

Plus, I just really wanted to share this news with anyone who might be interested in the topic but wasn't aware. Hopefully that's not in violation of the rules, if so, feel free to take it down.

As for myself, I'm not sure exactly what to make of this. It would certainly appear to be evidence for common ancestry, but then again- if I'm not mistaken, we share something like 95% of our DNA with flies (which I'm not at all even remotely convinced we share ancestry with.)

It raises more questions to me than anything else. Among them:

-What happened that caused the fusion in the first place and what would the event have looked like to an observer? Would a common ancestor have given birth to a human, a Chimpanzee, and so forth? Or would a common ancestor have had the fusion sometime after birth, becoming Human, or Chimp, or...

- Is it possible the fusion was done deliberately? Or does it even necessarily indicate deception on "God's" part to say "that's how we were created."

- How did enough Humans, Chimps, and so forth "evolve" at the same time to continue the species?


At any rate, I applaud this discovery (even though it raises still more questions) for bringing us closer to the answers to questions I've been wondering about for awhile now. Even if it challenges some previously held personal beliefs on my part.

The tax deal

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Surprised there hasn't been a post on this yet.

Regardless, Obama and the Congressional Republicans came to a deal regarding the looming tax increase and unemployment benefits. Among the highlights:

* The tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year are extended for two more years, including estate and capital gains taxes.

* A new middle class tax cut (finally fulfilling one of Obama's key campaign promises) coming out of the payroll tax (which is similar to the first point in the Republican stimulus plan from February 2009).

* An extension of unemployment benefits for 13 more months.

It seems like the deal isn't getting a ton of love from any side - The right is fairly mixed, the left fairly unhappy with it. Obama had a pretty crummy press conference today attempting to defend it.

Personally, I see this as where compromise is supposed to end up. The two sides essentially agreed on the major parts - extending the tax cuts for nearly all taxpayers, and some sort of payroll tax cut for the middle class. Obama and the left didn't want the tax cuts extended in full, the Republicans and the right didn't want to extend unemployment benefits, or at least didn't want to without finding a way to pay for it. Both sides gave up their opposition on those in order to pass what the consensus appeared to show as the most obvious and important part. While I'm rarely a fan of compromising with bad ideas, this seems to be a good thing, and I'm pleasantly surprised at the President for actually stepping up and working with a group he'll have no choice to work with in a month's time.

Thoughts from others?

Let Them Eat Political Points

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

To progressives angry about Obama's compromise with Republicans over taxes & unemployment:

Barack Obama just won extended unemployment benefits for millions of jobless Americans who have been or were about to be cut off, in the midst of the most unforgiving job market since the Great Depression. Unemployed people facing the expiration of their benefits do not have time for more Washington squabbling over this issue, and have no reason to hope that the incoming Republican Congress will give them a better deal. They need help now. Of course, Obama could have left them dangling in an effort to make Republicans look heartless. A lot of progressives seem to think he should have. And maybe they're right: maybe the public would have blamed Republicans for the widening misery; on the other hand, maybe not. But you know what? There's nothing progressive about throwing millions of unemployed people under the bus for the sake of of scoring political points.
( Read more... )

Bottom line: Obama just stood up for millions of unemployed people, wringing concessions from a normally intransigent opposition. Progressives should applaud that.

First thing to go under Republican control of the House?

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Pay-as-you-go Rules.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/extension-of-u-s-tax-cuts-will-prompt-congress-to-discard-own-budget-law.html

Who'd have guessed that as soon as budget-hawk Republicans get into control, the rules that require that new spending be offset by cuts elsewhere or tax increases will go away.

Now, before you say that Dems have been using these rules for some kind of insidious purpose, let me just say that I remember even way back in the day under Bush that the Democratic house made my life very painful as support for Alt-Energy fell under the axe of House Pay-go rules. More recently, the small business tax cut bill was required to cut into future food-stamps and assorted other safety-net programs.

Of course, they can't bite the hand that feeds them, so their first mission is to make sure that the top few percent of earners keep their Bush tax-cuts, even though these same earners have done much better in the last 30 years, and even during the last 3 years, than the lower 95%.

I particularly love this quote: "“The thing about paygo is it was specifically designed by the Democrats to encourage spending and discourage tax reductions,” said John Campbell, a California Republican who sits on the House Budget Committee. “We hate it.”" What a freak. For one thing, he's lying. Pay-go in the house hasn't been some great boon to big spending Democrats. However, it does require that Republicans pay for their programs and their tax cuts. Of course they hate them.