One of the hardest-hit areas being discussed in federal budget talks is the Pentagon, which would take an automatic $20 billion cut in January under sequestration. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel proposed a 20 percent cut in his own office’s budget, but command headquarters around the world doubled in cost from 2007 to 2012, the Government Accountability Office found. And while Hagel’s predecessor, Robert Gates, said at least 50 generals and admirals should be eliminated, few of the cuts have occurred.
The number of minorities serving in the military's highest ranks has risen, but there are still so few, that cuts, without care, could almost eliminate them.
I’ve written several articles on this subject. As vaccine supporters, enthusiasts, liars, and poisoners keep showing up, I’m sure I’ll write several more.
Here’s the drill. If a parent believes her child has developed autism as the result of a vaccine(s), she must enter the maze of the US government compensation system. Why? Because she can no longer go to court and sue the vaccine manufacturer directly. That’s out.
The manufacturers and the federal government have conspired to erect a wall against those lawsuits, to protect the manufacturers from high-priced judgments.
During the latest episode of the Washington farce that has astonished a bemused world, a Chinese commentator wrote that if the United States cannot be a responsible member of the world system, perhaps the world should become “de-Americanized” — and separate itself from the rogue state that is the reigning military power but is losing credibility in other domains.
The Washington debacle's immediate source was the sharp shift to the right among the political class. In the past, the U.S. has sometimes been described sardonically — but not inaccurately — as a one-party state: the business party, with two factions called Democrats and Republicans.
That is no longer true. The U.S. is still a one-party state, the business party. But it only has one faction: moderate Republicans, now called New Democrats (as the U.S. Congressional coalition styles itself).
Google is always striving to improve their flagship search engine. Well, improve its profitability, anyway. Ars Technica reports that “New Banner Ads Push Actual Google Results to Bottom 12% of the Screen.” These new adds do not unobtrusively hug the top of the page; for thirty companies lucky enough to be part of this “experiment,” their ads can dominate the results page. Reporter Casey Johnston reminds us this is a tactic Google pledged eight years ago never to employ. Have dollar signs have weakened the company’s resolve? The article observes:
“The rollout of banner ads comes only days after Google’s most recent earnings call, where financial results showed that Google is struggling with falling mobile ad sales prices. As The New York Times reported, Google sells mobile ads for half to two-thirds as much as desktop ads, but the mobile ads are only a third to a quarter as effective. It bears mentioning that before scrolling, real search results on mobile don’t get much real estate, either.
“Google will not publicly address any aspect of the banner ad experiment beyond saying that it is a ‘very limited, US-only test, in which advertisers can include an image as part of the search ads that show in response to certain branded queries.’”
It is worth noting that last bit—”. . . in response to certain branded queries.” In other words, if you search for “Southwest Airlines,” you might get a really big ad about Southwest Airlines. That’s much more reasonable than getting such advertising if you just searched for “airplanes” or “air travel.” (I would not put that evolution past them, though. Stay tuned.) Still, the tactic is bound to rub many searchers the wrong way. Johnston delves into specifics, augmenting her analysis with several screenshots. She concludes with a prediction—she will not be surprised if this experiment turns into a fixture. Neither will I.
Civil Liberties: “…and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.” On this Fifth of November, the address from V is more accurate and relevant than ever:
…so let’s take a moment to reflect on the fact that liberty and freedoms of speech and expression are more than words; they are perspectives.
This is a view from inside the church establishment. Even they see what is happening with their late teen early twenties cohort, and it is not a happy story for them. As I read this, the extremism that is the hallmark of the Theocratic Right, and its obsession with “values” issues like marriage rights, LGBT rights, abortion just don't reflect the world view of young adults, who are walking away.
