Archive for May, 2010
ÂWe see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone:Â ‘If you want to be creativeÂ and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspiration because you will have healthcare.Â You don’t have to be job-blocked.’
You have probably noticed little Facebook “Like” buttons appearing on more and more web sites recently. With the addition of this feature, Facebook is obviously trying to compete with Digg, the popular “social bookmarking”/”social news” site launched in 2004.
Facebook has a considerably larger community than Digg so the “Like” function may very well eclipse the near-ubiquitous Digg button.
But here’s the problem. While Digg can be read as an approving “dig”– e.g. “I dig it, daddy-o”– it is more ambiguous than that. People have come to understand, I think, that Digging does not imply they support the actual news or opinion contained in the Dugg article. Rather, it indicates they they find it newsworthy or curious.
Meanwhile, Facebook’s answer to Digg is the unambiguous “Like.” Look no further than this article from TMZ today to understand how that could go wrong…
SEE ALSO: IN YOUR FACEbook
Today as I listened to Eric Holder’s testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee, I realized that his stilted, awkward speech was worthy of closer examination.Â I’m willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to public speaking, especially testifying in front of Congress, but after close examination this guy’s speech is almost incoherent.Â It’s hard to believe that he is a lawyer, much less someone able to handle the job of Attorney General of the United States.Â Â The followingÂ are some excerpts from the conversation between Republican Ted Poe from Texas and Eric Holder (emphasis mine):
Poe:Â Have you read the arizona law?
Holder:Â Uh i have not had a chance to…I’ve glanced at it,Â I have not read it.Â Um…with this…
Poe:Â It’s ten pages.Â It’s a lot shorter than the health care bill which wasÂ two thousandÂ pages long.Â I’ll give you my copy of it if you would like to have a copy.Â Even though you haven’t read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it’s constitutional?
Holder:Â Uh I’ve not really I’ve not been briefed yet.Â Um…we asÂ I said have had underway a review of the law.Â IÂ have not been briefed by the people who have been responsible…who are responsible for that review.
Poe:Â Are you gonna read the law?
Holder:Â I’m sure i will read the law in anticipation of that briefing.
Poe:Â When do you think you will have an opinion as to whether the law is constitutional?
Holder:Â Um…I’ve used this term a lot, butÂ I think this is…afterÂ I think…relatively soon?Â UmÂ I think that we have to um, theres been much (sigh) discussion about this um, the review is underway…um, the Department of Justice along with the Department of Homeland Security is involved in this review andÂ I would expect that our view of the law will be expressed relatively soon
Poe:Â You have some concerns about the statute and it’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law.Â It seems like you wouldn’t make a judgement about whether it violates civil rights statutes whether it violates federal preemption concepts if you haven’t read the law, so can you help me out there a little bit how you can make a judgement call on that but you haven’t read the law and determined whether it’s constitutional or not?
Holder:Â What I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind.Â I’ve only made…made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously television, talking to people who are on the review panel, uh on the review team looking at the law, but I’ve not reached any conclusions as yet with regard toÂ I was just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law, but I’m not in a position to say, at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with the people who are doing the review, exactly what my position is.
So he has made his comments concerning the Arizona law based on talking to people who are on the review panel, but he’s not in a position to say what his position is because he hasn’t had the chance to interact with the people who are doing the review?Â Who are these people in control of America right now?
Here is the Attorney General describing his position on the Arizona law (that he is not in a position to do, according to his own words):
“[racial profiling] is certainly one of the concerns that I have”
“I think that the potential for racial profiling is certainly increased by the passage of such laws.”
“I think that that law is an unfortunate one.Â I think that itÂ is, I fear, subject to potential abuse.”
When questioned by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) whether radical Islam has motivated any of the recent attempted (and one successful) terrorist attacks by avowed radical Islamists, this is the strongest language Attorney General Eric Holder is willing to use:
I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like [suspected terrorist Faisal] Shahzad.
…or perhaps an eight year old child.Â A “seminal” painting of a flag just sold for 28.6 million dollars.Â Awesome.
Seminal:Â “highly original and influencing the development of future events”.
I guess this painting deeply influenced the work ofÂ many in middle school art class?Â If not “getting it” makes me just another zombie in the faceless unwashed proletariat, I think I can embrace that.Â The comments in the NYÂ TimesÂ article are well worth reading though.Â One person asserts that rich people have dead souls.
Via the White House Flickr feed.