This is bad news, in my corner of the world. One of my top two favorite XM channels is slated for removal when the merger goes through. The two channels that I listen to the most are XM 82, The System and XM 175, MLB Home Plate. On July 24, 2007, XM and Sirius filed their planned post-merger programming lineup (PDF) with the FCC. One of the XM channels that is absent from this lineup is XM82, The System. I e-mailed Jon Zellner (Senior Vice President/Music Programming of XM) to ask him about this, and register my complaint about the proposed lineup. He confirmed that the proposed lineup was correct insofar as it excluded XM82. There are other reasons why I was hoping this merger would be denied, but that is by far the biggest reason. It's possible that the FCC could still deny the merger, but with the DOJ approving the merger it is very unlikely that the FCC will deny it.The Justice Department on Monday approved Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.'s proposed $5 billion buyout of rival XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., saying the deal was unlikely to hurt competition or consumers.
The deal was approved without conditions despite opposition from consumer groups and an intense lobbying campaign by the land-based radio industry.
The combination still requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission, which prohibited a merger when it granted satellite radio operating licenses in 1997.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Barack Obama / Jeremiah Wright
I have been aware of the recent controversy surrounding Barack Obama and his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I had not paid any attention to it until today. I had not watched any of the Jeremiah Wright videos or read any of his comments that were causing such an uproar. In other words, I had no idea what the controversy was about. I didn't watch Obama's speech about race the other day, nor did I read the transcript. The one thing I had done prior to today was read a few articles yesterday; articles that were about people's reactions to Obama's speech.
Today I pulled up a couple of articles that talked about Jeremiah Wright's comments, and watched a few video clips on YouTube. After that, I watched Obama's speech in its entirety. Finally, I read a few more articles about people's reactions to the speech.
1) I thought the speech was excellent.
2) I'm disgusted with the level of outrage at Wright's comments.
3) I'm disappointed at the way people have responded/are responding to Obama's speech. I don't have time to go into detail right now, but I'm particularly disappointed at the reactions of white Americans, or at least those that are being reported by the mainstream media. (FYI: I am a 27-year old white male.)
Iraq war; five-year anniversary
"Anniversary" is typically thought of as a positive word. Calling this an anniversary is technically correct, but it feels very wrong. This is not positive.
My oft-promised post about the Iraq war will have to wait a little longer. After getting myself up to speed on the Wright/Obama controversy, I've decided that I need to write about this first. I think I have a somewhat unique perspective on it, as a white male married to a woman of mixed descent. I don't know if anybody will read what I have to say, or even care what I have to say, but I feel compelled to write about it anyway.
Idiopathic hypersomnia/narcolepsy
I've been feeling very discouraged/depressed lately, because my idiopathic hypersomnia has been getting worse (or the meds have been helping less) and I've been wrestling with severe tiredness much more frequently. It's hard to stay positive when you're this tired all the time. Anyway, the past couple of days I've been trying to find positives about this. It hasn't been easy, but I think I've found a couple. More on this at a later time.
Fahrenheit 451
I've been reading Fahrenheit 451 the last few nights, a few pages at at time. I have to fight myself to put the book down and go to bed. I would have stayed up all night and read it in one sitting, had I been able to stay awake and not had to get up early for work the next day. It is an incredible book, and I highly recommend it. I'll probably be talking about it more in the coming days.
0
comments
|
Posted by
Jesse
Tags: Barack Obama, depression, government, idiopathic hypersomnia, Iraq, Jeremiah Wright, narcolepsy, reading
Tags: Barack Obama, depression, government, idiopathic hypersomnia, Iraq, Jeremiah Wright, narcolepsy, reading
President Bush declared today that the United States is on the cusp of victory in the five-year-old war in Iraq, arguing that the recent troop buildup has reduced violence there and "opened the door to a major strategic victory in the war on terror."Full text of the President's speech is available at WhiteHouse.gov.
I haven't had time yet to read through the entire speech, but I will be reading it at some point before the day is over. I'll probably use it as a springboard for my promised-but-not-yet-delivered personal thoughts about the Iraq war as it stands today. I'll try to have them up within the next 24 hours.
On Monday, March 17, 2008, the Georgia Supreme Court decided 4-3 to deny a new trial for Troy Anthony Davis, despite significant concerns regarding his innocence. Today's stunning decision by the Georgia Supreme Court to let Mr. Davis' death sentence stand means that the state of Georgia might soon execute a man who well may be innocent. Please take action today by calling on the Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles to commute the death sentence for Troy Anthony Davis.
Learn more about Troy Davis and send a letter to the Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles at www.amnestyusa.org/troydavis.
The Washington Post reports that Washington, D.C. police will soon be going door-to-door in certain areas of the city, requesting permission from residents to search their home for guns and drugs. In return for consenting to the search, people will be given amnesty for any illegal guns or drugs that turn up during the search.
The program is called the Safe Homes Initiative, and is targeted at areas of the city hit hard by violence.
Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.
...
Residents who agree to the searches will be asked to sign consent forms. If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges.
I applaud the police department's desire to reduce gun violence; that is certainly a worthy goal. However, I believe that this plan is a very bad idea. This is yet another step on the slippery road to losing all of our freedoms.
First and foremost, there's the not-so-small matter of the Bill of Rights.
Amendment IVThe searches carried out under the Safe Homes Initiative will be warrant-less searches. I would also argue that they are unreasonable. Why are they unreasonable? Because a person's right to the privacy of their home trumps the government's desire to locate and confiscate illegal items. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is one of the basic building blocks that this country is built upon, and this program tosses it right out the window and then tramples all over it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"But wait," you say, "the searches are optional - a person can refuse the police's request." Well, yes, they can. But who's to say that the police won't make note of those houses refusing their requests, and then use that list at a later date to keep a closer eye on certain people or houses, or otherwise cause adverse affects on the people that refused the searches. "Give me a break; the police wouldn't do that!" We'd like to think that. But we have no way of knowing. In case you hadn't noticed, corruption isn't exactly unheard of in government offices and police departments these days.
And then what about all of the people who do consent to the searches? Don't you think it is likely that some people will feel pressured or coerced into giving their consent? Sad as it may be, not everyone has the gumption to deny a police request that they want to deny. And there are probably some people that won't even realize that they have the right to deny the search.
Frankly, this plan is an insult to the citizens of Washington, D.C., and I wish they would protest this plan in outrage, and band together to deny every single search request. I read somewhere - possibly in the above-linked Washington Post article, possibly elsewhere - that this plan is aimed at parents who suspect their children may possess guns or drugs. Well, how does this idea sound? If you suspect your kids are in possession of guns or drugs - search your house yourself. Don't let the police in to do it for you. If you find guns or drugs in your house and don't know what to do at that point, then call the police at that point if you feel comfortable with reporting it to them - but make sure you understand the potential ramifications before making the call.
It all boils down to this: the police should not be searching your home - EVER - without a warrant. And they shouldn't be asking to search your home without a warrant either.
Ok, let's cut to the chase. This is the last Iraq-war-related pre-war post from my old blog. I posted it on 17 Mar 2003, two days before the United States of America invaded Iraq. I was 22 years old at the time, and not too long prior to this I had a naïve and hopeful outlook on life. That naiveness was quickly being replaced with great cynicism and pessimism. The buildup to the Iraq war was far from the only reason for the drastic change in my outlook, but it was certainly a significant part of the overall reason. Anyway, enough intro, here's the post.
You can probably tell by now that I was very strongly against the Iraq war. If you're interested at all in what I think about it now, check back in a few days. At least some of my current thoughts about it will be up within a week, at most.War is imminent. Others have been saying it for quite some time now – days, weeks, even months. Time has passed and it has not happened. War has not yet begun in earnest. For the first time since this whole mess began I can now honestly say that I believe we are on the brink of war with Iraq.
War. How a single three-letter word can invoke so many emotions, fears, hopes, and ideas is beyond me. Yet, it does. A complete and thorough understanding of what war is, does, could be, will be, and should be is beyond even the best of us. We all strive, each in our own way and to varying degrees, to arrive at an understanding of what war means to us as an individual and as part of a larger circle, that circle usually being family. For some this may be nothing more than watching the nightly news and believing whatever it is that they may be reporting and the potential consequences that they also report. For others, in addition to watching the mainstream media, this may also mean reaching out across the globe to all parts of the world and people from all walks of life to obtain information, then struggling to somehow iron out the inconsistencies that are sure to arise, questioning the information that comes from many sources along with the motives for reporting it, and eventually deciding what has enough substance to believe and what should be discarded. For some who take the latter route, it is bound to challenge the very core of their beliefs and ideals. This, in turn, will cause minor changes or even fundamental changes in the beliefs of an even smaller set of people. Then, of course, there is the vast majority who take a path somewhere in between the two extremes listed above.
Is there any one approach that is the right approach? Perhaps not. The issue of right and wrong in this case is a highly subjective issue dependent on the individual involved. Although I do personally believe that an investigation and review of any issue that ends up challenging your beliefs has a lot going for it. Unfortunately, the realities of life mean that we cannot take that route for all issues, most issues, or for some, any issues at all.
Why am I saying all of this? What is the point? I don’t really know. I guess I just wanted to jot down some of my thoughts as our nation stands on this precipice. That, and share them with others just in case anyone happens to be interested in them.
Perhaps a person’s views of a war are dependent on the level of research they do into the matter. Or perhaps they are totally irrelevant, having no consequence whatsoever on the other. I suspect that the answer lies somewhere in between.As we stand here poised to strike, a torrential flood of emotions is pouring forth from my inner depths, some of them justified, some perhaps not.
Anger. Anger that my government is about to preemptively attack another country. Anger that my government did not, judging from the available signs, seriously consider the legitimate, viable alternatives that were present. Anger that my government’s actions are spawning many more terrorist recruits than normal. Anger that my government’s actions are alienating us from the rest of the world and destroying an important international system that we ourselves have helped to build. Anger at the dictator who could have helped prevent this but did not.
Fear. I must profess to feeling a small amount of fear in regards to what may happen as a direct or indirect result of war. Our civil liberties have already been trampled upon and I fear that it will only grow worse. Fear that Hussein, al Qaida, North Korea, or some other country or group will unleash an attack – conventional or otherwise – against us. Perhaps most of all, fear of the unknown.
Joy. Joy for the oppressed Iraqi people who will no longer live under an oppressive regime – if all goes according to plan. Joy for the Iraqi’s imprisoned and tortured who will be freed – if we find them.
Pain and hurt. Pain for the innocent people that are sure to die as a result of our actions, whether directly or indirectly. Pain for our soldiers who will suffer physically, mentally, and emotionally because of this war. Hurt because I, in many ways, feel betrayed by a country that I love.
Hope. Hope for a better future for all involved.
Faith. Faith that somehow, someway, God will work through all of this and the end result – if there ever is one – will somehow be a good one.
But even more so than all the others, I feel a great sense of sadness. Sadness that we are actually doing this. Sadness that I am powerless to do anything about it. Sadness because of all of the innocent people who will die. Sadness for those whose lives will be negatively affected in a very profound way because of this. Sadness because I was naïve enough to expect more from my country and I was let down. Sadness for all those who are still naïve about what happens “behind the scenes” because most will eventually find out and then wish they never had. Sadness and an occasional wish to be able to return to that naïve state. I have forgotten what it is like. It must be nice. I can’t go back though, even if I want to (which I don’t).
Just heard the news. 48 hours for Hussein to leave the country. It will not happen. We’ll be at war within the next week. I find it doubtful that we’ll attack as soon as the 48 hours is up. I think we’ll wait a little bit to make him wonder when it will happen. But it will happen within days.
I have never disputed the point that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man with dangerous weapons. Never. I once disputed the possibility of him having WMDs, but not for all that long and I still acknowledged that he had dangerous weapons. I have never once said that it would be a good thing for him to stay in power. It isn’t.
Too many people apparently see this situation as good choice vs. bad choice. That’s not what it is. This is a bad choice vs. bad choice situation. We’re dealing with two – or more – evils here and ideally we would choose the lesser of those two evils.
A war against Iraq will – most likely – succeed in removing Saddam Hussein from power assuming that is our objective, which we have been told it is. That is all fine and good. We remove Saddam Hussein from power, the evil dictator is no more, and – voilà – suddenly everything in Iraq and the rest of the world is fine and good. Uh-uh. It doesn’t work that way. If it did then I would support the war against Iraq. Do some digging into what the other, rarely-mentioned consequences are of this war and you’ll see what I mean.
I’m starting to just reiterate many of the things I’ve said in the past so I’ll stop now.
My biggest question now is no longer “Is war preventable?”, but instead “What is my place in all of this?” now that war is going to start.
On February 7, 2008, the House and the Senate agreed on a version of the economic stimulus bill, and the President has said he will sign it next week. The bill is H.R.5140, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.
The bill establishes "recovery rebates" for individuals, to be sent to people in advance via check. These so-called rebates are established as refundable tax credits. (A refundable tax credit is a credit that can result in you receiving money from the government that you never paid them. The Earned Income Credit is a refundable credit. A non-refundable tax credit can only reduce your tax liability to zero; in other words, it only affects money that you already paid/owe the government. The Child Tax Credit is a non-refundable credit.)
Eligible individuals receive a basic credit that is the greater of the following 2 amounts:
-Their net income tax liability for 2008, up to $600.
-$300, if the individual has at least $3,000 in earned income.
(amounts are doubled for joint returns)
If your adjusted gross income (AGI) is greater than $75,000 (double for joint filers), then the amount of your credit will be reduced by 5% of the amount of your income over the limit. So if you're a single filer making $80,000 your basic credit will be reduced by $250 (($80,000 - $75,000) * 0.05 = 250).
Individuals who are eligible for any amount of the basic credit are also eligible for the qualifying child credit. This is a $300 credit for each qualifying child. The definition of a qualifying child is the same as for the child tax credit. (Again, this is based on 2007 tax returns.)
The rebates are structured around a tax cut. Yes, a tax cut. This isn't stated anywhere in the actual text of bill, but it is stated in the following locations:
-A Fact Sheet from the White House
In 2008, taxes would be cut from 10 percent to zero percent on the first $6,000 dollars of taxable income for individual taxpayers and the first $12,000 of taxable income for couples.-The Congressional Record for the House of Representatives, January 29, 2008
Quote from the Honorable Spencer BachusThe tax element of this package has been called a rebate, but in essence, it's a tax cut, a tax cut for millions of low- and middle-income Americans, those who need it the most, those with a moderate income. link
Words from the Honorable Rahm EmanuelI enthusiastically support the middle class of this country, and we are doing it in this bill. Thirty-seven million Americans who were left out of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut will get close to $28 billion of this tax cut. I enthusiastically support that type of economic prosperity. link
If I'm understanding all of this correctly, then here is what is happening:Words from the Honorable Ron PaulAnother disturbing feature of H.R. 5140 is that, instead of taking the fiscally responsible course and pairing the tax cuts with spending cuts, this bill simply adds to the national deficit. Madam Speaker, unless Congress acts soon to reign in its excessive spending the American people will face confiscatory tax rates or skyrocketing inflation. link
-The government cuts a specific section of taxes for the current tax year.
-This means that many people will have a smaller tax liability when they file taxes next year (for the 2007 tax year).
-If you know that people are going to owe less money in taxes, what is the logical solution? Decrease the amount of money that you withhold from their paychecks, right? Wrong. Send them the extra money that they will be receiving in their tax refund next year. But wait! They haven't actually paid this money yet. Oh...hmm...well, we'll just keep taking the same amount out of their paychecks, and it'll all add up by the end of the year.
The checks are an advance on next year's refunds, and most, if not all of the money, will be deducted from taxpayers' refunds in 12 months' time. CNN articleIf the amount of your rebate is greater than the decrease in your tax liability because of the temporary tax cut, you won't be required to repay that rebate.
These advance payments will be based on 2007 tax returns, and will start being sent out in May. If you file your return late, or file an extension, you'll probably receive your payment later than most people.The Joint Committee on TaxationTaxpayers will reconcile the amount of the credit with the payment they receive in the following manner. They would complete a worksheet calculating the amount of the credit based on their 2008 tax return. They would then subtract from the credit the amount of the payment they received. For many taxpayers, these two amounts would be the same. If, however, the result is a positive number (because, for example, the taxpayer paid no tax in 2007 but is paying tax in 2008), the taxpayer may claim that amount as a credit against 2008 tax liability. If, however, the result is negative (because, for example, the taxpayer paid tax in 2007 but owes no tax for 2008), the taxpayer is not required to repay that amount to the Treasury. Otherwise, the checks have no effect on tax returns filed in 2009; the amount is not includible in gross income and it does not otherwise reduce the amount of withholding. link
MarketWatch articleThe rebates would be based on taxpayers' 2007 tax returns. Those who file extensions or file late would likely receive their checks later than regular filers, a U.S. Treasury spokesman said last week. The checks will be sent out automatically; taxpayers don't need to apply. link
Regarding the question of whether this is "free money", I guess that depends on the specifics of your individual situation. If your net tax liability for this year is less than the amount of the rebate that you receive, then I guess the difference between the two amounts would be free money, because you'll have received money that was never yours to begin with. But if your net tax liability is more than your rebate, then your rebate isn't free money - it's just an advance refund of money you'll be sending to the government for the rest of the year.
(To the best of my knowledge, all of the above information is correct. However, it's always possible that I'm misinterpreting something somewhere, so believe everything at your own risk!)
Update: I originally typed and posted this before the IRS had a decent Q&A page about these stimulus payments. They have since posted a FAQ page, and I would encourage you to check it out as well.
