A graduation speech every bit as good as the one given by Steve Jobs at Stanford University in 2005.
Thanks Greg for alerting me to this.
Watch the video below and listen to Steven Pearlstein argue that Charles and David Koch are too ideologically driven to own a newspaper. His concern is that their ideology will cause them to influence the reporting of news at the eight affiliated newspapers of the Tribune Company if they succeed at buying the media conglomerate.
You can read Pearlstein's article that is the topic of the video discussion here, where he encourages the writers and editors and other staff of the LA Times (and also the other seven affiliated Tribune newspapers) to threaten to quit en masse if the hedge funds and asset management companies that currently own the Tribune Company agree to sell it to the Kochs. In doing so, his theory goes, the Kochs will be deterred from even making an offer and the world will be spared these two undeserving potential newspaper owners having a venue to espouse their ideological drivel.
Now, I don't know if the Koch brothers are too ideologically driven to own a newspaper or not. I do know that many, many writers have complained that the Kochs have too much influence in higher education, with all that money they donate to universities, including George Mason University. Oh, and by the way, GMU just happens to be the university where Steven Pearlstein teaches.
If Pearlstein is truly concerned about the ideological influence of the Kochs on news reporting should they succeed in buying the Tribune Company, then certainly he must be equally concerned—even moreso from my perspective—about their undue influence on the faculty and administration at universities that accept their money and what is taught at these universities. If so, if any university accepts Koch money, including GMU, doesn't Pearlstein's principle dictate that the faculty and adminstrators at these universities should quit (preferrably en-masse) in order to preserve ideological independence and purity. I truly believe Pearlstein to be a man of noble character who holds fast to his principles, so shouldn't he abide by that same advice he offered to reporters, photographers, editors and other staff at newspapers?
The Post's Charles Lane has an interesting story of how AFSCME lobbied for, and won, passage of the "Correctional Officer's Bill of Rights," which greatly hindered disciplining rogue corrections officers. The results were not unpredictable.
Advertised as much-needed procedural protection against unfair accusations of brutality, COBR established elaborate rules — including a guaranteed appeal hearing in front of a three-member board of fellow officers — for correctional officers suspected of wrongdoing. The bill says that prison managers can’t even “threaten” prosecution, transfer, dismissal or disciplinary action during questioning.
It passed the House of Delegates unanimously and the Senate 44 to 2. Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) signed it into law on May 4, 2010.
In the union’s view, prison administrators had “pulled the trigger too quickly” on discipline in the past, as AFSCME spokesman Jeff Pittman put it.
But according to an FBI special agent’s affidavit attached to the Baltimore indictment, COBR has all but disarmed managers at the Baltimore jail. Discipline “has proven to be very difficult,” the agent wrote, and “the internal review process set up by COBR is ineffective as a deterrent to [correctional officers] smuggling contraband or getting sexually involved with BGF gang members.”
Here are a few reasons why someone may have a gun on campus:
The problem is that ex-ante we cannot know the intent or the reason why the person bringing the gun to school did so, therefore make possessing a gun on school property a per se violation punishable by expulsion or at least a long suspension. If we cannot know the intent of the gun toter before any shots are fired, then punish a gun toter for the simple act of brining a gun to school.
Now, in the case of David Cole Withrow of Johnston County, North Carolina, he realized that he had accidently brought the gun to school with him after a weekend of hunting and immediately went to school officials to inform them of his mistake and to ask their permission to take it home.
Mr. Withrow appears to be a clean-cut kid, and Johnston County is certainly known for hunting, with all those Jim-Bobs and Skeeters living in the woods over yonder, so having a hunting rifle in your vehicle is not out of the oridinary. Maybe reason should have prevailed and the school official grant him permission to take the gun home, with a warning that the next time will be treated as a violation of the gun policy. But no, school officials immediately called the police, Withrow was suspended, and he is currently being told that he will not graduate with his classmates.
If you want kids who accidentally bring guns to school to never reveal their error, and in fact to possibly compound the problem by hiding the gun on their person or in an unsecured place where someone with evil intent can get to it, proceed to harshly punish Mr. Withrow and make sure that reason will never prevail when a bright and otherwise cooperative student attempts to rectify a mistake.
Oh, whatever happened to the good ol' days.
. . . and Stephen Colbert is the only one of the eight that is neither a foundation or the former president's daughter Chelsea.
That's definitely going to get to his head.
It is amazing how cheaply Apple is able to borrow money. Its 10-year bonds issued this week yielded 2.415 percent at a time 10-year U.S. Treasury yielded 1.61 percent. Apple 30-year bonds yielded 3.883 percent, while 30-year Treasuries were at 2.811 percent.
Investors are willing to lend Apple money for three decades for only about a percentage point more in interest than if they lent the same money to the U.S. government.
Well, because the Fed is so busy buying up U.S. government debt and mortgage-backed securities, investors are being squeezed out of these markets and are willing to invest in corporate bonds. That sounds great in that this should spur increased investment, therefore creating jobs and improving economic growth. Or so the story goes.
But for the economy to take off, businesses need to take advantage of those low rates to invest—to invent new products, build new factories, hire new workers. Instead, what Apple is doing is all too typical. It is taking advantage of low rates to funnel money to shareholders in a bit of financial engineering, rather than triggering new investment. And as such, it is a powerful reminder of the limited ability of the Fed’s bond buying to create rip-roaring growth.
Ben Bernanke will turn out to be the greatest genius ever to run the Fed, or its biggest putz. Time will tell.
A New Hampshire man who thought he had a decent ball toss says he lost his life savings—or about $2,600—playing a carnival game he claims was rigged.
Really? Was there any doubt about the chance and how these game operators make their money? Unfortunately, this is not uncommon and is an example of sunk costs and why they should be ignored. There are only two other games that have lower odds of winning and are therefore more corrupt.