Formula for Predicting case outcomes at the United States Supreme Court

At Truthout, Mike Lofgren concludes that the formula for predicting future case outcomes of the United States Supreme Court is simple and that references to the Constitution are merely smokescreen. Roberts is well aware of this bait and switch: "Roberts is wise enough to know that and is wise enough to conceal his hand with occasional strategic references to the free speech or free exercise clauses in the First Amendment." Instead of really upholding constitutional rights, the Roberts court Lofgren states that the cases are results oriented; they are about upholding the superior political privileges of rich interests in society. The unspoken basis is "freedom of contract notion (without government restrictions), from which many subsequent pro-corporation decisions have flowed, the court's majority was basing its decision on economic ideology rather than constitutional interpretation." The Court's recent ultra-narrow definition of "corruption" is a case in point. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingFormula for Predicting case outcomes at the United States Supreme Court

Time to Amend the Constitution to deal properly with Campaign Finance Reform

What can we do about Citizens United and its progeny (including McCutcheon)? Many are now thinking that there is no well-intentioned law that the United States Supreme Court won't destroy given the majority's allegiance to the Chamber of Commerce.   Constitutional scholar Larry Tribe has proposed this constitutional amendment:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent political campaign expenditures. Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.

Continue ReadingTime to Amend the Constitution to deal properly with Campaign Finance Reform

The myth of working one’s way through college

What does it take to earn one's way through college? From the Atlantic, some stunning numbers:

[Olsen] added a linear regression analysis to extrapolate the stats for 1979-2013, and found that the average student in 1979 could work 182 hours (a part-time summer job) to pay for a year's tuition. In 2013, it took 991 hours (a full-time job for half the year) to accomplish the same. And this is only considering the cost of tuition, which is hardly an accurate representation of what students actually spend for college. According to the College Board, average room and board fees at public universities today exceed tuition costs by a little more than 100 percent. (For the current academic year, average tuition at 4-year public schools is $8,893, but with room and board, the total average cost comes to $18,391.)

Continue ReadingThe myth of working one’s way through college

We create technology and technology changes us.

I played guitar at a local coffee house last night ( Hartford Coffee ) In my haste to pack up to go, I forgot my electronic guitar tuner. Last night, then, I realized how dependent I have become on the tuner. I've played for many decades and, until 5 years ago, tuned by ear. I've fallen out of habit since then because these cheap tuners are incredibly accurate. All you need to do is watch the read-out--you don't even need to hear the guitar while tuning (one of my tuners attaches to the head of the guitar and picks up vibrations). I made it through the night, of course, but I found myself having to focus on what exactly the tuning problem was (which string or strings was out of tune, and which direction). People who don't play stringed instruments don't realize that even when you get the guitar tuned, it might not last for long. Even two songs later, it could require another adjustment. My point is that I had offloaded a skill to an electronic device. This is a common phenomenon these days. A lot of us don't know the phone numbers of our friends--no need to, with smart phones. Many of us are terrible spellers, but no problem, because the word processor will signal problems. My Google calendar and smart phone seem to organize me, rather than me organizing them. I find myself shooting out short texts and emails to get right to it, rather than calling, which requires some social graces--younger folks avoid calls like the plague, it seems. This makes me wonder whether they are thus losing some conversational skills. Robin Dunbar has researched the number of friends we have in our social group (it tends to be close to 150), but people who watch a lot of TV have fewer friends, and they might be losing the skills necessary to maintain a robust social group. This is not a criticism of technology. It can be immensely useful. For instance, I've used Meetup.com to connect with folks with keen interests in photography and urban exploring, people I would never have encountered without technology. My misplaced tuner last night reminded me that we create technology but that technology also changes us, for good and bad.

Continue ReadingWe create technology and technology changes us.