Lottery Post Journal

Obama plays the race card again

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080731/D928PB3O0.html

I'm getting really sick of Obama injecting race into the campaign.  Same OLD politics.

Obama goes around saying that he is "different".

Obviously he is NOT different, because he is just like every other politician who tries to pit race against race, male against female, rich against poor, etc., etc., etc.

This is one sick and tired voter.

Checkmate

Oh, this video is sweet.  This is the way to win a debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nF02z_9S50

Think we can't drill our way out? Think again

Yes, we can drill our way out of high oil prices.

Of course, it has nothing to do with all the new oil we pull out of the ground.  It has to do with what happens in the marketplace when news of more drilling is announced.

Not convinced?  Just check the new this morning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices

In morning trading, the price of oil suddenly dropped $6.44 a barrel.

The reason for the big drop?  The government reported that it has more oil on-hand than it last reported.

Did you hear that correctly?

We have more oil.

The price dropped.

The reason many liberal-minded people don't get that concept is that they are not accustomed to thinking like a Capitalist.  The government is not in charge of prices, the marketplace is, and those folks are really only comfortable dealing with subjects in which the government has control.

If some government regulation was responsible for the lower prices they'd be like, "OK, I get it, the government decided that the price must be lower, so the evil company was forced to do the right thing."

In a Capitalist society (which is what the USA is all about), the actions of the free marketplace sets the prices, so to adjust prices, the only thing the government can do is to take some kind of action that it knows will convince people to act in a certain way.

And that's why drilling will lower prices.

The reason oil is more than $130 a barrel, and not $50 or $60 a barrel is purely because of futures traders.  These people make money by "wagering" that the price of oil will rise in the future.  After purchasing a futures stock, if the prices rises, they make money, if it falls they don't.  (Selling short is wagering that prices will fall.)

So all these people are nervous about anything that could cause the price to fall.

If the US Congress refuses to lift the ban on offshore drilling, they are all pretty certain that the prices will stay high, because the demand for oil will continuously outstrip the supply.

If, however, Congress grows a backbone and lifts the ban, all the sudden there is the possibility that the supply will meet or exceed the demand, and the price will drop as a result. 

So all these people will not be wagering that the price will increase.  They will instead wager that it will fall, and the cumulative effect of the wagering, day after day, will be the reverse of what drove up the prices, until the marketplace is back to a reasonable level.

These people are not going to sit around worrying about the number of refineries, how much ethanol we're making, how many electric cars are on the road, or anything else that normal people are looking at.  They are looking at supply and demand of crude oil, plain and simple.

Now, I have outlined in several other blog posts (and comments) all the various things we as a country should be doing to free ourselves of our outrageous dependency on foreign oil, and to become energy-independent.

None of those things changes.  The price of oil, and the price of gas at the pump is just one thing, and we must not stop once we lower the price again.  The lackadaisical attitude of the Congress is what got us into this position to start with, and it can't be repeated.

But, just like building a proper border fence is the first step in securing our borders, lowering the gas prices by drilling more is an essential first step on the road to energy independence.

Numbers show Obama plan won't work

Some numbers today to show you how big the health gap is in America.

Democrat Barack Obama has proposed a 50% tax credit to help employers afford health insurance. His opponent, Sen. John McCain, calls this a vague and expensive mandate with a "devastating impact" on small businesses.

Maybe. But the real problem is the numbers don't add up.

The National Coalition on Health Care estimated the health insurance premium for a family of four, in 2007, at $12,100. This was up 6.1% from the year before, and is likely up again, but we'll stick with that number for now.

The minimum wage is going up a week from now, to a whopping $6.55 per hour. Earn that for 40 hours every week, 50 weeks a year, and your total pay is $13,100.

There's your problem. For lower wage workers health insurance doubles costs. Were you to give a minimum wage worker health insurance, that $6.55/hour would immediately become $13/hour. And that's something most businesses can't afford.

You can argue that health insurance should cost less, that health care should cost less, but costs are rising worldwide, regardless of the economic system, whether it's single payer, private insurance, or a mix.

Changing the system does not change cost trends. Costs are now exceeding wages employers can afford. (Remember the fight over getting the minimum wage to where it is now?)

Even if your salary is twice the minimum, health insurance is a 50% bump on your pay. Give the employer a 50% tax credit and it's still a 25% bump, so you're costing your employer $30,000 in real dollars, for salary and health care.

Increasing numbers of employers can't bear this. It is making them uncompetitive in international markets. The tax credit won't change that.

This is why we need a more basic discussion on health care. Honest numbers and real straight talk about who will pay those costs have yet to come from either side in this debate.

http://healthcare.zdnet.com/?p=1139

Those high gas prices: this is where you money goes

Fantastic, funny video shows exactly what is happening to you as a result of the high gas prices.  Think it's just satire?  Think again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSaZ5v1eW5I

'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights

I thought this article was particularly interesting and relevant, since these are the kinds of issues I deal with on a daily basis running this site.  I don't think there are any concrete solutions to the gray areas yet — not just with the Lottery Post community, but around the Internet.

'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights

Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.

Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.

Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.

The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services — from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video — become more central to public discourse around the world. It's a fallout of the Internet's market-driven growth, but possible remedies, including government regulation, can be worse than the symptoms.

Dutch photographer Maarten Dors met the limits of free speech at Yahoo Inc.'s photo-sharing service, Flickr, when he posted an image of an early-adolescent boy with disheveled hair and a ragged T-shirt, staring blankly with a lit cigarette in his mouth.

Without prior notice, Yahoo deleted the photo on grounds it violated an unwritten ban on depicting children smoking. Dors eventually convinced a Yahoo manager that — far from promoting smoking — the photo had value as a statement on poverty and street life in Romania. Yet another employee deleted it again a few months later.

"I never thought of it as a photo of a smoking kid," Dors said. "It was just of a kid in Romania and how his life is. You can never make a serious documentary if you always have to think about what Flickr will delete."

There may be legitimate reasons to take action, such as to stop spam, security threats, copyright infringement and child pornography, but many cases aren't clear-cut, and balancing competing needs can get thorny.

"We often get caught in the middle between a rock and a hard place," said Christine Jones, general counsel with service provider GoDaddy.com Inc. "We're obviously sensitive to the freedoms we have, particularly in this country, to speak our mind, (yet) we want to be good corporate citizens and make the Internet a better and safer place."

In Dors' case, the law is fully with Yahoo. Its terms of service, similar to those of other service providers, gives Yahoo "sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse or remove any content." Service providers aren't required to police content, but they aren't prohibited from doing so.

While mindful of free speech and other rights, Yahoo and other companies say they must craft and enforce guidelines that go beyond legal requirements to protect their brands and foster safe, enjoyable communities — ones where minors may be roaming.

Guidelines help "engender a positive community experience," one to which users will want to return, said Anne Toth, Yahoo's vice president for policy.

Dors ultimately got his photo restored a second time, and Yahoo has apologized, acknowledging its community managers went too far.

Heather Champ, community director for Flickr, said the company crafts policies based on feedback from users and trains employees to weigh disputes fairly and consistently, though mistakes can happen.

"We're humans," she said. "We're pretty transparent when we make mistakes. We have a record of being good about stepping up and fessing up."

But that underscores another consequence of having online commons controlled by private corporations. Rules aren't always clear, enforcement is inconsistent, and users can find content removed or accounts terminated without a hearing. Appeals are solely at the service provider's discretion.

Users get caught in the crossfire as hundreds of individual service representatives apply their own interpretations of corporate policies, sometimes imposing personal agendas or misreading guidelines.

To wit: Verizon Wireless barred an abortion-rights group from obtaining a "short code" for conducting text-messaging campaigns, while LiveJournal suspended legitimate blogs on fiction and crime victims in a crackdown on pedophilia. Two lines criticizing President Bush disappeared from AT&T Inc.'s webcast of a Pearl Jam concert. All three decisions were reversed only after senior executives intervened amid complaints.

Inconsistencies and mysteries behind decisions lead to perceptions that content is being stricken merely for being unpopular.

"As we move more of our communications into social networks, how are we limiting ourselves if we can't see alternative points of view, if we can't see the things that offend us?" asked Fred Stutzman, a University of North Carolina researcher who tracks online communities.

First Amendment protections generally do not extend to private property in the physical world, allowing a shopping mall to legally kick out a customer wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a smoking child.

With online services becoming greater conduits than shopping malls for public communications, however, some advocacy groups believe the federal government needs to guarantee open access to speech. That, of course, could also invite meddling by the government, the way broadcasters now face indecency and other restrictions that are criticized as vague.

Others believe companies shouldn't police content at all, and if they do, they should at least make clearer the rules and the mechanisms for appeal.

"Vagueness does not inspire the confidence of people and leaves room for gaming the system by outside groups," said Lauren Weinstein, a veteran computer scientist and Internet activist. "When the rules are clear and the grievance procedures are clear, then people know what they are working with and they at least have a starting point in urging changes in those rules."

But Marjorie Heins, director of the Free Expression Policy Project, questions whether the private sector is equipped to handle such matters at all. She said written rules mean little when service representatives applying them "tend to be tone-deaf. They don't see context."

At least when a court order or other governmental action is involved, "there's more of a guarantee of due process protections," said Robin Gross, executive director of the civil-liberties group IP Justice. With a private company, users' rights are limited to the service provider's contractual terms of services.

Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard professor who recently published a book on threats to the Internet's openness, said parties unhappy with sensitive materials online are increasingly aware they can simply pressure service providers and other intermediaries.

"Going after individuals can be difficult. They can be hard to find. They can be hard to sue," Zittrain said. "Intermediaries still have a calculus where if a particular Web site is causing a lot of trouble ... it may not be worth it to them."

Unable to stop purveyors of child pornography directly, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently persuaded three major access providers to disable online newsgroups that distribute such images. But rather than cut off those specific newsgroups, all three decided to reduce administrative hassles by also disabling thousands of legitimate groups devoted to TV shows, the New York Mets and other topics.

Gordon Lyon, who runs a site that archives e-mail postings on security, found his domain name suddenly deactivated because one entry contained MySpace passwords obtained by hackers.

He said MySpace went directly to domain provider GoDaddy, which effectively shut down his entire site, rather than contact him to remove the one posting or replace passwords with asterisks. GoDaddy justified such drastic measures, saying that waiting to reach Lyon would have unnecessarily exposed MySpace passwords, including those to profiles of children.

Meanwhile, in response to complaints it would not specify, Network Solutions LLC decided to suspend a Web hosting account that Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders was using to promote a movie that criticizes the Quran — before the movie was even posted and without the company finding any actual violation of its rules.

Service providers say unhappy customers can always go elsewhere, but choice is often limited.

Many leading services, particularly online hangouts like Facebook and News Corp.'s MySpace or media-sharing sites such as Flickr and Google Inc.'s YouTube, have acquired a cachet that cannot be replicated. To evict a user from an online community would be like banishing that person to the outskirts of town.

Other sites "don't have the critical mass. No one would see it," said Scott Kerr, a member of the gay punk band Kids on TV, which found its profile mysteriously deleted from MySpace last year. "People know that MySpace is the biggest site that contains music."

MySpace denies engaging in any censorship and says profiles removed are generally in response to complaints of spam and other abuses. GoDaddy also defends its commitment to speech, saying account suspensions are a last resort.

Few service providers actively review content before it gets posted and usually take action only in response to complaints.

In that sense, Flickr, YouTube and other sites consider their reviews "checks and balances" against any community mob directed at unpopular speech — YouTube has pointedly refused to delete many video clips tied to Muslim extremists, for instance, because they didn't specifically contain violence or hate speech.

Still, should these sites even make such rules? And how can they ensure the guidelines are consistently enforced?

YouTube has policies against showing people "getting hurt, attacked or humiliated," banning even clips OK for TV news shows, but how is YouTube to know whether a video clip shows real violence or actors portraying it? Either way, showing the video is legal and may provoke useful discussions on brutality.

"Balancing these interests raises very tough issues," YouTube acknowledged in a statement.

Unwilling to play the role of arbiter, the group-messaging service Twitter has resisted pressure to tighten its rules.

"What counts as name-calling? What counts as making fun of someone in a way that's good-natured?" said Jason Goldman, Twitter's director of program management. "There are sites that do employ teams of people that

do that investigation ... but we feel that's a job we wouldn't do well."

Other sites are trying to be more transparent in their decisions.

Online auctioneer eBay Inc., for instance, has elaborated on its policies over the years, to the extent that sellers can drill down to where they can ship hatching eggs (U.S. addresses only) and what items related to natural disasters are permissible (they must have "substantial social, artistic or political value"). Hypothetical examples accompany each policy.

LiveJournal has recently eased restrictions on blogging. The new harassment clause, for instance, expressly lets members state negative feelings or opinions about another, and parodies of public figures are now permitted despite a ban on impersonation. Restrictions on nudity specifically exempt non-sexualized art and breast feeding.

The site took the unusual step of soliciting community feedback and setting up an advisory board with prominent Internet scholars such as Danah Boyd and Lawrence Lessig and two user representatives elected in May.

The effort comes just a year after a crackdown on pedophilia backfired. LiveJournal suspended hundreds of blogs that dealt with child abuse and sexual violence, only to find many were actually fictional works or discussions meant to protect children. The company's chief executive issued a public apology.

Community backlash can restrain service providers, but as Internet companies continue to consolidate and Internet users spend more time using vendor-controlled platforms such as mobile devices or social-networking sites, the community's power to demand free speech and other rights diminishes.

Weinstein, the veteran computer scientist, said that as people congregate at fewer places, "if you're knocked off one of those, in a lot of ways you don't exist."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91OGQ680.html