We’ve had a couple good debates lately on homosexuality (here and here), the most recent of which has caused me to ponder a fundamental question that seems to dog these issues: what does it mean to be “homosexual” or “gay”?
Continue reading »
Jun 302006
So, when is a nickel worth more than a nickel? Apparently, every day!. The cost of metal has apparently gone up recently, meaning that the value of the metals that compose a nickel is worth more than 5 cents. Only slightly more, so its still not worth hoarding and melting down your nickels. But still an interesting bit of trivia.
A lot of countries have done away with their smaller denominations. For example, the Australians don’t have 1 cent coins anymore, and apparently the US used to have 1/2 cent coins but took them out of circulation when they became valueless. Here’s an interesting read by William Safire on why pennies should be abolished. Of course, he claims that we should replace them with nickels, but given that nickels cost more than a nickel now (and supply and demand would mean increasing the number of nickels in circulation would only drive that cost up) this might be costly. Perhaps a better bet would be replacing it with a 2 cent coin. And the US did used to have both 2 cent and 3 cent coins. (For an interesting study in obscure numismatics, check out the old $2.5 and $3 coins the US used to mint).
The legislative process laid out in the United States Constitution is reasonably simple. In order for a bill to become law it must pass, in identical form, both the Senate and House of Representatives, and then it must either a) be signed by the President or b) pass both houses again by a 2/3 margin. Increasingly, however, the President has added a third option: signing the bill with reservations. At face value, this isn’t such a big deal. Remember that it is the President’s job to execute the will of Congress; in other words, Congress passes bills which require some action, and the President (or his officers) takes the appropriate action. Of course, this implicitly gives the President quite a bit of power to interpret the will of Congress, within the context of law, precedent, and appropriate court rulings, of course. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for the president, when he signs a bill into law, to state his intentions about how he will interpret the text of that law–pending Congressional or court clarification, of course. For instance, Congress might pass a law requiring air pollution reductions in national parks, but that leaves it up to the president to define exactly what Congress meant by “air pollution”, and under what time table those reductions will take place. And it would be perfectly reasonable for the President to lay out his interpretation of the law at the signing.
Continue reading »
The United States has reached a pretty sad place right now. Today the Bush Administration is unveiling new rules based upon the 1996 Welfare law. That law set goals for the reduction of the number of people on welfare, and included restrictions on who could, and could not, receive federal welfare aid. Supposedly the purpose of the system was to force people to enter the workforce, instead of “trapping” them in poverty, and thereby encourage them to find jobs, learn skills, and work their way out of poverty. And while the 1996 law did drastically reduce the number of people on welfare (it roughly cut in half the number of families that receive cash assistance, for instance), it did not have the effect that the Bush Administration hoped. As they see it, too many families are still on the welfare rolls who should otherwise be working, and therefore they are instituting strict new guidelines to ensure that people who can work, will work. And states that don’t comply quickly enough will see their federal assistance cut by up to five percent.
Continue reading »
Jun 272006
When you ask people what are the big issues confronting America, you basically get four answers: the economy (which can be macro-economic growth, worries about interest rates or inflation, worries about the rising cost of living or stagnating wages, etc.), the War in Iraq, rising gasoline prices, and some latent (usually unspecified) concerns about terrorism. When historians look back and pass judgement on this particular Congress and this particular President, they are might add to that list issues like Iranian nuclear technology, North Korean missiles, or Chinese fiscal policy. I can even understand the case that immigration and judicial appointments are major areas of concern, even though I personally disagree with the notion that they are matters of great urgency. At the same time, we have a unified Republican government; a Republican president, solid Republican majorities in both houses, and this is an election year–a great time for them to come together, solve some of our problems in the way that Republicans everywhere think a good conservative government ought to do, and prove to the voters that Republican government is the best government.
Continue reading »
Recent Comments