Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα more. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα more. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων

Σάββατο 6 Απριλίου 2013

Covered at Reason 24/7: Former FCC Leaders Want Even More Television Censorship


There are a number of folks out there
who feel the team name for the NFL's Washington Redskins is
culturally insensitive. Racist, even. Since the team has thus far
clung to their controversial mascot, some former FCC leaders are
proposing forcing their hands by trying to punish television
broadcasters who say or air its name.



Politico reports
:



In a letter to
Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt,
former Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Nicholas Johnson, and
others contend that an indecency case could be made against
broadcasters who air the offensive name.


“It is impermissible under law that the FCC would condone, or
that broadcasters would use, obscene pornographic language on live
television,” they write. “This medium uses government owned
airwaves in exchange for an understanding that it will promote the
public interest. Similarly, it is inappropriate for broadcasters to
use racial epithets as part of normal, everyday
reporting.” 


Never using the team’s name, they chastise broadcasters for
using a name that is equivalent to the “n-word.”



But networks can use the “n-word,” too, if they want to. It’s
the cultural pressure and consequences that stopped the use of such
language, not government demands or fines.


Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.


If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's
readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at
24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Παρασκευή 5 Απριλίου 2013

Covered at Reason 24/7: Despite Focus on Gun Restrictions, More States Move To Loosen Laws


Reason 24/7Almost all of the media attention is on
states like New York, Connecticut, Colorado and Maryland that have
moved to restrict self-defense rights by making it harder to
legally own and use firearms. But some scribblers at the West
Coast's dear old newspaper of (scratchy) sort-of record peeked up
over their cubicle walls and noticed something unexpected: Even
more states are moving to protect the right to bear arms,
and even to loosen restrictions on guns. Howdatappen? As
reporters Mark Z. Barabak and Melanie Mason put it, "[t]he result
is a significant disparity between states — some side by side — as
President Obama pushes for new federal gun controls." Not just a
significant disparity, you should note, but a growing divergence in
the legal treatment of self-defense rights at the state level.


From the
Los Angeles Times
:



The first state to act after December's Sandy Hook shooting was
New York, where Republicans control the Senate and Democrats the
Assembly. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, worked with lawmakers of
both parties to pass a sweeping bill that beefed up the state's ban
on assault-style weapons and required universal background
checks.


Other states have moved in the opposite direction, loosening
restrictions on gun ownership and increasing the number of places
where firearms are permitted. Many have Republican governors, a
Republican-run statehouse or both.


In Michigan and Ohio, lawmakers have made it easier to obtain a
gun. Arkansas, Maine and Mississippi have passed laws to protect
the privacy of gun owners. Wyoming enacted legislation allowing
judges to carry weapons in the courtroom, and South Dakota passed a
law authorizing school employees to carry guns on the job.


More than a dozen other states are considering legislation that
would enhance gun rights, including Texas, North Carolina, Missouri
and Georgia.



As you might guess, not all state-level control freaks are happy
that their counterparts elsewhere are moving law in a
less-authoritarian direction. But, you know, tough shit.


Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.


If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's
readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at
24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Roger Ebert Taught People How to Argue About Movies


In the
pantheon of movie critics, there are few who can claim as much
influence as Roger Ebert. You could reasonably argue that Pauline
Kael was more important, that her influence on the form was deeper
and more lasting, that she, unlike Ebert changed the way that
movies were made.


Yet there’s a crucial distinction between the two: Despite
Kael's love of glorious trash, she was, at heart, an elite
moviegoer writing for other elite moviegoers. Ebert, on the other
hand, was far more concerned with mass appeal, and his
straightforward prose was accessible and to the point in ways that
Kael never really attempted.


That's no small thing for a pop culture critic, whose ultimate
job is to educate the wider public about the form. And his
insistence on accessibility not only helped Ebert reach a bigger,
broader audience than Kael, it made him a more popular cinematic
guide for the general public. Kael may have changed movie making,
but Ebert changed movie watching.


And a big part of the way he did that was by making debate about
film accessible. Siskel & Ebert, the TV show he
co-hosted with rival Chicago movie critic Gene Siskel, was billed
as a movie review show, and that’s true enough. But as much as it
was a show about reviewing films, it was even more a show about
arguing about movies.


The cantankerous duo showed viewers what it meant to enjoy
movies in the company of another, offering a feisty, competitive
model of film-fan friendship. Their unscripted on-screen dialogues,
meanwhile, helped a generation of moviegoers understand that it was
not enough to merely have an opinion about a film; you also had to
defend it. Indeed, a round of opinionated post-film jousting could
be an essential part of the moviegoing experience.


That sensibility helped put movie watching in a social context.
The show recognized that movie viewing and criticism was not a
strictly solitary affair, but a community project; it operated on
the assumption that a critic’s views are shaped as much by the
people he argues with as the movies he watches.  That, in
turn, allowed the program to transform the lonely work of critical
assessment and argument into a popular and engaging spectator
sport, and inspired legions of film nuts and amateur film critics
to engage in their own friendly duels with each other.


That probably explains a lot about why Ebert took so well to new
media late in life: It wasn’t just that he had always written in
the conversational style that became the norm on the web. It was
also that he relished the sport of debate, the ruckus of
freewheeling conversation about the things he loved and hated in
the world, with movies at the top of the list.


At times Ebert was a hater; more often he was prone to
celebration (a little too much, in my opinion). But a subtext of
virtually all of his life and work was that if you loved movies,
you would argue about them — and also for them.


The same, I think, should go for those of us who also love movie
criticism. I disagreed with many of Ebert’s critical judgments, and
I wasn’t particularly drawn to his plainspoken style of reviewing,
which often seemed hasty and, at least when reviewing new releases,
could be overly focused on character and story basics at the
expense of cinematic craftsmanship.


Yet I’ve always appreciated Ebert for the simple fact that he
did more than anyone else to make film criticism—and film
arguments—available and accessible to the world at large. In the
end, I’m glad he was there to argue with, to offer and defend
opinions, and, most of all, to show so many readers and viewers
that the arguments were not only worth having; at their best those
arguments could be as much or more fun than the movies
themselves.

4 More Ways Obama's Gun Control Speech Sows Mistrust


As I
noted
earlier today, President Obama professes to be worried
about a lack of trust and empathy in the gun control debate, even
as he accuses his opponents of blocking life-saving legislation out
of sheer partisan perversity. Here are a few other ways in which
Obama's speech in
Denver sows mistrust:


He conflates a failed background check with stopping a
criminal from obtaining a gun.
 "Over the past 20
years," Obama says, "background checks have kept more than 2
million dangerous people from buying a gun." That claim is based on
two faulty assumptions: 1) that everyone who fails a background
check is dangerous, which plainly is not true, given the
ridiculously broad categories
of people who are legally barred
from buying firearms, and 2) that a criminal intent on obtaining a
weapon will give up if he cannot get it over the counter at a gun
store, rather than enlisting a straw buyer or turning to the gray
or black market.


He falsely equates "assault weapons" with military
guns.
 Obama inaccurately calls one of the guns used
in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre an "assault rifle," which is
a military weapon capable of firing automatically. He calls the
guns he wants to ban "weapons of war," again implying that they
fire continuously, when in fact they fire once per trigger pull,
like any other semi-automatic firearm.


He says there is no logical connection between
"universal background checks" and gun registration.
"We're
not proposing a gun registration system," Obama insists. "We’re
proposing background checks for criminals." But there is no way to
enforce a background-check requirement for every gun transfer
unless the government knows where the guns are. Federally licensed
gun dealers are readily identified and can be required to keep sale
records. Individual gun owners who might dare to sell their
property without clearance from the government cannot be identified
unless the government compiles a list of them. Hence Obama's
assurances amount to saying, "Don't worry. We will make a big show
of passing this new background-check mandate, but we won't really
enforce it."


He pooh-poohs the idea that there could ever be anything
adversarial about the relationship between Americans and their
government
:



You hear some of these quotes: "I need a gun to protect myself
from the government." "We can't do background checks because the
government is going to come take my guns away." 


Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you.
(Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am
constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders
put in place. It's a government of and by and for the people.



One of the constraints on the federal government is the doctrine
of enmuerated powers, which says every act of Congress must be
justified by a specific constitutional grant of authority. Where is
the clause that empowers Congress to say how many rounds you can
put in a magazine or whether your rifle can have a barrel shroud?
Furthermore, as Obama surely has heard by now, there is this thing
called the Second Amendment, and it is hardly frivolous to argue
than an arbitrary and capricious piece of legislation like the
"assault weapon" ban Obama supports would violate the
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet to Obama's mind,
anyone who makes such an argument is one of those "people who take
absolute positions" and therefore can be safely ignored. After all,
the government is us. 

Πέμπτη 4 Απριλίου 2013

Tomorrow's Doctors Will Be Nothing More Than Technicians

I grew up in a solidly middle class neighborhood of second and third generation Jewish immigrants. Our grandparents lived in enclaves like Bensonhurst and the South Bronx. Our parents moved to Queens and Long Island where they became salesmen or shop owners.

It fell to my generation to earn advanced degrees and join the professional class. We had a few lawyers, some accountants, and one or two dentists. (My best friend Billy Ebenstein and I were the only ones to become professors.) Becoming a doctor was the pinnacle of success, with prestige, guaranteed financial security, and a lifetime of professional fulfillment.

As kids, our iconic physician was Marcus Welby, the eponymous lead character of television’s top rated drama series. Dr. Welby’s world of an independent private practice, free from interference from administrators and insurers, has ended. Not coincidentally, Marcus Welby was portrayed by Robert Young, who had previously played the lead role of Jim Anderson on Father Knows Best. Our doctors were parent figures, get it?

Physicians can no longer expect to enjoy similar relationships with their patients. Even the world of Gregory House, where the practice of medicine was reduced to finding the best application of diagnostic skill and modern technology, seems a distant memory. At least Dr. House held sway over his boss, Dr. Cuddy, and he never let costs get in the way of his medical decisions. When we last saw Dr. House, he was motorcycling off into the sunset with his dying friend Dr. Wilson. House got out just in time.

In the blink of an eye, the world of medicine has changed. We are witnessing massive vertical integration as providers try to make money from ACOs. At the same time, Medicare and private insurance have gone all-in on pay-for-performance. Only they have forsaken outcomes measurement and instead given us strict process guidelines. As a result of these changes, newly minted physicians can expect to spend the bulk of their careers employed by a hospital or a large multi-specialty group practice. They will not build and maintain a practice – their employer will do that for them. And they will have little discretion over diagnostic testing and treatment plans – they will instead follow strict treatment guidelines.

As a result of these changes, I see the end of professionalism. Tomorrow’s doctors will not be in loco parentis, instead, they will be more like carpenters or electricians, applying their tradesman-like skills to blueprints laid down by others. No one will place tomorrow’s doctors on a pedestal. Parents will no longer brag to their neighbors, “Let me tell you about my son, the doctor.”

Medicine will still be a financially rewarding career path. But if money is what matters, there will be far better choices. It will still take 8-10 years to finish medical school plus residency. During that time, a bright young college graduate could have instead completed three years at a top ranked law school and taken up with a big law firm, or worked at a financial firm, gone to a top business school, and taken a job in consulting. Not only would they earn money sooner, as a lawyer or consultant, they would not have to worry about Medicare slashing their fees.

Recent increases in marginal tax rates make medicine even less attractive. College students who choose medicine may give up 8-10 years of good income, but they could reasonably expect to make even more money once they finish their residencies. The net present value of a medical degree just might be worthwhile. Yet if you combine new federal marginal income tax rates that approach 45 percent with state income tax rates that often exceed 5 percent, then the net present value calculations do not look so good. Many college students will be wondering why they should give up a solid, steady income today in for a higher income as a doctor in the future, when the government is going to take over half of that higher income.

When I grew up, I was always told that medicine was a “calling.” Perhaps it was, though the money didn’t hurt. I don’t know how many young people will be “called” to become technicians. But technicians they will be. And with no real financial argument to support the choice, I wonder why anyone would choose to become a doctor.

Please follow Careers on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

a2.imga2t.img

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=7FuGyefZkis:73xHBN-VaI businessinsider?i=7FuGyefZkis:73xHBN-VaI businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=7FuGyefZkis:73xHBN-VaI
7FuGyefZkis

4 More Ways Obama's Gun Control Speech Sows Mistrust


As I
noted
earlier today, President Obama professes to be worried
about a lack of trust and empathy in the gun control debate, even
as he accuses his opponents of blocking life-saving legislation out
of sheer partisan perversity. Here are a few other ways in which
Obama's speech in
Denver sows mistrust:


He conflates a failed background check with stopping a
criminal from obtaining a gun.
 "Over the past 20
years," Obama says, "background checks have kept more than 2
million dangerous people from buying a gun." That claim is based on
two faulty assumptions: 1) that everyone who fails a background
check is dangerous, which plainly is not true, given the
ridiculously broad categories
of people who are legally barred
from buying firearms, and 2) that a criminal intent on obtaining a
weapon will give up if he cannot get it over the counter at a gun
store, rather than enlisting a straw buyer or turning to the gray
or black market.


He falsely equates "assault weapons" with military
guns.
 Obama inaccurately calls one of the guns used
in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre an "assault rifle," which is
a military weapon capable of firing automatically. He calls the
guns he wants to ban "weapons of war," again implying that they
fire continuously, when in fact they fire once per trigger pull,
like any other semi-automatic firearm.


He says there is no logical connection between
"universal background checks" and gun registration.
"We're
not proposing a gun registration system," Obama insists. "We’re
proposing background checks for criminals." But there is no way to
enforce a background-check requirement for every gun transfer
unless the government knows where the guns are. Federally licensed
gun dealers are readily identified and can be required to keep sale
records. Individual gun owners who might dare to sell their
property without clearance from the government cannot be identified
unless the government compiles a list of them. Hence Obama's
assurances amount to saying, "Don't worry. We will make a big show
of passing this new background-check mandate, but we won't really
enforce it."


He pooh-poohs the idea that there could ever be anything
adversarial about the relationship between Americans and their
government
:



You hear some of these quotes: "I need a gun to protect myself
from the government." "We can't do background checks because the
government is going to come take my guns away." 


Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you.
(Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am
constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders
put in place. It's a government of and by and for the people.



One of the constraints on the federal government is the doctrine
of enmuerated powers, which says every act of Congress must be
justified by a specific constitutional grant of authority. Where is
the clause that empowers Congress to say how many rounds you can
put in a magazine or whether your rifle can have a barrel shroud?
Furthermore, as Obama surely has heard by now, there is this thing
called the Second Amendment, and it is hardly frivolous to argue
than an arbitrary and capricious piece of legislation like the
"assault weapon" ban Obama supports would violate the
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet to Obama's mind,
anyone who makes such an argument is one of those "people who take
absolute positions" and therefore can be safely ignored. After all,
the government is us. 

Τετάρτη 3 Απριλίου 2013

Covered at Reason 24/7: Oregon Considers Legalizing Marijuana


reporting from the near futureLegalizing just medical marijuana might not
be able to get a hearing in places like
Florida
, but the effort to legalize recreational marijuana
continues elsewhere.



From the Statesman-Journal:


Forty years after Oregon became the first state in the
nation to decriminalize possession of small amounts of
marijuana, lawmakers are considering a bill that would regulate its
production, processing and sale.


"Marijuana legalization is coming to Oregon sooner rather than
later," said Anthony Johnson of Portland, Ore., an activist who
leads New Approach Oregon. "It makes sense to regulate marijuana
like alcohol and for the Legislature to take the lead on the issue
and make sure sensible regulations are in place."

There’s a lot more money to be made for the government in
keeping drugs illegal than there ever was in keeping gays from
getting married, so don’t expect politicians to jump on the
anti-drug war bandwagon as fast as they did in support of gay
marriage. Nevertheless, the eventual end of the drug way may be
becoming just as inevitable as gay marriage.


Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you
can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us
at @reason247.

Detroit CBS Runs April Fools Joke Against NRA on April 2; Not Marked As Joke


While the NRA does sometimes come across as less a civil rights
organization for the Second Amendment and more a lobbyist for
actions to actively help gun makers and users, it struck me as
strange that a Detroit CBS news website
ran on April 2, not marked as a joke
, what was originally
pretty
clearly an April Fools Joke
from Green Car
Reports:




According to a new position paper recently released, the NRA
intends to pursue a mandate requiring electric cars to offer a
mobile source for recharging energy-pulse rifles owned by U.S.
citizens.


“As Bushmaster semi-automatic rifles become more and more common
in properly armed U.S. households,” said NRA executive
vice-president Wayne LaPierre, “we see electric cars as a wonderful
and portable source of new-generation ammunition.”....


He suggested that the NRA will throw its considerable political
clout behind similar legislation for the U.S.–though, he noted, the
energy-flow rates would have to be far higher to permit rapid
recharging of even today’s energy-pulse weaponry.


“What could be more important to the safety, security, and
Second Amendment rights of normal American citizens,” LaPierre
asked at a Washington, DC, news conference this morning, “than
mandating that carmakers must offer the ability to use the stored
electric energy owned by our citizens to protect their families
from attacks by the government, trespassers, aliens, the mentally
ill, zoning boards, and the other criminal elements that are
besieging this once-great nation?”



The laff value of it is in the eye of the beholder, but CBS
running this on April 2 with no obvious sign I could see it was a
joke seems strange. (I wonder how
long the link will live
.)


My book,
Gun Control on Trial
, had some more measured critiques of
how the NRA chooses to pursue gun rights.

E! 'Fashion Police' Writers Claim They're Owed More Than $1 Million In Unpaid Wages

kelly osbourne

Eight writers on E!'s reality show "Fashion Police" on Wednesday filed a claim with state labor officials alleging that they're not being fairly compensated for the hours they've been working.

“The most I’ve been paid for a show has been for eight hours of work,” said "Fashion Police" writer Eliza Skinner. “In reality, I put in anywhere from 12 to 32 additional hours on each show -- time I should have been compensated for. On top of that is all the unpaid overtime we regularly work. There are some shows where we are required to work 16-hour days, from 2:30 p.m. until around 5:30 the following morning.”

Also read: Reality TV: The Invisible Front in Hollywood's Labor Wars

"Fashion Police," which debuted in the fall of 2010, features hosts Joan Rivers, Giuliana Rancic, Kelly Osbourne and George Kotsiopoulos commenting on celebrity fashions.

The network, which is owned by NBC/Universal, issued this statement in response to the filing: “E! values our Fashion Police writers and we pay them fairly and in full legal compliance.”

The claim was filed with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. If upheld, it could result in the cable TV network having to pay more than $1 million in back wages, according to the Writers Guild of America West, which is providing legal assistance to the writers.

Also read: Moving From 'Mob Wives' to Kardashians: Jeff Olde Joins E! From VH1

According to the writers, who are not working under a guild contract, "Fashion Police" ignores the California laws that require an employer to pay hourly employees their regular wage rate for all time worked in an eight-hour period. In addition, the law requires paying overtime for employment beyond eight hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in any workweek. 

“We love writing for 'Fashion Police,' but the company needs to do the right thing and pay us fairly for all the hard work and time we put into it,” said writer Bryan Cook. “We’ve helped make it one of the network’s top-rated shows and E! needs to start treating us like professional writers.”

SEE ALSO: "Game of Thrones" premiere breaks piracy record >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=oYlrOo7CdsY:TBfqdHh2wG businessinsider?i=oYlrOo7CdsY:TBfqdHh2wG businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=oYlrOo7CdsY:TBfqdHh2wG
oYlrOo7CdsY

You Can Love Nature and Still Hate the Tyranny of Environmental Regulations


Environmental activists and politicians would like you to think
that we must love their regulations -- or hate trees and
animals.


I love trees and animals.


But you can love nature and still hate the tyranny that
environmental regulations bring.


The Environmental Protection Agency just announced it will boost
gas prices ("only" a penny, although industry says 6 to 9 cents) to
make another minuscule improvement to air quality.


In New York City, my mayor wants to ban Styrofoam cups, saying,
"I think it's something we can do without."


Congress already dictates the design of our cars, toilets and
light bulbs.


Originally,
environmental rules were a good thing. I love the free market, but
it doesn't offer a practical remedy to pollution. I could sue
polluters for violating my property rights, but under our legal
system, that's not even close to practical.


So in the '70s, government passed rules that demanded we stop
polluting the air and water. Industry put scrubbers in smokestacks.
Towns installed sewage treatment. Now the air is quite clean, and I
can swim in the rivers around Manhattan.


But government didn't stop there. Government never stops. Now
that the air is cleaner, government spends even more than it spent
to clean the air to subsidize feeble methods of energy production,
like windmills and solar panels. Activists want even more spending.
A few years back, the Center for American Progress announced they
were upset that "Germany, Spain and China Are Seizing the Energy
Opportunity ... the United States Risks Getting Left Behind."


In this case, we're better off "left behind." After spending
billions, those European governments made no breakthroughs, and now
they're cutting back.


The Endangered Species Act was another noble idea. We all want
to save polar bears. But now the bureaucrats make it almost
impossible for some people to improve their own property.


Louisiana landowner Edward Poitevent wants to build homes and
offices north of Lake Pontchartrain. He could provide safe
high-ground housing to people eager to move away from areas that
were flooded during Hurricane Katrina. But he is not allowed to
build because the government decided 1,500 acres of his land should
become a preservation area for a threatened species called the
dusky gopher frog. None of these frogs currently live on his
property. Poitevent told me, "The Fish and Wildlife Service has
certified that the frog has not been seen in the state of Louisiana
since 1967."


Fish and Wildlife Service officials said they were "not
available" to talk with me about this. Instead, they posted a video
on YouTube that says they work "with" landowners: "The Service has
many voluntary partnership-based programs that can provide
technical and financial assistance to manage species."


That sounds nice, but the government's handbook on
how to work with them is an onerous 315 pages
long.


The environmentalists so torment those who resist their schemes
that some landowners tell each other, "If you find an endangered
species, shoot, shovel and shut up!" That's mostly a joke. But it
does happen, and it's one more way government regulations
backfire.


Throughout the world, most reductions in pollution have been
achieved because of capitalism, not government control.


Fracking for natural gas reduced greenhouse gas emissions.


Even much-hated coal and oil provide benefits. Science writer
Matt Ridley says, "Burning of fossil fuels is helping the
rainforest in the Amazon to grow."


Ridley also points out modern industrial farming allows people
to grow more food on less land, and so people cut down fewer trees.
"New England used to be 70 percent farmland -- it's now 70 percent
forest."


You can even see the difference between areas that get greener
and ones that don't from space: The Dominican Republic is
noticeably greener than its immediate neighbor, Haiti, mainly
because the Dominican Republic uses fossil fuel instead of burning
wood from its forests for fuel, as Haiti does.


Industry and technology, not regulations, are humanity's
greatest contribution to the environment. Leave people their
freedom, and they come up with new, smarter, more efficient and
thus cleaner ways of doing things. Stifling that process with
regulation isn't "progressive."

Τρίτη 2 Απριλίου 2013

Have More Fun On Your Business Trips In These 10 Cities

girl networking talkingAll too often, business trips are a blur of early-morning airport shuttles, followed by a whirlwind day of meetings, ending with a long night on an extremely uncomfortable hotel bed.

See what to do on your next business trip >

Unless you have a bit of downtime in between meetings, there’s usually no time for sight-seeing or venturing outside the confines of your hotel or convention center. But what’s the point of traveling if you don’t take a little time to explore your destination?

Imagine taking a quick helicopter tour over Manhattan during your lunch break or a dumpling-making class with a local chef in Shanghai before your next client dinner. In the quest to add some inspiration and enjoyment into business travel, we have taken the top 10 US and international cities for business trips and pulled together some of the most exciting tours and activities for each.

So, instead of scheduling that ump-teenth working lunch, punch out for a little sight-seeing, or just schedule your next meeting on a boat tour around the city!

New York City

If your visits to New York are limited to the conference rooms of Midtown or Wall Street, consider putting aside a few minutes to explore what’s on the other side of that window you’re gazing out of.

If you’ve only got half-an-hour, there are a few excellent ways to see Manhattan. You could spend your lunch on a helicopter tour, taking in the city’s most iconic sites, or instead of indulging in yet another steak at Peter Luger, spend a relaxing two hours on a twilight sail of the Hudson.

Or, push your flight home an hour later, and take a behind the scenes look viewing of your favorite TV shows during an NBC studio tour.



Las Vegas

While Las Vegas is best known for attracting flocks of partiers, it’s also the second most traveled-to city in the U.S. for business travelers.

While some might take this opportunity to gamble away their hard-earned money, there are plenty of adventures off the strip. You could experience the vivid colors and towering spires of Red Rock Canyon from behind the wheel of a Lamborghini, on a supercar tour of the conservation area.

Or, you could flee the confines of the convention center and try out zip lining in Bootleg Canyon, where you’ll zoom down Red Mountain at fifty miles-per-hour. If death-defying stunts aren’t quite your thing, why not relax and sip champagne on a gondola cruise on the crystal waters of Lake Las Vegas?



Chicago

If you’re the one of the lucky ones who can avoid Chicago in the winter, there are a slew of options to explore Chicago’s incredible cultural offerings in the warmer, more enjoyable months.

Skip the workout in the hotel gym and book a walking tour of Chicago’s Gold Coast instead, where you take in the best of the city’s Gilded Age opulence. In the evening, a progressive “dine-around” of the city’s best restaurants is the perfect way to gobble up as much Chicago cuisine as possible. Instead of passing out to a Seinfeld re-run at the hotel, take in a jazz performance in one of the city’s famous blues music emporiums.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow Careers on Twitter and Facebook.

mf.gif

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=SCo8tMnIxnw:_sIyK-Jqxd businessinsider?i=SCo8tMnIxnw:_sIyK-Jqxd businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=SCo8tMnIxnw:_sIyK-Jqxd
SCo8tMnIxnw

Δευτέρα 1 Απριλίου 2013

Americans Who Say Immigrants Benefit the Economy Are More Likely To Support Reform


According to the latest Reason-Rupe
poll
, a majority of Americans (55 percent) support offering
legal residency and an eventual path to citizenship to unauthorized
immigrants currently living in the United States if they meet
certain requirements. This number is far higher if one says
immigrants help the economy: 73 percent favor residency and path to
citizenship. Americans who perceive immigration’s economic benefits
also support raising visa caps for high skilled and low skilled
future immigrants (52 percent). Overall, 40 percent of Americans
support raising visa caps for high skilled and low skilled future
immigrants.


In contrast 27 percent of Americans support deportation of
unauthorized immigrants. Among those who say immigrants hurt the
economy, a plurality (45 percent) support deportation, while 34
percent favor residency and a citizenship pathway. Americans
skeptical of immigration’s benefits are also 20 points less likely
to favor raising the visa cap for high-skilled and low-skilled
workers with only about 30 percent in support.



Overall, Americans are evenly divided over whether immigrants
grow (40 percent) or hurt (40 percent) the US economy; few (15
percent) believe it has no impact. A majority (52 percent) worries
immigrant take jobs away from native-born Americans, 42 percent do
not share this concern. These economic worries are highly
predictive of support for reform but may also be indicative of
individuals’ underlying feelings toward newcomers.


The Young and More Educated Perceive Immigration Benefits


Younger Americans and those
with more education are more likely to perceive benefits from
immigration.


A majority of college graduates (53 percent) and those with post
graduate degrees (68 percent) share optimism of immigration’s
economic benefits, but a little more than a quarter of those with
high school diplomas share this view. Those with postgraduate
degrees are 17 points more likely to favor a path to citizenship
than high school graduates.


Majorities of millennials believe immigrants grow the economy,
but only about 35 percent of those aged 35 and older agree. Less
surprisingly, millennials are more likely to favor residency and
path to citizenship than those over thirty (60 percent to 53
percent).


White Americans are more skeptical of the economic benefits of
immigration. Forty-six percent of Caucasians think immigrants hurt
the economy and 60 percent say immigration takes jobs away from
native-born Americans. Latinos disagree: 56 percent say immigration
helps the economy and 59 percent say immigrants do not take away
jobs. African-Americans are in the middle: a plurality (47 percent)
say immigrants bolster the economy but 52 percent say they also
take jobs away from native-born Americans.


There are also regional disparities over whether immigrants
strengthen the economy. Americans in the Northeast and West are far
less concerned about the effects of immigration than are
Midwesterners and Southerners. Pluralities in the Northeast (48
percent) and West (43 percent) say immigrants bolster the economy
and are evenly divided over whether immigrants take away jobs.
However 57 percent of Midwesterners and 60 percent of Southerners
say immigrants take away jobs. A plurality of those in the Midwest
(45 percent) worry immigrants harm the economy, while the South is
evenly divided. 


Read the full report here: Reason-Rupe Feb
2013 Full Immigration Findings


Nationwide telephone poll conducted February 21-25 2013
interviewed 1002 adults on both mobile (502) and landline (500)
phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.8%. Columns may not add up to
100% due to rounding. Full poll results found here. Full
methodology can be found here. A
full analysis of the poll’s immigration results can be
found here. 

North Korean Video Shows Soldiers Shooting Targets Of US Troops

The Hermit Kingdom has released new propaganda footage showing North Korean soldiers firing at targets fashioned after American soldiers, according to Sky News.

It is unclear when or exactly where the footage was shot, but Sky News reports the video first appeared on state TV. The video was uploaded Monday to Liveleak.

The footage comes mere days after North Korea said it had "entered a state of war" with South Korea. A senior U.S. official dismissed the provocation as just more bluster.

In the short clip, North Korean soldiers are seen shooting AK-47 rifles and pistols in a field, as a target with a cartoon-like representation of an American soldier is blasted away.

Anti-American sentiment runs high in the North, with state-run media often calling the U.S. "imperialist aggressors," and the South a "puppet regime."

The latest video is another in a long history of propaganda from the regime. On Mar. 24, the North released a four-minute clip showing paratroopers jumping in and overtaking the South's capital city of Seoul.

"The crack stormtroops will occupy Seoul and other cities and take 150,000 U.S. citizens as hostages," the narrator says in the video, as The Telegraph reported.

As is often the case with North Korean propaganda, the videos are mainly for domestic consumption, with Kim Jong-un demonstrating readiness for battle, inciting nationalism, and presenting himself as a forceful leader of his people.

Estimates of North Korean army personnel range from 700,000 to more than one million. The South has similar numbers, along with nearly 30,000 U.S. troops backing them up.

SEE ALSO: US: North Korean Warmongering Just More Bluster >

SEE ALSO: Kim Jong-un Has Already Hit His Biggest Target >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=XUyMIYryeuY:1krXgp6rzd businessinsider?i=XUyMIYryeuY:1krXgp6rzd businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=XUyMIYryeuY:1krXgp6rzd
XUyMIYryeuY

Κυριακή 31 Μαρτίου 2013

HBO Talks 'Game Of Thrones' Piracy

How does HBO feel about having the most pirated show on TV?


Read More...

raw_feed?d=yIl2AUoC8zA raw_feed?i=WjrP-E4V39c:hfMFz7WyauI:F7zBn raw_feed?i=WjrP-E4V39c:hfMFz7WyauI:V_sGL
WjrP-E4V39c

Σάββατο 30 Μαρτίου 2013

Why The Euro Is Doomed In 4 Steps

Merkel Hollande

We're going to need a bigger acronym.

In the beginning, it was just the "Greek debt crisis". Then markets realized Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain were in bad shape too, and the PIIGS (or GIIPS) were born. But now Cyprus and Slovenia have run into trouble as well, giving us the ... SIC(K) PIGS? At this rate, we're going to have to buy a vowel soon, assuming Estonia doesn't end up needing a bailout.

The euro crisis is entering its fourth year, and, sorry world, this won't be its last. Now, its long periods of boredom have gotten a bit longer, and its moments of sheer financial terror a bit less terrifying, ever since the European Central Bank (ECB) promised to do "whatever it takes" to save the common currency. But, as Cyprus and Slovenia show, the battle for the euro isn't over yet. Not even close.

Here's the Cliff Notes version of the euro crisis. The euro zone doesn't have the fiscal or banking unions it needs to make monetary union work, and it's not close to changing that. In the meantime, the euro's continuing flaws continue to suck countries into crisis. And their politics get radicalized. Most recently, Cyprus was forced to accept a bailout and bail-in, because its too-big-to-save banks made some horrendously bad bets on Greek bonds. Slovenia looks like it could next on the euro-bailout tour, because, as Dylan Matthews of the Washington Post points out, its too-big-to-save-ish banks made some horrendously bad bets on its own companies. Now, banks make bad bets all the time, but those bad bets can bankrupt you as a country if you don't have your own central bank. Like euro countries.

Of course, this "diabolic loop" between weak banks and weak sovereigns isn't the only problem in euroland. The common currency has plenty of other flaws. Here's why the euro, as it's currently constructed, is a doomsday device for mass bankruptcy. (How's that for solidarity?).

1. Too Tight Money

The euro zone isn't what economists call an "optimal currency area". In other words, it was a bad idea. Its different members are different enough that they should have different monetary policies. But they don't. They have the ECB setting a single policy for all 17 of them. That's a particular problem for southern Europe now, because their wages are uncompetitively high relative to northern European ones, and the ECB isn't helping them out.

There are two ways to fix this intra-euro competitiveness gap. Either northern European wages rise faster than normal while southern wages stay flat, or northern European wages grow normally while southern European wages fall. It's the difference between a bit more inflation or not -- in other words, between looser ECB policy or the status quo. Now, it might not sound like it really matters which option they choose, but it very much does. Falling wages make it harder to pay back debts that don't fall, setting off a vicious circle into economic oblivion. The ECB apparently prefers pushing more and more countries into oblivion with too tight money than risk anything resembling more inflation.

2. Too Tight Budgets

Austerity has been a complete disaster. It's actually increased debt burdens across southern Europe, because it's reduced growth more than it's reduced borrowing costs. And now northern Europe is getting in on the act. France (which is really somewhere in between "southern" and "northern") just missed its deficit target, and is set to slash more; the Netherlands has put through contentious tax hikes and spending cuts, even as its economy has shrunk; and even Germany is contemplating new budget-saving measures. In other words, the euro has become an austerity suicide pact.

3. Too Little Trade

Excluding Germany, just over half of all euro trade is with each other. But with bad policy pushing southern Europe into depression and northern Europe towards recession, euro zone countries can't afford to buy as much stuff from each other. That adds a degree of difficulty to recovery for southern European countries that need to export their way out of trouble. As you can see in the chart below from Eurostat, intra-euro zone trade has stagnated the past few years after rebounding from its post-crash depths. The euro zone's weak links are dragging the rest down -- but only because the rest refuse to pull the weak ones up.

IntraEZExports

4. Too Much Financial Interconnection

Other country's problems can quickly become your own if your banks own their bonds. Especially if your banks are bigger than your economy. That's the lesson Cyprus learned the very hard way after its banks loaded up on Greek debt in 2010, only to get wiped out a year later. The Financial Times has a great infographic (that you should play around with) on which country's banks are exposed to which other country's debt across the euro zone. As you can see below, any kind of Italian restructuring would be tremendously bad for French banks.

Frenchbankexposure

The euro is the gold standard minus the shiny rocks. Both force countries to give up their ability to fight recessions in return for fixed exchange rates and open capital flows. But giving up the ability to fight recessions just makes it easier for recessions to turn into depressions. And that puts all of the pressure on wages to adjust down when a shock hits -- the most painful and destructive way of doing things.

But the gold standard had an even bigger design flaw than creating depressions. That was perpetuating depressions. Under the rules of the game, countries short on gold were supposed to raise interest rates, which would push down wages, and push up exports. More exports would mean more gold, and then lower interest rates. But there was an asymmetry. Countries needed gold to create money, but countries didn't need to create money if they had gold. During the Great Depression, the U.S. and France sucked up most of the world's gold, but didn't turn it into money out of fear of nonexistent inflation. Countries that needed gold needed to push down wages even more to make their exports competitive -- not that there were any booming markets for them to export to due to the self-inflicted economics wounds of the U.S. and France. Instead, the depression just fed on itself.

The euro suffers from a similar asymmetry. Debtor-euro countries are to cut wages and deficits, but creditor-euro countries aren't forced to increase wages and deficits. Perversely, the opposite. In other words, northern Europe isn't doing enough to offset the demand destruction in southern Europe. And it's sinking them all. Even worse, this slow-motion collapse is turning loans that would have otherwise been good into losses -- losses that force bailouts and faster collapses. But, to be clear, this isn't only a problem for the periphery. As the U.S. and France found out in the 1930s, it's generally not a good idea to force your customers into bankruptcy. That just creates depression without end -- until the gold (or euro) standard ends. It's no coincidence that the countries that ditched the gold standard first recovered from the Great Depression first.

History doesn't need to repeat, or even rhyme. Europe doesn't have to keep crucifying itself on a cross of euros, the gold standard of the 21st-century. The euro's northern bloc could decide to let the ECB do more. Or it could decide to start spending more. Or not. Eurocrats seem content to do just enough to keep everything from falling apart, and nothing more. It's one part inflationphobia, and another part strategy. Indeed, it's how they try to keep the pressure on the southern bloc to push through unpopular labor market reforms. But doing enough today eventually won't be enough tomorrow if the southern bloc doesn't have any hope of recovering within the euro. The politics will turn against the common currency long before that.

By that point, Europe won't need an acronym anymore.




Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

a2.imga2t.img

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=704qW5rai_I:okNADJec2t businessinsider?i=704qW5rai_I:okNADJec2t businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=704qW5rai_I:okNADJec2t
704qW5rai_I