Using the Google Suggest feature (“As you type into the search box, Google Suggest guesses what you’re typing and offers suggestions in real time . . . Our algorithms use a wide range of information to predict the queries users are most likely to want to see”), here are the first terms Google suggests if you type in just one letter, from A to Z. This was done around 2:10 p.m. EST, February 27, 2009, so a snapshot of the web today (do this every week and you could have a Library of Congress exhibit, or at least a high school-level art project):
*Go JC Penney! Didn’t know that was still around . . .
**Google’s “orkut” feature beats out “office depot,” “obama,” “old navy” and “orbitz” . . . sounds like it’s rigged!
***What, no “sex”? Anyway, go Sears! Bricks and mortar, baby . . .
****Does this count as double dipping? Beats out “ups” “usps” and “united airlines”
One of the big knocks on increasing the cost of emitting carbon as a solution to global warming is that it’s “regressive,” i.e., it hurts the poor disproportionately. I don’t really buy that argument, for a number of reasons. One, the poor are going to be hit the worst by climate change, which will make food more expensive and flood low-lying countries like Bangledesh. Two, the poor don’t lead nearly the carbon-intensive lifestyle that the rich do. Sure the rich can afford a new Prius, but they also fly WAY more than working class people, for example, and tend to have bigger houses, etc.
Be that as it may, the political argument seems to have legs. And the last thing we need is for a bunch of hypocritical Republicans using this issue as a way to express faux solidarity with the working man (remember “Drill, baby, drill!”?). So the issue is how do you increase the costs of carbon without it looking regressive.
Needless to say, Barack Obama has an answer:
Mr. Obama will also propose in the budget outline he releases on Thursday to use revenues from the centerpiece of his environmental policy — a plan under which companies will have to purchase permits to exceed pollution emission caps — to pay for an extension of a two-year tax credit that benefits low and middle-income people.
The combined effect of the two proposals, on top of Mr. Obama’s existing plan to roll back the Bush-era income tax reductions on upper-income households, would be a pronounced move to redistribute wealth and reimpose a substantially larger share of the tax burden on the most affluent taxpayers.
Well played, sir.
Since nationalization is in the news these days, I’ve been thinking a bit about a different kind of nationalization — specifically, the kind that happens when you’ve got a single buyer for a product, aka “monopsony”.
This is what the defense industry is today, an industry that has only a single client.
I’ve been noodling on what the health care industry would look like if the U.S. government moved to a single-payer system, and I think it’s probably something similar to what the defense industry has turned in to.
I don’t see this as necessarily a bad change. You’d still have a “market” system, in the sense that the U.S. government would constitute the entirety of the market. The government would put out an RFP, say, for a cancer treatment. The pharmaceutical industry would respond with various candidates and proposals.
As for competition, well, the race with the Soviets was pretty competitive. Isn’t the struggle against disease a compelling and urgent enough challenge to spur innovation?
Just some thoughts …
Microsoft compound boo-boo with ham-handedness. If they really want to make themselves beloved, they’ll sue to get the money back.
A post-Oscar preview, Obama’s budget and housing plans, and finally, 17,000 more troops head for Afghanistan.
Links Mentioned: The details on the budget … the homeowner plan … David Brooks on the plan … Fred Kaplan on Afghanistan.
the stimulus passes, the bank bailout advances, and finally: our international news roundup.
Links Mentioned: Chavez’s gambit … GM & the UAW go down to the wire … Israel’s election dynamics … the details (such as they are) of the bank bailout.
President Obama owed Huffington Post writer Sam Stein one. Last night, he paid him back:
It was a bookend moment.
President Obama on Monday evening became the 10th American president to call on Helen Thomas at a White House news conference. And he was the first to call on Sam Stein, a reporter for The Huffington Post, whose Internet publication sprung to life during Mr. Obama’s candidacy.
. . .
Mr. Obama glided through the questions without making any obvious news. Then, he turned to Mr. Stein, 26, who last month became the White House correspondent for his publication.
“Are you willing to rule out — right here and now — any prosecution of Bush administration officials?” Mr. Stein said, asking whether Mr. Obama intended to endorse an investigation by a so-called Truth and Reconciliation Committee.
As he did with Ms. Thomas, Mr. Obama essentially bypassed the question, saying, “My general orientation is to say let’s get it right moving forward.”
It was not the answer but the very fact that he took a question from Mr. Stein that created a buzz and signaled yet another shift in the ever-evolving news media landscape.