Here’s a few good stories in the news today, and several relate to the new Minnesota legislative session that began this week.
Both of my State Legislators are in the news today, check it out:
Lanning under pressure in bonding bill debate – State Representative Morrie Lanning (R-9A) is apparently being courted by the DFL as potential vote to support the massive bonding bill introduced at the beginning of this legislative session.
Job creation is top priority as Senate unveils capital investment package – This is State Senator Keith Langseth’s (DFL-09) press release promoting the specifics of the “capital investment package.” $999.9 million, really? Just throw in the extra penny and make it a billion, haha.
Beings that I have been a student for such a large period of my life, education reform has slowly elbowed through the other important issues that I try to keep up to speed on regularly. As a soon-to-be college graduate entering a recession-sickened job market with a heavy debtload, I’m more than a bit irritated at the current workings of the “education-industrial complex.”
It’s these concerns that have led me to bone up on and devote a number of posts on a regular basis to K-12, undergraduate and graduate school issues. Here’s the first few links:
Donations to colleges down 11.9% in 2009 – Well at least Minnesota made the list.
Outlook bleak for state-funded college financial aid – Maybe the above story will help out us college students given this bleak outlook. Here’s hoping, heh.
Rulings Leave Online Student Speech Rights Unresolved – Do students have free speech? Where? Courts aren’t too sure.
Woodbury’s going back to school – in August – Deals with shifting the duration of the school year, and not necessarily lengthening it.
Of big tents and tugs of war – Excellent piece on the direction of the Republican party in 2010
And finally, here’s your humor for the day – “How not to design a campaign website”
Have it good,
Check out this amusing website fail from a BigLaw firm:
Have it good,
Here’s a few of the things I’ve read today, out of the 1000+ stories that exploded on to my Google Reader over the night. No time for commentary, Dr. Jones! Need to outline some reasearch papers!
Good lord, we’ve had a busy week this week between Scott Brown’s victory, a wild Supreme Court term so far, and some interesting politics! I think the explosion in commentary has come from the big SCOTUS decision regarding campaign finance laws. I can’t wait to see how that plays out in the political realm this year as well as 2012.
Decision may mean more foreign cash <—I’m going to watch this story, definitely
5 Reasons gold is the next bubble to burst <—Just for you Stu, haha. Not sure I agree with this guy’s assessment though
Judge reduces damages in illegal file sharing case <—Brainerd, MN!
Have a good weekend, I think I’ll be trapped inside due to winter storms!
I’ve been reading more and more about the constitutionality of this massive healthcare reform bill in the news and blogs over the last few weeks, but it seems like the idea has really taken off in the last few days. One blogger I’m a big fan of is Josh Blackman, and he’s been blogging on the possible “Constitutional moment” that would occur if the SCOTUS actually decided to hear questions of constitutionality if the healthcare bill passes. He caught this article from The Hill before I did:
With Democrats in control of the White House and large majorities in the Senate and House, Republicans view the third branch of government as their last, best hope to limit Obama’s ambitious reform agenda.
“Since Democrats cut Republicans out of the healthcare negotiations in Congress, maybe the only way to have any input into the health bill is through litigation,” Bossie added.
This story is directly related to my last post about transparency and healthcare, as you can see from the second paragraph I quoted. The Dems have totally shut out the Republicans in their secretive efforts to force this bill through to the President, so what else can conservatives do other than win big in the 2010 mid-terms, as it looks like they might do? Top Democrats head for the exits
My pre-law advisor had us read a very interesting book dealing with whether or not the Courts are actually desirable and effective venues for any meaningful change in public policy, specifically the chapters on Race and Abortion. I think I might revisit that book briefly, to see if any parallels can be drawn with the HC debate.
Have it good,