The online Global Education Conference 2018 ends tomorrow, Friday, September 21. Last chance. Join in.
The online Global Education Conference began on Monday, September 17. Please join in throughout the week.
WHITEHOUSE REVEALS KAVANAUGH’S PRO-CORPORATE, RIGHT-WING RECORD IN SCOTUS HEARING OPENER
Judge Kavanaugh advances right-wing and corporate interests 91 percent of the time Kavanaugh sided with conservative “friends of the court” 91 percent of the time
Washington, DC – At today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pinpointed Kavanaugh’s troubling bias in favor of right-wing and corporate interests throughout his career in Republican politics and on the federal bench, and compared Kavanaugh’s partiality to the same bias that has taken root in Chief Justice John Roberts’s Supreme Court.
Senator Whitehouse’s as-prepared remarks are below.
Whitehouse also released analysis, incorporated into his opening remarks, of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence and Kavanaugh’s judicial record. Summaries and links to the full analysis are provided below.
A review of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence during the Roberts Era reveals that in the most controversial and salient civil cases – those decided by bare 5-4 or 5-3 majorities – when the right wing of the Court has voted en bloc to form the majority, they do so to advance far-right and corporate interests a striking 92 percent of the time. In those cases, the “Roberts Five” – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Justice Antonin Scalia (replaced last year by Justice Neil Gorsuch) – have reliably voted in lockstep to help Republicans win elections, to protect corporations from liability, to abridge civil rights, and to advance the far right social agenda.
A review of Brett Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence on the D.C. Circuit reveals that in the most controversial and salient civil cases – those decided by bare 2-1 majorities – when Kavanaugh is in the majority with another Republican-appointed judge, he votes to advance far-right and corporate interests a striking 91 percent of the time.
An examination of the Roberts Court’s 5-4 decisions reveals that, when the Roberts Five (Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia/Gorsuch, and Justice Thomas) forms the Court’s majority, they agree with conservative amici curiae (“friends of the court”) 92 percent of the time. Further, in these cases, the Roberts Five has endorsed the positions advanced by the high-profile conservative groups the Chamber of Commerce, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, and the Washington Legal Foundation 100 percent of the time. In its 5-4 decisions, the Roberts Five have opened up the doors for dark money to flood the political system, rolled back important voting rights and environmental protections, and made it easier for employers to discriminate against their employees.
An examination of District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s written opinions reveals that he sided with conservative amici curiae (“friends of the court”) 91 percent of the time. In these cases, Kavanaugh wrote opinions limiting collective bargaining rights, letting polluters pollute, blurring the line between the separation of church and state, protecting corporations from liability, and expanding the scope of the Second Amendment.
Before beginning his remarks, Whitehouse joined colleagues in calling out the Trump administration’s dubious assertion of privilege over 100,000 pages of documents related to Kavanaugh, and the eleventh-hour dump of an additional 42,000 pages of documents from Kavanaugh’s work in the Bush administration – documents Democrats had no hope of reviewing fully before Kavanaugh’s hearing began.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s Complete Statemeny
Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing Opening Statement
September 4, 2018 – AS-PREPARED FOR DELIVERY
When is a pattern evidence of bias?
In court, pattern is evidence of bias all the time; evidence on which juries and trial judges rely, to show discriminatory intent, to show a common scheme, to show bias.
When does a pattern prove bias?
That’s no idle question. It’s relevant to the pattern of the Roberts Court when its Republican majority goes off on its partisan excursions through the civil law; when all five Republican appointees — the Roberts Five, I’ll call them — go raiding off together, and no Democratic appointee joins them.
Does this happen often? Yes, indeed.
The Roberts Five has gone on 80 of these partisan excursions since Roberts became chief.
There is a feature to these eighty cases. They almost all implicate interests important to the big funders and influencers of the Republican Party. When the Republican Justices go off on these partisan excursions, there’s a big Republican corporate or partisan interest involved 92 percent of the time.
A tiny handful of these cases don’t implicate an interest of the big Republican influencers — so flukishly few we can set them aside. That leaves 73 cases that all implicate a major Republican Party interest. Seventy-three is a lot of cases at the Supreme Court.
Is there a pattern to those 73 cases? Oh, yes there is.
Every time a big Republican corporate or partisan interest is involved, the big Republican interest wins. Every. Time.
Let me repeat: In seventy-three partisan decisions where there’s a big Republican interest at stake, the big Republican interest wins. Every. Damned. Time.
Hence the mad scramble of big Republican interest groups to protect a “Roberts Five” that will reliably give them wins — really big wins, sometimes.
When the Roberts Five saddles up, these so-called conservatives are anything but judicially conservative.
They readily overturn precedent, toss out statutes passed by wide bipartisan margins, and decide on broad constitutional issues they need not reach. Modesty, originalism, stare decisis, all these supposedly conservative judicial principles, all have the hoof prints of the Roberts Five all across their backs, wherever those principles got in the way of wins for the Big Republican interests.
The litany of Roberts Five decisions explains why big Republican interests want Kavanaugh on the Court so badly that Republicans trampled so much Senate precedent to shove him through; so let’s review the litany.
What do big Republican interests want? Well, first, they want to win elections.
What has the Roberts Five delivered?
Help Republicans gerrymander elections: Vieth v. Jubelirer, 5-4, license to gerrymander.
Help Republicans keep minority voters away from the polls: Shelby County, 5-4 and Bartlett v. Strickland, 5-4. And Abbott v. Perez, 5-4, despite the trial judge finding the Texas legislature actually intended to suppress minority voters.
And the big one: help corporate front-group money flood elections — if you’re a big special interest you love unlimited power to buy elections and threaten and bully Congress. McCutcheon, 5-4 counting the concurrence; Bullock, 5-4; and the infamous, grotesque 5-4 Citizens United decision (which belongs beside Lochner on the Court’s roll of shame).
What else do the big influencers want?
To get out of courtrooms. Big influencers hate courtrooms, because their lobbying and electioneering and threatening doesn’t work. In a courtroom, big influencers used to getting their way have to suffer the indignity of equal treatment.
So the Roberts Five protects corporations from group “class action” lawsuits: Walmart v. Dukes, 5-4; Comcast, 5-4; and this past term, Epic Systems, 5-4.
The Roberts Five helps corporations steer customers and workers away from courtrooms and into mandatory arbitration: Concepcion, Italian Colors, and Rent-a-Center, all Roberts Five. Epic Systems does double duty here: now workers can’t even arbitrate their claims as a group.
Hindering access to the courthouse for plaintiffs generally: Iqbal, 5-4.
Protecting corporations from being taken to court by employees harmed through pay discrimination, Ledbetter, 5-4; age discrimination, Gross, 5-4; harassment, Vance 5-4; and retaliation, Nassar, 5-4. Even insulating corporations from liability for international human rights violations: Jesner, 5-4.
Corporations aren’t in the Constitution; juries are. Indeed, courtroom juries are the one element of American government designed to protect people against encroachments by private wealth and power. So of course the Roberts Five rule for wealthy, powerful corporations over jury rights every time — with nary a mention of the Seventh Amendment.
What’s another one? Oh, yes. A classic: helping big business bust unions. Harris v. Quinn, 5-4; and Janus v. AFSCME this year, 5-4, overturning a 40-year precedent.
Lots of big Republican influencers are polluters. They like to pollute for free.
So of course the Roberts Five delivers decisions that let corporate polluters pollute. To pick a few: Rapanos, weakening wetland protections, 5-4; National Association of Home Builders, weakening protections for endangered species, 5-4; Michigan v. EPA, helping air polluters, 5-4; and, in the face of emerging climate havoc, there’s the procedurally aberrant 5-4 partisan decision to stop the EPA Clean Power Plan.
Then come Roberts Five bonus decisions advancing a far-right social agenda: Gonzalez v. Carhart, upholding restrictive abortion laws; Hobby Lobby, granting corporations religious rights over the health care rights of employees; NIFLA, letting states deny women truthful information about their reproductive choices—all 5-4, all the Republicans.
Add Heller and McDonald, which reanimated for the gun industry a theory a former Chief Justice once called a “fraud”; both decisions 5-4.
This year, Trump v. Hawaii, 5-4, rubber stamping President Trump’s discriminatory Muslim travel ban.
And in case Wall Street was feeling left out, helping insulate investment bankers from fraud claims: Janus Capital Group, Inc., 5-4.
No wonder the American people feel the game is rigged.
Here’s how the rigged game works: big business and partisan groups fund the Federalist Society, which picked Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh. As White House Counsel admitted, they “insourced” the Federalist Society for this selection. Exactly how the nominees were picked, and who was in the room where it happened, and who had a vote or a veto, and what was said or promised, is all a deep dark secret.
Then big business and partisan groups fund the Judicial Crisis Network, which runs dark-money political campaigns to influence Senators in confirmation votes, as they’ve done for Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh. Who pays millions of dollars for that, and what their expectations are, is a deep dark secret.
These groups also fund Republican election campaigns with dark money. The identity of the big donors? A deep dark secret.
Once the nominee is on, the same business front groups, with ties to the Koch Brothers and other funders of the Republican political machine, file “friend of the court,” or amicus briefs, to signal their wishes to the Roberts Five. Who is really behind those “friends” is another deep dark secret.
It has gotten so weird that Republican justices now even send hints back to big business interests about how they’d like to help them next, and then big business lawyers rush out to lose cases, just to get them up before the friendly Court, pronto. That’s what happened in Friedrichs and Janus.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the biggest corporate lobby of them all. It’s the mouthpiece for Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Guns, you name it—and this year, with Justice Gorsuch riding with the Roberts Five, the Chamber won nine of the 10 cases it weighed in on.
The Roberts Five since 2006 has given the Chamber more than three-quarters of their total votes. This year in civil cases they voted for the Chamber’s position nearly 90 percent of the time.
People are noticing. Veteran court-watchers like Jeffrey Toobin, Linda Greenhouse and Norm Orenstein describe the court as a delivery service for Republican interests:
Toobin has written that on the Supreme Court, “Roberts has served the interests . . . of the contemporary Republican Party.”
Greenhouse has said, “the Republican-appointed majority is committed to harnessing the Supreme Court to an ideological agenda.”
Orenstein described, “the new reality of today’s Supreme Court: It is polarized along partisan lines in a way that parallels other political institutions and the rest of society, in a fashion we have never seen.”
And the American public knows it, too. The American public thinks the Supreme Court treats corporations more favorably than individuals, compared to vice versa, by a 7-to-1 margin.
Now, let’s look at where Judge Kavanaugh fits in. A Republican political operative his whole career, who’s never tried a case. He made his political bones helping the salacious prosecution of President Clinton, and leaking prosecution information to the press.
As an operative in the second Bush White House, he cultivated relationships with political insiders like nomination guru Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society architect of Kavanaugh’s court nominations. On the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh gave more than 50 speeches to the Federalist Society. That’s some auditioning.
On the DC Circuit, Kavanaugh showed his readiness to join the Roberts Five with big political wins for Republican and corporate interests: unleashing special interest money into elections; protecting corporations from liability; helping polluters pollute; striking down commonsense gun regulations; keeping injured plaintiffs out of court; and perhaps most important for the current occupant of the Oval Office, expounding a nearly limitless vision of presidential immunity from the law.
His alignment with right-wing groups who came before him as “friends of the court”? 91 percent.
When big business trade associations weighed in? 76 percent. This is what corporate capture of the courts looks like.
There are big expectations for you. The shadowy dark-money front group, the Judicial Crisis Network, is spending tens of millions in dark money to push for your confirmation. They clearly have big expectations about how you’ll rule on dark money.
The NRA has poured millions into your confirmation, promising their members that you’ll “break the tie.” They clearly have big expectations on how you’ll vote on guns.
White House Counsel Don McGahn said, “There is a coherent plan here where actually the judicial selection and the deregulatory effort are really the flip side of the same coin.” Big polluters clearly have big expectations for you on their deregulatory effort.
Finally, you come before us nominated by a President named in open court as directing criminal activity, and a subject of ongoing criminal investigation. You displayed expansive views on executive immunity from the law. If you are in that seat because the White House has big expectations that you will protect the President from the due process of law, that should give every Senator pause.
Tomorrow, we will hear a lot of “confirmation etiquette.” It’s a sham.
Kavanaugh knows the game. In the Bush White House, he coached judicial nominees to just tell Senators that they will adhere to statutory text, that they have no ideological agenda. Fairy tales.
At his hearing, Justice Roberts infamously said he’d just call “balls and strikes,” but the pattern – the 73-case pattern – of the Roberts Five qualifies him to have NASCAR-style corporate badges on his robes.
Alito said in his hearing what a “strong principle” stare decisis was, an important limitation on the Court. Then he told the Federalist Society stare decisis “means to leave things decided when it suits our purposes.”
Gorsuch delivered the key fifth vote in the precedent-busting, but also union-busting, Janus decision. He too had pledged in his hearing to “follow the law of judicial precedent,” assured us he was not a “philosopher king,” and promised to give equal concern to “every person, poor or rich, mighty or meek.”
How did that turn out? Great for the rich and mighty: Gorsuch is the single most corporate-friendly justice on a Court already full of them, ruling for big business interests in over 70 percent of cases, and in every single case where his vote was determinative.
The president early on assured evangelicals his Supreme Court picks would attack Roe v. Wade. Despite “confirmation etiquette” assurances about precedent, your own words make clear you don’t really believe Roe v. Wade is settled law.
We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends.
The sad fact is that there is no consequence for telling the Committee fairy tales about stare decisis, and then riding off with the Roberts Five, trampling across whatever precedent gets in the way of letting those Big Republican interests keep winning 5-4 partisan decisions.
Every. Damned. Time.
EdTech is everywhere as we know but most of the investment in this field is not in the classroom, also something that most of us may know. But just for the record, here are some of the recent numbers. In 2017, EdTech investment reached a record high of over 9.52 billion. The majority of that investment, however, will never see a classroom.
“In 2017, global investments made to learning technology companies reached over $9.52 billion, up 30% from 2016, which set the previous record for EdTech funding at $7.33 billion; 913 EdTech companies were funded in 2017, the highest since the record of 728 set in 2015. Yet although this was a record year, only a small amount went towards Pre-K-20 Education. Pre-K-12 companies received 13% of the overall global investment, or 13% of the overall global investment, or $1.2 billion, and higher education companies got 8%, or $682 million (EdTechTimes, March 2018).”
Major EdTech investment in the U.S. and China is somewhat expected. Another major shift is a huge increase in Africa, particularly for startups in South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria. This may be due to a growing market in the continent for EdTech that goes beyond the typical classroom, an environment that is inaccessible to many children in those regions.
I know this is not my typical tweet about using technology to express and engage with others, so please indulge me for this “special” moment. Trump’s behavior at the recent G-7 meetings was despicable and dangerous in its expression of “I” will not play if “I” can’t have it my way! He does not have that right as OUR elected official. His way or the highway? Don’t believe all the lies and self-aggrandizement he spews forth on his Twitter site, or any place else.
I think The NY Times had it right in Tuesday’s editorial: “But no. Instead, as photographs from the Quebec resort showed, Mr. Trump faced the other leaders with arms defiantly crossed and faced locked in a pout. It was a confirmation that so long as Mr. Trump was on the White House, and maybe beyond that, something fundamental in the community of Western democracies will be missing. America, the leader of the free world and architect of so much of the modern world order, had decided to go its own way.”
How did we get here? Maybe Russia knows?
While we were all enthralled with Trump’s globe-trotting antics, i.e., a G-7 meeting where he made a pitch for allowing Russia to rejoin, refusing to sign concluding document, and an historic “hand-shake” with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un: net neutrality died in the United States. As a public service, here are some of the changes that will make you wish for a return to those carefree Internet-browsing days.
* Internet service providers can now discriminate against any lawful content by blocking websites or apps.
* Service providers can now slow the transmission of data because of the nature of the content.
* Service providers can now create “internet fast lanes” for companies and consumers who pay premiums, and maintain a slow lane for those who don’t.
Now we can all sleep a little more soundly? We have both Russia and North Korea on our side, and our Internet service just got slower, may be censored, and become more expensive. More like a nightmare!
Have you ever heard about the “Cyber-security Tech Accord?” It has been described as a ” digital Geneva Convention” that would set norms of behavior for cyberspace. Unfortunately, most of us are probably not that familiar with it since the principles it espouses can run headlong into individual governments’ efforts to develop cyber weapons in secrecy.
Microsoft is playing a central role in advancing this accord. Some of their officials have said they briefed the Trump administration on this new agreement and heard no objections. But that may not mean much. Mr. Trump’s adviser, Thomas P. Bosser, who oversees cyber security security, was dismissed last week after John R. Bolton took over as national security adviser.
The cybersecurity coordinator at the White House, Rob Joyce, is widely rumored to be considering leaving his post and returning to the National Security Agency, where he ran the most elite of the cyberforces that attack foreign networks. If Mr. Joyce departs, the White House will have lost its two most senior, and most knowledgeable, cybersecurity policy makers in the span of a few weeks. “You’re fired!” says the former star of the “Celebrity Apprentice.” Now he is playing the part of “President.”
Are all your Facebook friends happy and doing well? Probably not, and how would you really know anyway. Recently some researchers have attempted to evaluate Facebook’s impact on a sampling of its users in Denmark (1,097).
The experiment had half of its subjects continue their Facebook rituals and the other half abstain from them. Thirteen percent of the abstained could not keep away and wound up succumbing to their addiction. In the end, those who has no contact with Facebook during the course of a week rated their general sense of satisfaction higher than those who retained their habit. But apart from envy, Facebook seems to energize profound feelings of dread, perhaps especially for those in middle age, because it serves to to remind us over and over how many ways life can go horribly and dramatically wrong when we continuously hear the “bad news” about our friends’ lives. Maybe making our lives an “open book” has more negative consequences than we realize.
“The news is a delivery system for misery of course, especially now, but Facebook brings us news we might otherwise never encounter, supplying in bulk and elevating our relationship to it. The value of this remains dubious (Bellafante, NY Times, 4/15/18).”
A cyberattack on a shared data network forced four of the natural-gas pipeline operators to temporarily shut down computer communications with their customers over the last week. I know this is not a cheery thought to start the weekend but, unfortunately, it is a reality of how vulnerable we have become in our interconnected world.
The motivation for such an effort appeared to be the increase in exports of liquified natural gas from the United States, a challenge to Russian dominance in European markets. The Department of Homeland Security was investigating the attack, and no suspect has been publicly identified . But the attack came shortly after the Department and the F.B.I. issued a report alleging that Russia was taking aim at the U.S. electric grid and other critical infrastructure with cyber probes.
And I thought that Putin and Trump were the best of friends?
The recent rankings of Educational Technology firms’ market performance are surprising and curious to me. I had always assumed that Apple had the lead in America’s classrooms, but not so. Here is the latest as reported in this week’s NY Times. “In a bid to take back some of the education market from Google, Apple on Tuesday plans to introduce new hardware and software for schools and students. But Apple has fallen to third place, behind Google and Microsoft, in the battle to own America’s classroom. So the new items may not move the needle much.”
Speaking of Microsoft, a delegation of Saudi Arabian officials including the country’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, will be meeting with Bill Gates some time this week. I guess they are still looking for that “secret sauce” that will revolutionize Saudi education through a critical combination of hardware and software that will make them the envy of school systems around the world. But I am still wondering what they will do to involve their classroom teachers as part of this revolutionary mission? Maybe I should just stop worrying so much. Trump will obviously do whatever he can do to help them, for whatever reasons?
Educational Technology is certainly changing our world in how we educate our younger generations, but all these new tools are only as effective as the teachers who use them, and have some part in choosing them.
P.S. A short spring time break for me this weekend. Enjoy your holidays. I will return on Monday, April 2.
Sex and Tech. A curious story you might say, but one that has seemed to evolve over the past fifty years when someone decided (researched?) that good programmers were antisocial. Was this because most of the good programmers were men, or was it that men just wanted to keep it that way? Or is it that this is simply self-perpetuating stereotype that no one has challenged over the years?
There is no evidence to suggest that antisocial men are better at computers than women. But the stereotype has been accepted to this day. Emily Chang has recently written a book entitled Brotopia. “It is systemic. Bad behavior has been tolerated and normalized for far too long. And people simply have a narrow idea of who can do these jobs. If you’re a woman in the tech industry, you’re the only woman in the room over and over again . . . These stories a have to be told; otherwise it perpetuates a culture of keeping women down.”
“This is not just tech’ problem. This is society’s problem. And the industry that changed the world can change this.”
(Early edition for Friday, 2/16/18)
Just a very simple post today. I hope you be able to take some to spend with family and friends over the holidays. I will be back next Friday with a final post for 2017.
“May your days be merry and bright,” even though they may not be white. Thank you for following TechtoExpress.
P.S. Please have a look and listen at mypeacecorpsstory.com, podcast #018, where I discuss my “technology-free” Peace Corps years in India, 1966-68.
So it’s just that kind of day.
I’m not sure what more I can say.
FCC puts the Internet up for sale.
Putin and Trump are best friends forever. (“Hacking Democracy,” Washington Post, 12/15)
P.S. For a diversion from the present state of world power politics and Internet control, please have a look and listen at mypeacecorpsstory.com, podcast #018, where I discuss my “technology-free” Peace Corps years in India, 1966-68
Only one day left before the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S. votes on plans to abandon Net Neutrality in favor of lifting restrictions on Internet providers. In other words, allow Internet providers to become more entrepreneurial in offering their services at competitive market rates. I think we all know what this means: consumers will now have to pay more and receive less in terms of services provided.
In terms of trying to better understand the impact of these proposed changes, and as a means registering your opposition (assumed), please visit this site to make your voice heard: https://www.battleforthenet.com/breaktheinternet/
The full power and potential of the Internet should not be left to only those who can afford it!
P.S. Please have a look at mypeacecorpsstory.com, podcast #018, where I discuss my “technology-free” Peace Corps years in India, 1966-68
I guess the title of this blog is not a real “attention-grabber” but it is still very important if we want to better understand how technology is playing an increasingly important part in reading instruction. Here is the link if you would like to read the complete report: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018017.pdf. The report focuses on reading achievement levels across fourth graders in sixteen countries and their proficiency in reading ONLINE.
In terms of the percentage of fourth-grade students who performed at an advanced level, the United States was the fourth highest in reaching this level. Students in Singapore, Ireland, and Norway tested higher on this online measure of informational reading (ePIRLS, National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). “The report has at least one silver-lining: Students in the United States fared far better on an Internet-based version of the assessment that tested their ability to process information online. U.S. students placed fourth out of 16 education systems that participated.”
Unfortunately, for American students who are reading in a more “text-based” manner, the results are not as high when compared to their international peers. They dropped to 13th place. “The decline was especially precipitous for the lowest-performing students, a finding that suggests widening disparities in the U.S. education system (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017).”
P.S. Please have a look at mypeacecorpsstory.com, podcast #018, where I discuss my “technology-free” Peace Corps years in India
I really don’t know anything about this new Apple device, but I do know that I will not be buying one soon, if ever. Please feel free if you happen to have a thousand dollars laying around. Or maybe you can take out a loan?
Nicolas Negroponte (One Laptop Per Child), where are you?
Sorry about the late posting today, but we are in the middle of a residential relocation closer to family and grandchildren. I recommend this type of relocation highly if you are interetested in being closer to wherever those grandchildren may be. But this post is not about the grandkids, but more about how all American citizens, young and old, should be listening to science and less to political biases about what is happening to our environment. Here is one environmental scientist’s opinion.
“It occurs to me that all the bloviating politicians who think that scientists don’t know stuff from shoe polish about climate change or land, air and water pollution should throw out all their radios, TVs, smartphones, cars, GPS or radar-guided yachts, and lifesaving medicines. They can’t work anyway. These gadgets, gizmos and medicines were all conceived of, or designed by and creates by scientists.”
The climate in which we all live is changing. We can not change it, but at least we can try to better understand why it is changing and what we can do to better reduce human misery and nature’s destructive forces.
Let’s all take a break from our political wars and take some time to understand that we must do something to save our planet for those we love. What good is all the technological “wizardry” we have if we can not save the lives and livelihoods of our fellow inhabitants of Mother Earth. We can do something if we opt to save our globe and not stand by sheepishly as the false idols of unchecked profiteering continue to tell us that we “can make America Great again” and simply ignore our responsibility to be faithful stewards of God’s bounty.
We owe it to ourselves and to those who trust us to preserve these gifts for our future generations.
Figuratively speaking that is. But this is all about how technology has expanded as an industry that has a global reach. Not only in terms of the powers of the Internet, but its effect on humanity around the world. Many different races and people from all corners of the globe can now benefit and contribute to its continuing growth and reach. Silicon Valley has brought some of the most talented tech “workers” from around the world into the U.S. We are talking about companies like Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Amazon, Netflix and Microsoft. Trump’s proposed immigration ban could impair the ability of top U.S. companies to recruit and retain such talent in order to better compete globally.
In a company-wide email, Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, stated his opposition very clearly, particularly in terms of its impact on immigration from predominantly Muslim countries. “I’ve heard from many of you who are deeply concerned about the executive order issued yesterday restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. I share your concerns. It is not a policy we support.” In open letters and other public statements during the Presidential campaign, tech executives and workers also objected to Trump’s anti-Muslim statements, and some signed onto a commitment not to help design his proposed Muslim registry.
Well, it’s the start of another work week at the White House. Although it’s only the second one, it already seems like a long time from the inauguration. I’m still waiting for the part where we become “great again!”
P.S. TechtoExpress will be on “vacation” next week. We will return on Monday, July 31.
We once owned a yellow Volvo station wagon, 245 series to be exact. It was a 1977 model and we even personalized the license plate to read “ITZ A 77.” We were very proud of our first automobile purchase as a married couple and it also became the first car our daughter drove when she was in high school. It was a very vintage model by then and barely survived until her graduation in 2000. Let’s just say we like to get our money’s worth and our daughter was just too embarrassed to drive our new 1998 VW Cabrio – too flashy?
But now technology is changing the automotive world. Volvo seems to be taking the lead. They have sounded the death knell of the internal combustion engine, saying that all the models it will introduce starring in 2019 will be either hybrid or powered solely by batteries. The decision is the boldest commitment by any major car company to technologies that represent a small share of the total vehicle market but are increasingly viewed as essential to combating climate change and urban pollution. Unfortunately, U.S. automakers have continued to churn out S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, whose sales have surged because of relatively low fuel prices.
Maybe so-called President Trump can do something about all this? But I forgot: he doesn’t believe that climate change is really happening at all. He is also too busy looking for international enemies wherever they may be?