Tech | Career | Musings
A bunch of my non-US friends – and for that matter, some of my US friends – have asked me about my thoughts on the current Presidential impeachment investigation, and in doing so they’ve revealed some misunderstandings about the process that I wanted to try and clear up.
Read MoreSo, I’ve been reading up on this AB5 in California (which today passed their legislature, and the Governor has indicated he’ll sign it).
I’ve questions.
Earlier this week, the US President said that, should upcoming talks with the Chinese President not go well, additional tariffs could be applied (subscription required; here’s an alternate article)- including Chinese-made products like iPhones and laptops.
What’s a tariff?
Ifiok writes:
Don, I have read your comments on some political issues and I would say I understood a lot after reading your posts.
My question is on one of the most sensitive issues in US – the appointment of supreme court judges. I have always believed that these judges are expected to be neutral in all cases and should base their decisions only on the law and its technicalities.
How come we hear the parties scrambling to get a judge that’s on their side – I hear things like “a judge with conservative views …”. Why does it matter if a judge believes in a particular parties ideologies and not the other?
This certainly speaks to me of a very partial supreme court system whose decisions are extremely political. In that case where lies the checks and balances the judiciary (and other arms of government) were supposed to uphold.
I hope this is not too long
Thanks for what you do the PowerShell community and your general followers.
I hope you’ll ask a question, too! Visit here for info. And here’s the list of everything asked so far.
In the wake of multiple gun-related atrocities in the past few months – Orlando, Las Vegas, and Parkland most recently – I wanted to try and offer a less-biased approach to the background of the “gun issue” in the United States.
This past week’s headline was the US administration’s decisions to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but once again our news media has not done a terribly good job of covering what the heck the program is. While this is a topic that is understandably and justifiably under a great deal of debate and attention, I thought an unbiased look at what’s happening might be useful.
With one of our current national debates being healthcare, let’s take a moment to examine some of the “spin” and put to rest some of the more egregious myths.
Much news was made recently with the current President banned several news outlets from a variety of press conferences. Indeed, the current President’s relationship with traditional media has been uneasy and tense. Many, upon hearing of the ban, proclaimed the beginning of the end of democracy as we know it. Truthfully, there’s a bit more to it, and perhaps less reason to panic.
The news is presently filled with POTUS’ Executive Stuff – and news outlets are using important terms incorrectly and interchangeably. Here’s the correct breakdown.
Friday, POTUS announced that he’d be ordering the rollback of Dodd-Frank and other regulatory laws. Congress should be deeply pissed, and more than a little scared.