Disagree.
You can improve the tax structure (change revenue) regardless of how you spend it. And since there are no spending-side suggestions in this list, I take that to mean that there are no spending-side suggestions that 5 prominent economist can agree on. These points can "make sense" without any spending changes.
"Progressive enough" is debatable.
It's a great help to the very poor (more progressive!), but lowers rates for the very rich (less progressive!) and the middle class picks up the difference.
Where is congress using 500 employees as the definition of small company?
The devil (angel?) is in the details. They'd cut corporate taxes, sure, but you'd also eliminate the special handling of capital gains, which exist now because people say corporate income shouldn't be taxed twice; once as corporate income and once as personal.
And you don't _just_ eliminate income taxes; you replace them with consumption taxes; in effect, that means all current tax deductions get replaced with a single deduction for the money you save (because income - consumption = savings.) And you do it at a very progressive rate; it's possible, depending on those devilish details, that your example-CEO ends up paying a lot more in taxes than under the existing setup.
Combine this with photosynth and recreate the concert experience in 3d.
Everyone claiming that "Olympia, Washington is next" hasn't read the law; it has exceptions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220506
"(d) Pre-Existing and Geographic Reference Rights.?
(1) A person who actually used the emblem described in subsection (a)(3) of this section, or the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.
(2) A person who actually used, or whose assignor actually used, the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, or a trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia described in subsection (c)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.
(3) Use of the word ?Olympic? to identify a business or goods or services is permitted by this section where?
(A) such use is not combined with any of the intellectual properties referenced in subsection (a) or (c) of this section;
(B) it is evident from the circumstances that such use of the word ?Olympic? refers to the naturally occurring mountains or geographical region of the same name that were named prior to February 6, 1998, and not to the corporation or any Olympic activity; and
(C) such business, goods, or services are operated, sold, and marketed in the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountain range and operations, sales, and marketing outside of this area are not substantial."
If the restaurant were in western Washington, or if it had been founded in or before 1950, they'd be fine.
This law is dumb, but it not so dumb as to miss the obviously super-dumb possibilities.
...and I just stumbled on a second piece, published just a few hours ago:
One Molecule for Love, Morality, and Prosperity? Why the hype about oxytocin is dumb and dangerous.
It also explicitly attacks the Guardian piece referred to by Techdirt.
To answer the question in the post title:
No.
"The Guardian has run a woeful ad interview about oxytocin, featuring Paul Zak who has a book to sell about the topic. This follows on from their woeful ad interview about oxytocin last August, featuring Paul Zak who has a book to sell about the topic."
What's stopping them from putting ads in the RSS?
I follow plenty of comics that pull the full comic AND ads in the RSS feed, and I've never understood what it is that stops the others from doing it.
It actually is quite difficult. Variations in population density are your first hurdle. Then there are guidelines about majority-minority districts (which actually require some degree of gerrymandering) and then concerns about keeping communities together, which immediately leads to the question "how do you define community?" When drawing lines, is the road more important than the river or the ridge? If we go with roads, then will politicians start building roads to manipulate the district borders? Can't we all just get along? (Politicians answer: NO!)
The best (human) results I'm aware of are from Canada, where committees made up of judges and appointed (by a non-partisan officer) community members draw the lines. They don't really have a problem with gerrymandering. But Texas judges are elected, and tend to be partisans themselves, so good luck with that there.
You could try an algorithmic method.
Shortest splitline: http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html
Shortest distance-to-center: http://bdistricting.org/2010/
There are others. But they have detractors too (mostly because they still occasionally come up with horrendously inelegant districts; look at the splitline for Colorado, or the distance-to-center for Virginia (particularly the end of the DelMarVa peninsula.)
Or you can throw the whole idea out and use proportional representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation But changing the electoral system is a whole other kettle of fish (and currently against Federal law for US House seats.)
To recap: No, there isn't an easy answer.
How can there be trademark infringement, it _IS_ a Wiely & Sons product, no one ever claimed anything to the contrary. If he wrote his OWN book and claimed it was a W&S, or "For Dummies", product, then it could be trademark infringement, but then, it couldn't possibly be copyright infringement.
Absolutely ridiculous. (Of course, default judgments usually are: Go to court, kids; it's good for you!)
Technically a true statement, and yet completely oblivious of all context and blind to all meaning.
Next you'll tell me there are no true Scotsmen.
You're confusing "over regulation" for "incumbent actors engaging in regulatory capture." (In order to limit competition from new competitors.)
But parent is confusing "under regulation" for "incumbent actors engaging in regulatory capture." (In order to limit roadblocks between themselves and unrestrained profits.)
Heads they win, tails you lose.
Confuse a Libertarian! Pirate Ron Paul's books!
Gee, I don't know, maybe because he calls HIMSELF one?
(Have I been trolled? I can't even tell anymore when it comes to libertarians...)
When asked about his political stances by CNN in the lead up to his Senate seat win, he said "Libertarian would be a good description."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/im-very-serious-about-running-ron-pauls-son-says/
"There won't ever be a mass-market record industry again, and that's fine with me because that industry didn't operate for the benefit of the musicians or the audience, the only classes of people I care about."
Forget the articles, just put up this one sentence 4 times a day until people get it through their heads. It's all you need to know, and everything else posted to Techdirt is just trying to get you to understand what it implies.
Mike, you seem surprised that they got so many seats with just 8% of the vote. Well, of course they got that many seats; 20 is 8% of the legislature, and Germany uses proportional representation. Every party that gets at least 5%, gets a proportional percentage of the seats. And that's the #1 reason that the Pirate Party has been able to have these successes.
If only, like Germany, we used proportional representation, then minor parties would be represented in government in proportion to their support.
"We shouldn't even have to fight" (NA NA)
"for our right" (NA-NA-NA)
TO SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMPLE!
...
Clearing all these songs is such an aggravation
(na na na, na na-na na)
Their lawyer through away our request application
(na na na, na na-na na)
Re: You gotta slay that sacred cow.
"They don't even want to be seen allowing a tax break to expire."
They don't seem too worried about the coming payroll tax holiday expiration.
Oh wait, that tax falls primarily on the poor, so I guess it's okay.