Transparency in Congress

Jim Cramer is the host of the hot (what to do with your money) show called "Mad Money" on CNBC. He has taken interest in the ever popular Sirius/XM merger that has been held up in Congress for over a year now. He is baffled at the attention this merger is getting. So baffled, he started to do his own investigating as to why this merger is being shot down in Congress. Click here for the article. Congress claims that the merger would violate anti-trust issues and would create a monopoly. How can satellite radio be a monopoly, when the competition (terrestrial radio) is free? This doesn't even take into account the other competitors... Ipods and CD's. I pay $12.95 a month for a subscription to SSR, but still listen to terrestrial radio.

Jim Cramer does not own stock in either of these companies. In fact, he doesn't own any stock... for obvious reasons. He sees what is going on in Congress and is name dropping. Cramer is a true financial hero. He mentions many Congressmen that have their pockets filled with terrestrial radios money. He then reveals how the average person can find this information out for themselves. Using sights like opensecrets.org and opencongress.org , one can find out all contributors to Congress, bills being introduced and who voted for what.

The transparency of our government is shining through. Cramer suggests that the only person being hurt by the merger of Sirius and XM Radio is Terrestrial Radio. But, how much will this actually hurt them? TR is free! Congress states that the merger will eventually lead to the rise of prices for the service. But, SR has to keep their prices down because the competitor is free. So this is a non-issue.

If Congress is so worried about rising prices, why did they let the two most profitable oil companies merge in the late 90's?... Exxon/Mobile ... If Congress cares so much about the consumer, why did they let the two most profitable Washer and Dryer Companies merge in 2006?... Maytag/Whirlpool. Does congress think that these mergers are creating monopolies?

Cramer claims that this attention being focused on Sirius and XM is deliberate and is for the sole reason to bleed these companies dry. The ultimate goal is to have these two companies fight the issue until one folds. Congress can no longer hide in these situations. There will always be situations like this in the future. 20 years ago, this would go unnoticed to the public. Not today. Our world is increasingly getting more and more transparent. I love it. Until next blog...

Validity of Study...

It has been a hot topic in the blogosphere over the last couple of days. The National School Boards Association has released a study (pdf) funded by Microsoft and Verizon, that states...

"The internet isn't as dangerous as people think, and teachers should let students use social networks at school"

You can read more about this study by clicking on the above link. Many bloggers feel as I feel. Is this study valid? Microsoft and Verizon funded the study. I know that it is a start in the right direction, but I want to play devils advocate at the moment. What do you think the other side will say?

It sounds a little like this...
Having Exxon fund a study on oil refinement benefits or...
Halliburton getting all the major reconstruction bids in a war torn Iraq...


Microsoft and Verizon stand to gain billions of dollars from school systems embracing social networking.
I tend to play my games fair, I don't enjoy having a debt with anyone, and I sure would love to see a valid study that shows the benefits of web 2.0 practices in our school systems. I know that there are many benefits... I see it first hand in my classroom. It's not people like us that need convincing. Maybe we should start inviting our congressmen into our classrooms. Maybe a study funded by a third party that doesn't have their hands tied down by one of these billion dollar corporations is what we need. I don't know what the answer is.

The fact of the matter is this...
You can read the study up and down, agree with every small fact that is put on the table, get excited about the changes that might happen, and even blog about the benefits of the study. All the study's credentials were snuffed out the window when I saw the names of the funding companies at the bottom of the page. An exchange of money was involved somewhere.

New York Cities Answer: Bribery?

This is sad. Are we giving up on our students? An article in the New York times today discusses the use of money for good test scores. Does anyone else see something wrong with this scenario?

"Should cash be used to spur children to do better on reading and math tests? Suzanne Windland, a homeowner raising three children in a placid enclave of eastern Queens, doesn’t think so. Her seventh grader, Alexandra, she said, had perfect scores last year. But she doesn’t want New York City’s Department of Education to hand her $500 in spending cash for that achievement. That’s what Alexandra would earn if her school was part of a pilot program that will reward fourth and seventh graders with $100 to $500, depending on how well they perform on 10 tests in the next year"

This teaches our students a lesson. They will associate learning and achievement with money. The chancellor of New York City Schools, Joel I. Klein, states "no one has figured out how to get more poorer children engaged in learning."

I say, let's start with asking the students what we could do to engage them. I think that you would be surprised with the responses.

Responding with extrinsic rewards is a bandaid. Will this work?