Best Snow Day Reads: 19 Page-Turners To Enjoy While Snowed In

Snowstorms unquestionably create a massive hassle for many — the entire region grinding to a halt can have real ramifications, especially if your boss won’t let you stay home from work despite the slippery roads. If you’re lucky enough to be snowed in with nowhere urgent to go, however, it can be a pleasant reminder of that most coveted event in a young student’s life: a snow day.

It may be tempting to binge on Netflix during such a couch-bound time, but the impending blizzard threatening the Northeast could be the perfect time to download a couple buzzed-about ebooks, or break into your to-be-read pile from recent library or bookstore trips. Here are 19 books that pair perfectly with thick socks, warm blankets, a steaming mug of cocoa, and the vision of snowflakes drifting down outside the window.

Wall Street's Threat to the American Middle Class

Presidential aspirants in both parties are talking about saving the middle class. But the middle class can’t be saved unless Wall Street is tamed.

The Street’s excesses pose a continuing danger to average Americans. And its ongoing use of confidential corporate information is defrauding millions of middle-class investors.

Yet most presidential aspirants don’t want to talk about taming the Street because Wall Street is one of their largest sources of campaign money.

Do we really need reminding about what happened six years ago? The financial collapse crippled the middle class and poor — consuming the savings of millions of average Americans, and causing 23 million to lose their jobs, 9.3 million to lose their health insurance, and some 1 million to lose their homes.

A repeat performance is not unlikely. Wall Street’s biggest banks are much larger now than they were then. Five of them hold about 45 percent of America’s banking assets. In 2000, they held 25 percent.

And money is cheaper than ever. The Fed continues to hold the prime interest rate near zero.

This has fueled the Street’s eagerness to borrow money at rock-bottom rates and use it to make risky bets that will pay off big if they succeed, but will cause big problems if they go bad.

We learned last week that Goldman Sachs has been on a shopping binge, buying cheap real estate stretching from Utah to Spain, and a variety of companies.

If not technically a violation of the new Dodd-Frank banking law, Goldman’s binge surely violates its spirit.

Meanwhile, the Street’s lobbyists have gotten Congress to repeal a provision of Dodd-Frank curbing excessive speculation by the big banks.

The language was drafted by Citigroup and personally pushed by Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase.

Not incidentally, Dimon recently complained of being “under assault” by bank regulators.

Last year JPMorgan’s board voted to boost Dimon’s pay to $20 million, despite the bank paying out more than $20 billion to settle various legal problems going back to financial crisis.

The American middle class needs stronger bank regulations, not weaker ones.

Last summer, bank regulators told the big banks their plans for orderly bankruptcies were “unrealistic.” In other words, if the banks collapsed, they’d bring the economy down with them.

Dodd-Frank doesn’t even cover bank bets on foreign exchanges. Yet recent turbulence in the foreign exchange market has caused huge losses at hedge funds and brokerages.

This comes on top of revelations of widespread manipulation by the big banks of the foreign-exchange market.

Wall Street is also awash in inside information unavailable to average investors.

Just weeks ago a three- judge panel of the U.S. court of appeals that oversees Wall Street reversed an insider-trading conviction, saying guilt requires proof a trader knows the tip was leaked in exchange for some “personal benefit” that’s “of some consequence.”

Meaning that if a CEO tells his Wall Street golfing buddy about a pending merger, the buddy and his friends can make a bundle — to the detriment of small, typically middle-class, investors.

That three-judge panel was composed entirely of appointees of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

But both parties have been drinking at the Wall Street trough.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, the financial sector ranked fourth among all industry groups giving to then candidate Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee. In fact, Obama reaped far more in contributions from the Street than did his Republican opponent.

Wall Street also supplies both administrations with key economic officials. The treasury secretaries under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson, respectfully, had both chaired Goldman Sachs before coming to Washington.

And before becoming Obama’s treasury secretary, Timothy Geitner had been handpicked by Rubin to become president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (Geitner is now back on the Street as president of the private-equity firm Warburg Pincus.)

It’s nice that presidential aspirants are talking about rebuilding America’s middle class.

But to be credible, he (or she) has to take clear aim at the Street.

That means proposing to limit the size of the biggest Wall Street banks; resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act (which used to separate investment from commercial banking); define insider trading the way most other countries do – using information any reasonable person would know is unavailable to most investors; and close the revolving door between the Street and the U.S. Treasury.

It also means not depending on the Street to finance their campaigns.

Democracy's Colleges: An Emerging Alternative

In the changing landscape of work and higher education there are signs of an emerging alternative to Ivory Tower detachment or scrambles to adapt. It was visible on Jan. 21 at the National Press Club, in an event organized by the Kettering Foundation, the National Issues Forums, and Augsburg College, when leaders from higher education, business, labor, government and other fields gathered to launch a national conversation, “The Changing World of Work — What Should We Ask of Higher Education?”

Jamienne Studley, Deputy Under Secretary of Education, kicked off the meeting, pointing toward the alternative by arguing for a return to John Dewey’s idea of “tending to democracy.”

In contrast, Richard Laine, director of education for the National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices, proposed that the skills needed to be an engineer are the same as those needed to be a politician or a hedge-fund manager. In Laine’s view, the task is to better align college and the emerging demands of the workforce.

Many heard the conversation this way since it fits conventional frameworks. As Casey Fabris put in in her coverage of the meeting in the Chronicle of Higher Education, this conversation focuses “on the question of how colleges should adapt to a working world changed by technology, globalization, and the aftermath of the recession.”

But a composite alternative different than either Ivory Tower disconnection or preparing students to adapt is represented in the issue guide in option two, preparing students to be citizen leaders and change agents, and three, seeing colleges as “anchor institutions” with enormous resources that can be leveraged for community betterment. A strong presence in the day’s discussion, it can be described as the reemergence of the concept of “democracy’s colleges.”

The democracy’s college idea, like the issue guide, addresses troubling questions about work often glossed over in discussions which equate 21st century job skills and citizenship skills. The issue guide quotes David Brooks, who describes a workforce with “millions in part time or low wage jobs…and millions more in dysfunctional or unhealthy workplaces.” It notes that employers “increasingly rely on a revolving cast of freelancers, independent contractors and temporary workers who receive little or nothing in the way of benefits or job security,” a number expected to rise to 40 percent in 2020.

As long time community organizer Gerald Taylor and adjunct faculty with the Service Employees International Union — one of the sponsors of the conversation — observed in the meeting, these changes are sweeping through higher education. More than half of teachers are now adjunct faculty. In many departments they teach 60 or even 70 percent of the students.

Crucially, in the democracy’s college idea schools are not objects of change but makers of change. They take a luminous ideal — that the purpose of American education is about building a democratic society — and put it to work in gritty collaborative public problem solving and publicly engaged teaching and scholarship on the ground.

The Democracy’s College Tradition Then and Now

In historical treatments, the ideal of “democracy’s college” was sometimes presented as devoid of conflict and politics. In his 1942 book, Democracy’s College, the prominent historian Earle Ross argued that land-grant institutions, first launched in 1862 to provide access to men and women of the agricultural and industrial classes, “became the fullest expression of democracy in higher education.”

In fact, as the intellectual historian Scott Peters details in a splendid chapter, “A Democracy’s College Tradition,” in the forthcoming Democracy’s Education collection, land-grants even at their most democratic were full of rough and tumble politics, complexity, parochialism, and contradictions. But they also generated multiple examples of collective public work on pressing issues like rural health, schools, soil erosion, and economic development which brought together faculty and students with community members on an equal footing.

Overall the democracy college concept was animated by a vision of empowering education based on respect for the talents and intelligence of everyday citizens. Thus, Liberty Hyde Bailey, founding dean of agriculture at Cornell and a chief architect of the democracy’s college tradition, argued that “Every democracy must reach far beyond what is commonly known as economic efficiency.” Economic efficiency “could be accomplished by despotism and result in no self-action on the part of the people.” Rather higher education should do “everything it can to enable those in the backgrounds to maintain their standing and their pride and to partake in the making of political affairs.”

Such ideas were powerfully expressed on January 21st, with a live stream archive accessible here. Nancy Cantor, Chancellor of Rutgers University-Newark where most students, of diverse backgrounds, are the first in their families to go to college, proposed that the key to student success involves much more than service. “It’s collaborating on projects and genuinely creating connections as well as problem solving that allow them to have a joint experience in building democracy.” She described Rutgers as part of a network of “anchoring institutions creating democracy on the ground.”

Byron White, Vice President of University Engagement at Cleveland State University, called for a shift from the question, “Are students college-ready?” to “Are colleges students ready?” Students need systems and relationships which meet them where they are and help them to navigate their education. “Then suddenly they are successful.”

Both Cantor and White called for rethinking the role of adjunct faculty. “We have to reorganize to reward and give stability and reasonable life paths to people who are doing very hard on-the-ground collaborative anchor institution work,” said Canter. White pointed to a coming revolution in teaching. “I ask faculty, do you really believe that people are going to pay tens of thousands of dollars to sit in a room for you to share something 90 percent of which they can get on their cell phone?” In his view educators of the future will be more facilitators of learning than transmitters of knowledge. Many adjuncts have just these skills.

Finally Andrew Seligsohn, new president of the 1100 member Campus Compact, a higher education association dedicated to higher education as a public good, argued the importance of the conversation as a way to prepare students to be civic leaders (many can be trained as moderators, for instance).

The next day Seligsohn, perhaps energized by the challenges to rankings through the day, took up the topic on his blog. “Rankings, however absurd, matter because they drive behavior. Right now, they drive behavior that undermines rather than serves public ends…institutions do well if they turn away most students and accumulate vast wealth.” He called for “a broad coalition to take on the rankings.”

Making change — not simply reacting to change — was definitely on the agenda.

What Tom Stoppard Says About Consciousness in His New Play

This interview with Tom Stoppard took place in the coffee lounge of the National Theatre London in a break in rehearsal of his new play “The Hard Problem.”

Your new play “The Hard Problem” opens at the National Theatre on Jan. 31, 2015. The director is Nicholas Hytner, and this is your first play since “Rock ‘N’ Roll” in 2006. Why is “The Hard Problem” your first play for the National Theatre since “The Coast of Utopia” in 2002?

I am surprised that it’s that long, it doesn’t feel like so many years to me. When I wrote “Rock ‘N’ Roll” I said to Nick Hytner that I would send “Rock ‘N’ Roll” to the Royal Court Theatre because I have never been performed at the Royal Court Theatre, and I really wanted to be there with something before I am dead. I said I will come back to the National Theatre with the next play, but I didn’t think it would take so long.

How do you feel?

I love being in rehearsal, and I like being in rehearsal with a new play, so generally speaking I feel very good. I feel this is the main part of my writing life and other things are interruptions. Being in rehearsal with a new play at the National Theatre is where I touch base with my life as a writer.

Are you worried about it?

No, I am too old to worry about these things. The play will be OK or it won’t be entirely OK, until there’s an audience you don’t really know what you’ve got. It doesn’t keep me awake. I hope the play works pretty well, but we’ll just have to see. I don’t worry nowadays; I used to worry when I was younger.

What is the subject matter of “The Hard Problem”?

The “hard problem” as you probably know is actually a phrase referring to the problem of accounting for consciousness. Most things are not conscious. This table we are sitting at isn’t conscious. Vegetables aren’t conscious. We are conscious, and nobody understands how we do that; physically, scientifically or metaphysically. Nobody really knows; and that’s the “hard problem.”

Where is the play set?

Much of the play takes place in a science institute which is investigating the brain. There are thousands of laboratories in the world which are investigating the brain, and I have invented another one with fictitious characters.

Who are the main characters?

My main character is a young woman psychologist, but most of what goes on at the institute is not psychology, it’s neuroscience, which involves for example investigating the physical brain in monkeys. That’s what mostly happens at this place, but the characters I am dealing with are in the psychology department. However, the play is also concerned with the fact that for many scientists the brain works computationally, like a form of very complex, very complicated computer. One or two of the people in the play actually work in finance, not in biology, and that aspect of the play is to do with the possibility that there’s a formal relationship between the human brain and the computer.

I personally don’t think there is, but there are many people who do. Many people think that the brain works the way computers work. I have no scientific training, but I just instinctively don’t feel that consciousness is the product of a biological computer.

How long does it take you to write a play?

Normally I can write a first draft in three or four months, but that’s rather misleading because it can take a long, long time to get to the top of the first page. “The Coast of Utopia” is a trilogy, and I think I probably wrote the whole thing well inside 12 months, but that was after three or four years of reading and preparing to write it. Of course, it depends if you are writing about historical people and whether your subject matter requires you to research. For a play like “The Real Thing,” which is entirely invented, you don’t have to spend all this research time — you just write it.

And with “The Invention of Love?”

That was about a real person, a Latin scholar and a poet, so I was reading up on his Latin scholarship and his life in general for certainly two or three years before I began writing the play.

How do you write?

With a fountain pen on A4 white sheets. I have several, but there’s usually one which has the nicest nib. Different pens over the years, but I usually have a favorite pen. I fax the paper to my secretary and she types out what I am writing, and after that I correct on printout.

brain scan

Were you never afraid of losing talent and inspiration?

Not really. I mean, I never thought about it. I enjoy writing. I feel I am very lucky to be able to live as a writer. Writers in our society are perhaps overvalued, which is lucky for us, and I just assume there will always be something next that I want to write. But I don’t always have an idea for a play waiting for me and so, in between “Rock ‘N’ Roll” and this play, naturally I wrote other things. For example, I adapted a very big novel for five hours of television on the BBC, called “Parade’s End” by Ford Madox Ford. I also wrote a movie from “Anna Karenina.”

You won an Oscar for the screenplay of “Shakespeare in Love” and you worked on other films like “Brazil” and “Empire of the Sun,” and recently “Anna Karenina.” Is film work part of your metier?

It’s not the same, because it is not my original work. I didn’t write Anna Karenina. I am only adapting it for a screenplay, so it doesn’t mean as much to me as my original work, naturally.

But do you do enjoy it or just do it for money?

I enjoy it, not particularly for money, although of course it is nice to get paid. It’s a very nice change to adapt something, as somebody else before you has already done the hard part; they’ve invented the story and the characters.

So adapting Chekhov, for example, is very different from doing your own work?

Yes, I don’t read Russian, which is of course the tradition here for Chekhov translators, they rarely read Russian. Mostly the many English versions of Chekhov rely on other translators and on the word-for-word translation specially prepared for the translator. It’s a very challenging, stimulating kind of work, to turn a play from German or Russian or French into English, but it’s not the same kind of work as being your own master.

Why were you so attracted by Ernest Hemingway, ever since you were young, so much so that you have even bought first editions of his work?

Yes, it’s true, I did buy first editions of his, but I also bought first editions of other writers like Evelyn Waugh; and Charles Dickens, which in those days were not expensive. But you are right, I really fell in love with Ernest Hemingway when I was a young man.

Why?

I don’t examine myself very much, but I think it was because of his writing. Thousands and thousands of young writers were fascinated by him. They were enthralled by him, bowled over by Hemingway’s writing when it was new. The writing is stripped away and simplified. Hemingway had a pretty small vocabulary in his work compared to more prolix, florid writers. Also, probably Hemingway’s personality and publicity had some bearing on one’s interest in him, naturally.

I always had a feeling for Hemingway which exceeded the feeling I had for Scott Fitzgerald, but when I was older I think I began to like Fitzgerald more. I liked American writers of the period, when I was young I was reading Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Nathaniel West. I was always a Hemingway man more than a Fitzgerald man when I was in my twenties. In my seventies I am not so sure.

You liked American literature because as a child when you lived in India you went to an American school?

No, that wasn’t the reason I don’t think, although I did go to an American school. I left India when I was 8 years old, so not really no. No, I didn’t read Hemingway until I was probably 18 or 19.

But he had influence on you, on your work and writing?

I am sure he had a bad influence on me at the beginning. He had a bad influence on pretty much everybody! If you try to start writing like Hemingway, if you succeed you’re writing like someone else, and if you don’t succeed you don’t succeed. He didn’t influence my play writing, not consciously.

Who did influence you?

I think it’s very difficult. Liking things is one thing, the influence isn’t direct of course, it’s probably subconscious. Nobody influenced me in the sense of my saying I want to write like this person or that person. One’s own nature leads one to certain kinds of enthusiasms, and those enthusiasms feed back into your own work. I don’t think of that as being conscious influence, but I am sure I have cause to be grateful for it, whether it is conscious or subconscious.

What about you being a Sir, an Englishman, your Jewish Czech origin, being born as Tomáš Straussler in 1937 and then in 1946 becoming Tom Stoppard?

What about it? It’s just personal history. I don’t know what the question is. These things happened to me, yes. I don’t ask myself psychological or analytical questions, I react quite simply. I accept what happens and try to make the best of it. I think I have been very fortunate to have ended up in England, learning and using the English language. I would rather that than ending up in communist Czechoslovakia when I was 10 years old.

They say that after your mother died your brother and you went back to your hometown of Zlin to find your roots and your relatives. Do you feel Jewish?

Yes. When my mother was alive I didn’t press her about the past, but of course after the fall of communism our family history became clearer, because we met one or two relatives who were Czech and then we found out things that our mother had not ever told us about. Like, for example, the fact that her sisters and parents died in the concentration camps at Terezin and Auschwitz. We only knew about one sister who went to South America before the war, and that’s the only sister that my brother and I were aware of.

But you knew you were Jewish?

We knew that we had Jewish in us because otherwise we would have had no need to leave Czechoslovakia when the Germans were approaching, to escape Hitler as it were, but it wasn’t until many years later that we understood. My mother would say in those days that if you had one Jewish grandparent you were in danger, but in fact she was not really telling us what she knew. My mother was grateful to find herself safe in England after the war, and she wanted us to be bought up as little English boys, so she never went back into her own past.

You are not a political writer, but somehow your writing has to do with politics, espionage, emigration, identity. What do you feel about the murder of the Charlie Hebdo journalists in Paris?

Same as you I expect! It’s not just Charlie Hebdo, one is appalled, absolutely horrified by the world at the moment. Look at what happened in Nigeria in the same week. 2,000 killed, murdered. I don’t know what to say about it.

You had to leave Czechoslovakia because of Hitler. Hitler has changed the destiny of your life. Now in France and Holland there is public anti-Semitism. Is that worrying you? What do you feel about the violence of the jihadists?

It’s worrying, but I am beyond offering a solution. I do not know how one solves irrationalism. These acts of murder are impelled… they are propelled, by a murderous irrational… psychology, I suppose you’d have to call it. I am very wary of writers pontificating as moral experts because they have written a book or two or a play or two, or posing as moral guides.

Do you consider yourself an English writer, or are you a Middle-European who writes in English like your predecessors Conrad and Nabokov?

I consider myself an English writer. I am not even that familiar with Eastern European literature. Obviously one knows the big names. I don’t read any other languages except French, badly. I am very much somebody who is aware of the traditions of English literature.

The Real Problems with Bobby Jindal and his Prayer Rally

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal skipped an Iowa stage crowded with Republican presidential wannabes on Saturday so he could host a prayer rally on the campus of Louisiana State University. Jindal and others have mischaracterized objections to the rally, suggesting that its critics were somehow out to silence people of faith. So let’s be clear about the real issue: Bobby Jindal used the power and prestige of his office to promote an event backed by some of the nation’s most religiously divisive and stridently anti-gay activists. And in a bid to boost his own political future, he sent a clear message of support for the Christian-nation views of the event’s extremist organizers.

Christians Only, Please

Let’s start with the invitation, sent on Jindal’s official state letterhead. “We are in need of spiritual and transforming revival,” he wrote, “if we are to recapture the vision of our early leaders who signed on the Mayflower, ‘In the name of God and for the advancement of the Christian faith.'” Leadership to solve the country’s problems “will not come from a politician or a movement for social change,” he wrote in this time civil rights movement anniversaries. So how will we solve our problems? “Jesus Christ, Son of God and the Lord of Life, is America’s only hope.” In a separate letter he wrote to the other 49 governors inviting them to his rally to pray for “spiritual revival” and “heaven’s intervention” over the country. “There will only be one name lifted up that day – Jesus!”

What does all this suggest to non-Christian Americans (including non-Christian governors) about how Jindal views their contributions? Jindal’s letters reflect the attitudes of rally organizer David Lane, a political strategist who believes America was founded by and for Christians. The event was paid for by the American Family Association, whose chief spokesman, radio host Bryan Fischer, believes the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections apply only to Christians.

The rally was also a showcase for the dominionist views of self-proclaimed “apostles” who promoted and spearheaded the event. One of those “apostles” was the event’s emcee. Doug Stringer has called the 9/11 attacks “a wake-up call” that happened because God was not around to defend America due to abortion, homosexuality, and kicking God out of public schools. While introducing Jindal, Stringer made a brief mention to “Seven Mountains” theology, which states that all the “mountains” in society – arenas like business, entertainment, and government – must be led by the right kind of Christian. A later speaker, Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum, spent more time on the “Seven Mountains.” Mills said these spheres of influence belong to God, but are currently occupied by the “enemy.” They therefore need to be evangelized and “occupied by the body of Christ.”

Not Political? Not Credible

Jindal and organizer David Lane declared, unbelievably, that the rally was not political. Lane is a self-described political strategist who works to turn conservative evangelical churches into voter turnout machines for right-wing candidates and causes. Lane is trying to get 1,000 conservative evangelical pastors to run for public office, and he held a recruiting session the day before the prayer rally. Jindal and Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma were among the speakers. Another example of the disconnect between rhetoric and reality: Stringer made the claim that the rally was not meant to lift up any politicians while he was standing in front of a huge screen featuring a quote from Bobby Jindal.

The “not political” claim was hard to take seriously given the amount of time devoted to making abortion illegal and declarations that what will tip the scales will be the “the voice of the church in the voting booth.” Jim Garlow, who led church organizing for California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, and who believes the marriage equality movement is demonic, dropped all “nonpolitical” pretense, railing against marriage equality and IRS regulations that restrict the involvement of churches in electoral politics.

Opponents = Enemies

One of the biggest problems with treating politics as spiritual warfare is that you turn your political opponents into spiritual enemies. People who disagree with you on public policy issues are not just wrong, but evil, or even satanic. That makes it pretty hard to work together or find compromise.

In daily prayer calls leading up to the rally, organizers prayed for God to forgive students who were organizing protests, as if disagreeing with Bobby Jindal were a sin – or a form of anti-Christian persecution. “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do,” prayed call leaders, comparing their pleas to Jesus asking God to forgive those who crucified him, and Saint Stephen asking for mercy for those who were stoning him to death. On one call, a prayer leader decreed a “no-go zone for demons” over the sports arena where the event was to be held. At the rally, one speaker talked of storming the gates of Hell. Bishop Harry Jackson finished his remarks by leading the crowd in a chant he has used at anti-gay rallies: “Let God arise and his enemies be scattered!”

Jindal Unplugged, Unhinged, and Unapologetic

Jindal seems to have decided that his best chance in a crowded Republican field is to plant himself at the far right of an already far-right group. In the days leading up to the rally, he drew criticism for comments denigrating Muslims and for repeating bogus charges about Muslim “no-go zones” that Fox News had already apologized for spreading. During a radio interview a few days before the rally, Jindal said liberals pretend that jihadist terrorism isn’t happening and pretend “it’s a good thing to kill journalists, to kill teenagers for watching soccer, to kill over 150 schoolchildren, to treat women as second-class citizens…” He decried political incorrectness and multiculturalism and said of immigrants who do not embrace American exceptionalism, “that’s not immigration, that’s invasion.”

On “This Week” on Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos noted that Jindal had declared at his prayer rally that “on the last page, our God wins,” and asked him if that was appropriate in a religiously diverse country. Jindal praised religious liberty but ducked the question.

On the same show, Jindal said he would back a push for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to allow states to discriminate against same-sex couples, all while saying “I am not for discrimination against anybody.” (Jindal describes himself as an “evangelical Catholic,” and his contradictory rhetoric parallels the language of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which says it opposes “unjust discrimination” against gay people, but defines the term “unjust discrimination” in a way that applies only to those people with “same-sex attraction” who remain celibate.)

Jindal has also promoted far-right policies as governor. As Brian Tashman at Right Wing Watch has noted:

Jindal has reached out to the party’s increasingly extreme base by undermining the teaching of evolution in public schools; promoting wild conspiracy theories about Common Core, an effort to adjust school standards that he supported before it became the target of the Tea Party’s fury; and hyping the purported persecution of Christians in America, specifically citing the plight of Christians with reality television shows.

Whose Agenda?

Jindal’s rally was not an original idea. In fact Jindal’s “Response” recycled materials and themes from a similar event that Texas Gov. Rick Perry held in 2011 to launch his presidential bid. Here’s what I wrote about Perry’s event, which applies equally well to Jindal’s – not surprising since both were organized by the same groups of extremists:

Organizers argued (unconvincingly) that “The Response” was about prayer, not politics. But groups like the American Family Association (AFA), which paid for the rally and its webcast…are not designed to win souls but to change American law and culture through grassroots organizing and political power-building. They have a corrosive effect on our political culture by promoting religious bigotry and anti-gay extremism, by claiming that the United States was meant to be a Christian nation, and by fostering resentment among conservative evangelicals with repeated false assertions that liberal elites are out to destroy religious liberty and silence conservative religious voices.

Jindal, of course, has the right to talk about his faith. But it is wrong for him to use his public office to proselytize and denigrate the faith of others. Teaming up with anti-gay extremists and Christian-nation advocates gives them credibility they do not deserve. His actions speak volumes about his judgment, values, and commitment to religious pluralism and equality under the law.

Winter Is Coming For Wearables

wintertundra Remember wearables? Those wristbands and glasses that were going to take over our lives? This time last year, many of us had high hopes that 2014 was (finally) going to be the year of the wearable.
Whoops. The wearables revolution didn’t come to pass in 2014, and it’s not going to happen in 2015, either. Why? Read More

Surface And Lumia Clock Record Numbers For Microsoft During Holiday Season

msft-sun1 In its most recent quarter, Microsoft sold 10.5 million Lumia handsets, and the Surface line generated $1.1 billion in revenue. Both figures are all-time highs.
Microsoft did break out total phone revenue — $2.3 billion, down from $2.6 billion in the sequentially preceding quarter — but that figure includes the sale of tens of millions of dumbphones, so it’s slightly… Read More

Dr. Oz Is Still Full of Shit

Dr. Oz Is Still Full of Shit

Time and again, we’ve seen that Dr. Oz peddles garbage cures . So it’s no surprise that the government has gone after the company that makes one of his favorite supplements. Today the FTC announced that the people who promoted green coffee extract on his show are being fined $9 million.

Read more…



A 3D Model of Microsoft's HoloLens Is the Closest You Can Get For Now

A 3D Model of Microsoft's HoloLens Is the Closest You Can Get For Now

As we all stop caring about 3D TVs, smartwatches, and other recent tech fads, the attention now turns to head-worn interactive displays. And if you think Microsoft’s new HoloLens has what it takes to challenge the Oculus Rift, here’s your chance to look over the hardware—at least a 3D interactive model of it—courtesy of the folks at Sketchfab.

Read more…



Police think Waze's traffic app puts officers in danger

You may use Google’s Waze app primarily to avoid traffic jams and watch out for speed cameras, but some American police see it as threat — and they want Google to do something about it. Officers speaking to the Associated Press believe that Waze’s p…