California’s High Speed Rail Authority releases business plan, cost estimates shoot up to $100 billion. Paid to Facebook? More like paid to surf porn. Could Americans Elect create a third-party wild card? Life with Hitler: the truth about history’s most notorious mistress.
California’s High Speed Rail Authority releases business plan, cost estimates shoot up to nearly $100 billion
To all those Californians waiting to jump on board the proposed San Francisco-to-Anaheim bullet train: get ready to wait even longer. The California High-Speed Rail Authority revealed in its most recent business plan that construction for the project will cost approximately $98.5 billion, more than double the last estimate, which was $43 billion. The timeline of the project has been expanded as well, and the original goal of 2020 is now being replaced with that of 2033.
The main reason for these drastic jumps in price and time is that the authority is attempting to factor in for the cost of inflation. This variable was not taken into account for the last two released plans, which were attacked by opponents and supporters alike for offering unrealistic expectations.
The authority hopes to break ground next year. It is looking for approval from the state government for funds that could go toward construction, as well as different pricing models and alternate routes to lower costs.
WEIGH IN:
In a time when federal funding is completely out of the picture, how will a project of this magnitude gain support? Is it economically feasible? If this bullet train existed, would Californians use it in substantial numbers anyway? Are you waiting for the train to leave the station, or do you think it should be canceled all together?
Guests:
Adrian Moore, vice president of policy at Reason Foundation and Reason.org; co-author of a 2008 Reason Foundation study that predicted this massive increase in the price of high-speed rail; 2008 and 2009 served on Congress' National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission; co-author of the book “Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive 21st Century”
Daniel Krause, executive director, Californians For High Speed Rail, a grassroots, statewide coalition of high speed rail supporters advocating for the high speed rail project approved by California voters in November 2008
Paid to Facebook? More like paid to surf porn
How savvy the workplace that blocks Facebook access for its worker bees. They must know the out-of-sight stats that show 800 billion minutes are spent on Facebook every month – a chunk of which is done at work. But a more surprising stat from the “Biz 3.0” blog focuses on porn use at work. Its "Wasted Time in the Workplace" infographic says 70% of all Internet porn traffic happens during the nine-to-five work day.
One Michigan worker seems to have done a lot of the heavy lifting for that statistic. Evidence from his former employer showed that in an eight-hour day, Ronald Berglund spent 3.5 to 4 hours visiting pornographic sites. Miraculously, a court decision about Berglund's termination said there was no evidence that accessing such sites negatively affected his work performance.
It's not just the rank and file looking for thrills in their cubicles. Earlier this year, the CEO of Houston's public transit authority was suspended for a week without pay for time spent on sexually explicit websites. Did that punishment fit the NSFW transgression? Business ethicist Chris MacDonald of the University of Toronto thinks employers aren’t prepared for this type of behavior and tend to overreact for no particularly good reason. MacDonald writes: “It seems to me that the point here should not be about porn; the point should be whether personal web-surfing at the office is allowed at all. There’s all kinds of deviant, transgressive, and socially controversial stuff on the web. Porn, per se, is far from the worst. So surfing the web for non-business purposes should either be allowed, or not.”
WEIGH IN:
Really? Is using your work computer to watch a spectacular music video the same as stealing peeks of triple-X webcams? What kind of web surfing do you sneak in at work? Does your company have a policy governing your tech activity? Does watching porn at work create a “hostile work environment” if no one knows about it?
Guest:
Chris MacDonald, Professor of Philosophy, Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
Could Americans Elect create a third-party wild card?
While Barack Obama still doesn’t know who he’ll be squaring off against from the GOP, he might need to consider the possibility of campaigning against a viable third-party candidate as well. At least, that’s what the organization Americans Elect would like to see come 2012.
Americans Elect is comprised of Democrats, Republicans and independents who are trying to move beyond the hyper-partisan state of politics in the country. They are well-funded, and their primary goal is to get a centrist candidate for the presidency on the ballots of all 50 states.
The plan is to hold an Internet primary, in which anyone can participate. Candidates can nominate themselves or be drafted by committees of voters. Names can be removed from the ballot, but only by the nominee’s request after multiple rounds of voting. We’ve all seen the palpable electoral effect of third-party candidates, such as H. Ross Perot on George H.W. Bush in 1992 or Ralph Nader on Al Gore in 2000.
Could Americans Elect have the same influence on the upcoming race? None of the viable presidential candidates seem to be hyper-partisan, so why is the group aiming for reform at the top, instead of in Congress, where ideological politics reign? Since the organization doesn’t require financial disclosures, could Republicans or Democrats donate enough money to swing the election in their favor?
WEIGH IN:
Will you be voting in Americans Elect’s Internet primary?
Guest:
Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Washington Columnist, covering national and international politics
Steven Hill, independent political journalist and former director of the political reform program at the New America Foundation
Life with Hitler: the truth about history’s most notorious mistress
He was arguably the most hated man of the twentieth century – but even the Führer had someone to love him. And while his public persona demanded that his only bride be Germany, there was a woman behind the scenes, one whose life was intimately entwined with his, personally and politically. Eva Braun was the mistress, and in their final days, the wife of Adolf Hitler.
A new biography by German historian Heike Görtemaker seeks to unravel the woman behind the myth. Previously portrayed as a tragic, ridiculous, but ultimately insignificant historical figure, Görtemaker’s book reveals new truths about Braun, her relationship with Hitler and the part she played in the Nazi propaganda machine.
Previous depictions of Braun as a “vapid blonde,” says Görtemaker, were based on memoirs by former members of the Nazi elite, who as a rule dismissed and downplayed the role of wives and girlfriends. But in reality, Braun was a determined woman whose influence on the Fuhrer was undeniable and who rose to unrivaled power within his inner circle.
While she played no official role in his public life, Braun did support and promote Nazi ideology and produced photographs and films designed to enhance and soften his persona, portraying him as a likable, caring person, fond of children. And in the end, she chose to share his fate of suicide, in her mind a hero’s death, forever sealing her place as his most loyal disciple.
Who was this woman who came to wield such influence over Hitler? Why was she so disliked by Hitler’s confidants? What and how much did she know about the Holocaust? Why did she choose to bind her fate forever with a man who was so reviled by history? What does Eva Braun’s relationship with Hitler tell us about him that we didn’t already know?
Guest:
Heike B. Görtemaker, German historian and author of “Eva Braun: Life with Hitler”