The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm a solo practitioner, and the burdens that would come with potentially hiring a bit of clerical help would give me pause. However, at the mega-corporate level, isn't the "fear" of spending to create jobs because of burdensome regulation a bit of a pose, a hostage taking, a taking of one's ball and going home, a holding of corporate breath and turning blue to get one's way?

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, it probably has nothing to do with health care for that job hire costing $22,000 per year, on average. Must be the unknown potential of that new hire costing $22.50 in possible regulatory expenses per employee. Yeah, that's it.

[scaeagles]

I'm just curious because I don't know.....how much more is that than when unemployment was in the mid 5% range 3 years ago or so? I really don't know....an increase of 10%? 50%?

[scaeagles]

$22,000? Here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/27/us-usa-healthcare-costs-idUSTRE68Q3N520100927) is what I found. Not even close.

The report projects average health care cost per employee will rise to $9,821 in 2011, up from $9,028 in 2010. Employees will pay $2,209, or 22.5 percent of the total premium, up 12.4 percent from 2010.

[Morrigoon]

Anybody else paying attention to what's going on in Libya today? Quite a bit going on. Who'd have thought, all these years later, we'd STILL be talking about Kadaffi? (giving up on attempts to spell it...)

[scaeagles]

I'm all for deposing dictators. However I fear that all that is going to happen is exchanging a secular dictator for an Islamic dictator. Is one better than the other?

[Alex]

I imagine it would depend on the specific dictator. And who you're asking, I imagine the government and corporations would prefer whichever dictator will most do whatever they're told. We all tend to like dictators, just so long as we're not under their umbrella of power.

But regardless of whether it just results eventually in another dictator, quite possibly worse than the previous one, my default position is to be in favor of the people in a nation at least spasmodically making the effort to choose their government. It may fail to make things better, the historical record kind of argues that the odds are against them. But kind of like terrorism it generally only needs to succeed once.

[innerSpaceman]

We sort of choose our own government here in the States, but it rarely makes things better. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.

[Betty]

$22,000? Here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/27/us-usa-healthcare-costs-idUSTRE68Q3N520100927) is what I found. Not even close.

We pay almost $9600 a year for health insurance - and that's with the employer paying part.

We didn't pay quite that much at his previous job- $8400 a year.

Family of 4.

It's our next highest expense after housing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I hope Beelzebub's got enough diesel to run those backup heaters, 'cause hell's about to get frosty.... I totally agree with Karl Rove (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/fox-news-cuts-off-rove-after-he-calls-palin-thin-skinned/)

[alphabassettgrrl]

I hope Beelzebub's got enough diesel to run those backup heaters, 'cause hell's about to get frosty.... I totally agree with Karl Rove (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/fox-news-cuts-off-rove-after-he-calls-palin-thin-skinned/)

Oh, gods, I agree with him on this, too.

I feel dirty.

[Betty]

I can't agree with him even if I do. Just look at his smug face.

[JWBear]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day....

[Ghoulish Delight]

Damnit, is there NOTHING that China won't try to beat us at (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44283668/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/#.TlfZT6h-740)?!

[BarTopDancer]

I hope Beelzebub's got enough diesel to run those backup heaters, 'cause hell's about to get frosty.... I totally agree with Karl Rove (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/fox-news-cuts-off-rove-after-he-calls-palin-thin-skinned/)

I agree with him too. I'm gonna be sick.

[scaeagles]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day....

Obama must be running on military time then.

[Kevy Baby]

Damnit, is there NOTHING that China won't try to beat us at (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44283668/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/#.TlfZT6h-740)?!Did you hear about the fake Apple stores (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14273444)?

[lashbear]

Are you guys STILL talking politics in here? Sheesh! :p

[Betty]

Facebook politics with people from the down I grew up in... What a bunch of stupid mother ****ers many of them are. It's no wonder I didn't participate in a lot of **** in high school, having to put up with the closed minded dumb-assery that abounds.

[flippyshark]

Heck, one of my long-ago Disney co-workers seemed pretty liberal back in the day (maybe un-commitedly or casually so, as college age kids can be) but ran as a Tea Party candidate in her county in 2010. (I don't know how that went, actually.) She cannily established one Facebook page for her political campaigning and opinions and another for her old friends to visit her.

For me, no politics on Facebook ever. My family hangs out there and anything I post starts a conversation I don't have the energy for.

[Moonliner]

Wikileaks.

In general I support they efforts they make to bring some openness to what governments do behind closed doors but they've really screwed the pooch this time. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/08/31/wikileaks.security.lapse/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)


More than 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables are now available in full and unfiltered online, exposing scores of U.S. diplomatic sources and informants that were meant to be protected often for their own safety, according to the website WikiLeaks.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm very curious as to the wording of the French law banning prayer in the street. I haven't looked very hard to find it, and I imagine if I do it will be in French anyway.

[innerSpaceman]

It's because there are two mosques that routinely have overflow crowds spilling out onto the streets on Fridays, with those streets becoming impassible to traffic.

I don't find it any more or less objectionable than Pennsylvania's law that banned texting while walking. I think both address a certain problem, but both unnecessarily infringe on basic rights.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I know why they did it. But I'm still curious about the actual wording. It it's, "No religious service may spill out of its designated building in such a way that it disrupts free use of public rights of way" then I have little problem with it. If it's "No mosque service may spill out of its designate building in such a way blah blah blah," I begin to have a problem with it. If it's, "No personal displays of religious prayer may be done on public streets," I begin to have a large problem with it and would seriously wonder about equity in enforcement. if it's, "No Muslim may pray in public," I have a humungous problem with it.

The wording matters.

[Alex]

Do they mean literally in the street or just outside (such as on a sidewalk, pathway, public lawn, etc.)?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Outside.

[Alex]

Then the First Amendment absolutist in me doesn't approve (aware, of course, that France doesn't have a First Amendment).

Especially since, when I was there the French were perfectly good at finding all sorts of ways to obstruct the free flow of pedestrian and vehicle traffic without resorting to prayer. (And there seemed to be plenty of outdoor prayer around Notre Dame.)

[innerSpaceman]

We saw lots of outdoor drug deals around Notre Dame, but no prayer.

[katiesue]

Wouldn't blocking sidewalks or traffic already be covered already under some existing law?

[Alex]

We saw lots of outdoor drug deals around Notre Dame, but no prayer.

I was there (unplanned) during Sunday Mass. That may have shifted the balance.

[Ghoulish Delight]

"This is not class warfare, it's math."

Huh, not too sure that's going to get more people on your side there, Barry.

[sleepyjeff]

^ LOL

He should have said "lunch" ;)

[JWBear]

The thing is... It is class warfare, but it was the rich and powerfull who started it 30 years ago.

[sleepyjeff]

^Now in this version of Reagan is he the evil corporate stooge or the demi-progressive that the tea party would never vote for today.

Forgive me, but sometimes it's hard to keep up ;)

[JWBear]

Neither and both. Things are not that simplistic. Also, it wasn't just (or even mostly) Reagan.

[sleepyjeff]

Neither and both. Things are not that simplistic. Also, it wasn't just (or even mostly) Reagan.


Fair enough.

[JWBear]

Interesting...

Number of federal employees (excluding military) in 1980: 1.2 million
Number of federal employees (excluding military) in 2010: 1.3 million
An 8% increase

Population of the US in 1980: 226 million
Population of the US in 2010: 312 million
A 38% increase

Federal spending as a percent of the GDP in 1980: 21.7%
Federal spending as a percent of the GDP in 2010: 25.4%

So much for "out of control government spending"!

[Alex]

Well, that shows that the government has certainly become more productive at spending money (they spend much more money, relative and absolute, with only a few more employees), but I'm not sure I see how how a 17% increase in the relative size of government is a repudiation of the idea that government has become too big.

It isn't evidence of it either, but I don't how your first two numbers have much connection to your third in reaching your conclusion.

[JWBear]

According to the right, the ranks of federal employees have swelled all out of proportion. We are also told that government spending has multiplied. These numbers clearly show that neither talking points are true. While government spending has increases slightly in regards to the GDP (almost completely due to military spending, TARP, and the stimulus), the federal workforce as a percentage of the total population has shrunk.

The Federal Government is in no way "out of control".

[alphabassettgrrl]

Aww, come on, why let the facts get in the way of a good sound-bite?

[Alex]

A 17% increase, especially if you thought something was too big to begin with doesn't strike me as "slight."

And the employment number (I see sources online that give a different larger number for civilian federal employees but the relatively static nature remains the same) is somewhat deceptive if, as is often complained about, the growth in government employment has not been in direct federal employees but rather through conversion of direct employment to contracted employment.

I tried to look it up but it would appear that the government doesn't actually keep count of how many people performing government jobs do so as contractors.

[Alex]

Finally figured out some better search terms. Several different sources indicate that there are at least 10 million people working in government as contractors (not counting the several million more military and post office) contractors. Here's one article (http://www.shrm.org/Publications/HRNews/Pages/RoleContractors.aspx) (which does mention that while official employment has remained flat, contractors have exploded during the last 20 years.

Here's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501782.html) a 2006 Washington Post article (which is pointing out that Bush was hiding the peanut in claming smaller government while hiring more contractors) that estimates 2.5 additional contractor positions between 2002 and 2006.

[Morrigoon]

So there are more people working... they just don't get benefits. Or job security.

[Alex]

Oh, they may very well have benefits and security. They aren't working as freelance contractors. They work for companies that contract with the government.

[Prudence]

My experience working for the DoD was that the contractors generally had *better* salary and benefits (by a hefty margin) than we did. Job security was less so, as the government would recompete the support contracts every year or so, so contractors could potentially lose their jobs that way, if they were neither picked up by the new contracting agency nor found a new gig by their existing agency.

[JWBear]

Alex,

In your pursuit to pick apart the details, you miss the overall point. Despite the right-wing retoric, the size of the federal government has not increased significantly in the last 30 years. Since 1980 federal spending in relation to the GDP, although it has fluctuated, has stayed right around 20%. The biggest jump - 20.7% to 24.7% - was in 2009 due to TARP and the stimulus. Interestingly enough, Federal receipts (the money it takes in - mostly from taxes) went down from 17.5% in 2008 to 14.8% in 2009. In fact, federal receipts as a percentage of the GDP are currently the lowest they have been since 1950.

In other words... We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue shortfall.

Link (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php)


(ETA: Take a look at the chart I linked to. Notice which president spent the most money before 2009, and look who spent the least.)

[Alex]

No, I get your overall point. I don't even disagree with it.

That said, you're the one who said "A and B therefore C" where A is murky (in that I could pick a different set of equally true numbers that present a different picture of employment growth), B is subjective (in that you're just deciding on your own whether an 18% increase is "slight" and whether the baseline was a proper size and you've now kind of compromised yourself by clarifying that the 17% growth was not over 30 years but over two years), and C doesn't necessarily follow from A and B even if taken as true as you present them.

I know you feel that your logic is irrelevant if your conclusion is satisfying (and so any push back is just "picking apart the details", I just disagree. Your conclusion is irrelevant, even if correct, if your logic is unsatisfying. YMMV.

[JWBear]

I know you feel that your logic is irrelevant if your conclusion is satisfying

So, you can read minds now? You truely are a humorless, unemotional, inhuman Vulcan. Congratulations.

[Alex]

Just for the record, that conclusion (about my genetic origins) is not supported by the evidence you preceded it with.

But no, I don't read minds. But I have watched you react over several years to anybody questioning the evidence you present for a position, which is generally some form of "stop worrying about the details, I'm right."

Though if your first post on this topic here was meant to contain humor (thus creating some preciously unknown relevance as to whether I am humorless) I have to suggest that the humor flaw lies not with me.

Finally, "inhumanly Vulcan" is "childishly redundant."

Little known fact: sometimes reading minds is unexpectedly boring. Though if I read minds in the inhumanly Vulcan way I'd have to touch your face, which I assume neither one if us wants.

[Ghoulish Delight]

which I assume neither one if us wants.You ARE a mind reader.

[scaeagles]

Just cause I feel like it....from an AP story on taxes.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

Someone earning 1 million will pay 291,000 in taxes.
Someone earning 20,000 will pay 1140 in taxes.
The person earning 1 mil earns 50x more than the person earing 20,000, and pays 255x the amount of federal taxes.

Someone earning 50,000 will pay 6250 in taxes.
The person earning 1 mil earns 20x more than the person earning 50,000, and pays 46.5x more in taxes.

Seems like we don't have a problem of the rich not paying their fair share.

And no, I am not one of those earning 1 mil. Not even close.

[Alex]

As always it depends on one's subjective definition of fair.

It could range from "everybody pays an equal percentage of federal receipts" to "everybody pays the same percentage of income" to "everybody pays the same percentage of total worth" to "everybody pays the same relative painfulness of loss."

All could legitimately be argued as "fair" and all result in vastly different tax structures.

Personally, on of my core starting points is that taking taxes from people who have nothing or just barely enough for self sufficiency is not going to meet my definition of fair.

Deep Thoughts From Alex While He Waits For Lani Outside The Downtown Disney LEGO Store

[Ghoulish Delight]

Do you have a link to that?

"29.1 percent of their income". Does that include capital gains, or just wage income subject to income tax?

And what about the people making between 50K and 1Million?

And what percentage of their income do they pay in sales tax?

What percentage of their income is used to pay for the bare necessities of survival?

[scaeagles]

Link to AP story (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b)

And of course everyone defines fair differently.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Link to AP story (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b)

And of course everyone defines fair differently.


The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So what? (http://boingboing.net/2011/09/24/inequalistan-chris-hayes-debunks-top-10-pay-70-of-all-income-taxes-baloney.html)

[scaeagles]

Are we talking who pays what in terms of federal taxes or wealth distribution?

I just think that when a man with 50x more income than someone with 20k pays 255x more federal taxes it is reasonable to say that the person pays their fair share. No debunking (the numbers come from IRS data).

If you don't like the distribution of wealth in the country that's a different matter.

[innerSpaceman]

I think you missed the point there, scaeagles. The tax code must influence wealth distribution. Otherwise, you'll get to a point where that 255x rate now paid by those with $X wealth will seem quaint.

Once 98% of the money is in the hands of 5 people, those five people will have to pay 3,768,432 x the tax rate of the other several million.



So it doesn't much matter what the comparative tax rates are. The money's got to come from somewhere. Once it's all soaked from the poor and middle class, guess where it comes from next?

[BarTopDancer]

I think it's utterly ridiculous that "job creators" are basically blackmailing the government by saying if you raise our taxes we won't create jobs.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Are we talking who pays what in terms of federal taxes or wealth distribution?

Did you watch the clip? If 10% of the population has 70% of the taxable money, then they SHOULD be paying 70% of the taxes.

You limit your definition of inequality to income tax. That is a inadequately distorted view of how taxes work. It ignores the far more realistic, holistic, view of taxation in which ALL forms of taxation are taken into account. Payroll, sales, property, capital gains, and the fact that a huge portion of the wealth that the top 10% has access to is not considered income at all and isn't even considered part of the calculations. And when all of that is taken into account, you start to see things as Warren Buffet does, and realize that while on paper he can point to one column in which, yes, he pays a higher tax rate than everyone else, but on the whole, looking at every avenue he has to earn, control, and spend money, he and others in his category are by FAR beneficiaries of our tax structure, not victims.

[Morrigoon]

Are we talking who pays what in terms of federal taxes or wealth distribution?

I just think that when a man with 50x more income than someone with 20k pays 255x more federal taxes it is reasonable to say that the person pays their fair share. No debunking (the numbers come from IRS data).

If you don't like the distribution of wealth in the country that's a different matter.

Yeah, the problem here is focusing on 'income' because of what a loose definition that has in terms of taxation. Usually when people talk about taxing the rich more, they discuss it in terms of income tax, which puts the heaviest burden on high wage earners, not the truly wealthy.

The problem you have is with incentives and reinvestment. You can't tax investment so heavy that there is no benefit to putting your money into anything (vs. the risk) And then you have the added difficulty of how to tax investment in a world where everyone has 401K's instead of actual retirement plans. And how to make it so it doesn't unfairly burden the small-time investor, who already has the highest cost of entry, when you consider the fee structures of investment companies.

I'm not saying Buffett isn't right (he usually is), but it's VERY difficult for people who don't really understand business (aka politicians) to come up with a safe structure for accomplishing this goal.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The problem you have is with incentives and reinvestment. You can't tax investment so heavy that there is no benefit to putting your money into anything (vs. the risk)
You're right, which is probably why capital gains taxes are at their lowest level in ~80 years.

It is complete fiction that the highest earners/wealth holders in this country are being over-burdened by taxes. They can point to individual pockets of taxation that make it look that way, but that's only because they have been increased in an attempt to balance out the fact that the rest of their money is completely sheltered from taxation and that, overall, by any practical definition, they pay far smaller percentage of what they actually earn in taxes than the majority of this country.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And just to continue to keep reality in the picture: When idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that raising capital gains taxes means there is no incentive to invest, keep in mind that the changes that will take effect in 2013 will bring capital gains taxes up to a level LOWER than the rates from 1987-1996. Yeah, boy, those investors in those years CLEARLY were scared away from investing, with absolutely no incentive to do so.

Bullsh*t. Pure. Bullsh*t.

[Morrigoon]

I'm not disagreeing with the goals or the assessment, I'm only pointing out the challenges.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And here I thought my opinion of the Florida electorate couldn't get much lower.

[Alex]

Let's see, can anybody spot the constitutional flaw in this program?

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2011/sep/22/serve-time-jailor-church-ar-2450720/

One suspects the sheriff is misinformed.

[sleepyjeff]

I think it's utterly ridiculous that "job creators" are basically blackmailing the government by saying if you raise our taxes we won't create jobs.

It's a huge risk these days to "create" a job. I know that I can't hire anyone right now but if my tax burden were lower, well, maybe I could stretch it........besides, someone has to watch the store while I am at Disneyland :D


Let's see, can anybody spot the constitutional flaw in this program?

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2011/sep/22/serve-time-jailor-church-ar-2450720/

One suspects the sheriff is misinformed.

Couldn't one just say "I am my own church" and just stay at home on Sundays?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Couldn't one just say "I am my own church" and just stay at home on Sundays?Nope. It's only specific churches that have signed up for the program. And ONLY churches, no synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples. Of course, that may be because those don't exist in that town. But that's kinda beside the point.

[Alex]

Couldn't one just say "I am my own church" and just stay at home on Sundays?

And even if you could do that, it would still be unconstitutional to require you to do it to get out of or avoid jail.

[sleepyjeff]

I wonder under what the circumstance the first challenge to this will be?

[alphabassettgrrl]

I wonder under what the circumstance the first challenge to this will be?

An atheist or someone of a non-Christian religion, is my guess. They don't have an option to attend church to avoid jail.

Or a taxpayer upset at tax money going to support church.

[sleepyjeff]

An atheist or someone of a non-Christian religion, is my guess. They don't have an option to attend church to avoid jail.

Or a taxpayer upset at tax money going to support church.

The atheist would have been my first guess too, but if you're in jail, and you're offered a way out.... do you make waves:confused:

The taxpayer is an even trickier question in that s/he is actually saving money this way....and really can't prove any harm.

I totally agree that this is unconstitutional, I am just having a hard time imagining the situation in which someone will challenge it.

[Morrigoon]

I think atheists are welcome at UU...

[Alex]

I'm pretty sure that if it is someone making an Establishment Clause claim they wouldn't have to actually be in the program to have standing. So it wouldn't have to be an atheist facing the choice to get out or make waves and not get out while doing so. It could just be any random person within the jurisdiction.

(A legal blog I was reading about this at mentioned that in Mississippi a judge was recently suspended for a month for making bail contingent on church attendance.)

And apparently the ACLU let it be known (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-crime-alabama-church-idUSTRE78Q6KA20110927) they have issues with it representing that random person and the program is on hold pending further review by the city's legal counsel (man, I really hope their legal counsel didn't previously tell them this was ok).

The sheriff's continued defense indicates he doesn't understand the problem it creates at all. Though this article makes it sound the program is just something he and the local judges came up with on their own.

[Alex]

I think atheists are welcome at UU...

Yes, atheists are welcome at UU, and many other churches. But as an atheist I have no interest in UU or other churches.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think atheists are welcome at UU...
What Alex said. I don't care who is or isn't welcome where, no one should be given the choice of "Go to a place of worship or go to jail."

[alphabassettgrrl]

I think atheists are welcome at UU...

Yeah, but isn't this in rural Georgia? Not likely to be many church choices there. And I really wouldn't expect to find something like a UU church there.

What Alex said. I don't care who is or isn't welcome where, no one should be given the choice of "Go to a place of worship or go to jail."

Different kind of jail.

[Morrigoon]

What Alex said. I don't care who is or isn't welcome where, no one should be given the choice of "Go to a place of worship or go to jail."

You make a good point. Because no matter how you look at it, ultimately that IS the choice.

[Alex]

It is Bay Minette, Alabama. I checked, that is a humble burg of 8,000 people.

Google Maps finds about 50 churches within 10 miles of downtown, with lots of variety. If you like some flavor of Protestantism, especially Baptist or Pentecostal.

There are two Catholic Churches and if you prefer your Protestantism a bit "culty" (to use the view of the other churches, not my own) then you can find an LDS outpost and a Kingdom Hall in town.

Most other significant religions (including Jews, Muslims, and Unitarian Universalists) will have to go 40 miles to Mobile or 60 miles to Pensacola.

The nearest Hindu Temple is 130 miles in Carriere, Mississippi (or 230 miles in Birmingham if they have to stay in state).

The Atheist Cathedral is not yet found.

[€uroMeinke]

It's still uncertain if there's an agnostic temple, can't quite rule that out yet

[sleepyjeff]

It's still uncertain if there's an agnostic temple, can't quite rule that out yet

I am pretty sure most agnostics would just shrug their shoulders at this one....... heh, heh.

[sleepyjeff]

Speaking of unconstitutional:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/new-audio-nc-governor-struck-serious-tone-on-suspending-congressional-elections/

[Alex]

Obviously unconstitutional but I also doubt it was a serious policy proposal but rather a statement of how the continual campaigning makes it unlikely Congress can do anything significant to resolve issues.

It is hardly a unique position. But yes, if she was seriously suggesting we actually take steps to cancel elections (rather than that skipping one would make addressing problems easier by relieving congressmen of the constant pressures and requriements of re-election) she's a dolt.

And an inability to explain herself without the lame "it was a joke you didn't get" suggests she or her staff might be a dolt anyway.

[Alex]

It appears that the Occupy Wall Street people have expanded operations and are now camped out in front of the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco.

Actually, a pretty good turnout as I exited BART this morning, though a sign of life in San Francisco that I was halfway down the block of people in sleeping bags before I realized I was in the middle of a protest camp and not just among homeless people.

In their very vocal protestations that they're being ignored by the mainstream press in New York I've seen many comments that they are being dismissed for the way they look.

Now, I would attribute this more to the fact that I've not yet really seen anybody offering a coherent goal or position but now I've seen them, or at least a branch group.

It is not fair, but I tend to agree. When you look like you've rejected all of "society" then it is hard for me to take particularly seriously and objection made to a specific part of that society.

It feels kind of like I said "birthday parties are, by definition lame, but here's how you throw a great one." True, I may really know how to throw a great birthday party, but not many people are going to pay attention after the first half of that sentence.

I'm sure many of the kids camped out in front of the Fed have very good criticisms of whatever they are specifically criticizing and very good ideas on reform. But if you reject the very idea of a capitalism based society (as a hypothetical example) then you telling me how to make one better sounds like Nancy Pelosi saying who the Republicans should run for president.

Also, while someone with dreadlocks may have once said something important. Nothing worthwhile has ever emanated from the mouth of a 19-year-old with his or her beard in dreadlocks.

[Not Afraid]

Not that I've given it much effort, but I can't figure out what it is the protestors are really after.

[Alex]

Walked past there again at lunch to see if they were more active during daylight hours.

Looked even more like I was walking up Telegraph Avenue (in Berkeley) on any average day. One guy on a bullhorn chanting "don't give up your rights." Not sure what rights I am giving up.

[Moonliner]

Calif. Appeals Court Approves Cell Phone Searches During Traffic Stops (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/calif-appeals-court-approves-cell-phone-searches-during-traffic-stops/)

It appears anytime you are pulled over in the state of California, your entire cell phone is now fair game

[Betty]

That just doesn't make sense. If I have a computer in the car, what about that? Does it matter if it's a desktop vs laptop vs tablet? Aren't a smart phone and tablet like an ipad similar enough?

[alphabassettgrrl]

Wow.

Commenters have said the phone should simply have been inventoried as a phone, and there I absolutely agree. Nothing on the phone could have been a danger to the officers. No reason to look at it.

Maybe if someone's pulled over for reckless or unsafe driving they could ask to look at the log, to see if you were talking or texting in the last few minutes, but other than that, I can't see any reason they would need to see the contents of a phone.

[Alex]

It could be accurate as told but experience says that a story from The Blaze should be investigated to make sure reality conforms.

[Moonliner]

It could be accurate as told but experience says that a story from The Blaze should be investigated to make sure reality conforms.

In this case the Blaze article was linked to from Drudgereport.com so that should elevate any concerns about its veracity.

[Alex]

It could be accurate as told but experience says that a story from The Blaze should be investigated to make sure reality conforms.

[Ghoulish Delight]

In this case the Blaze article was linked to from Drudgereport.com so that should elevate any concerns about its veracity.

[Moonliner]

In this case the Blaze article was linked to from Drudgereport.com so that should alleviate any concerns about its veracity.

There, I fixed that embarrassing typo for you.

[Strangler Lewis]

The decision is unremarkable.

Which is not to say it's not outrageous.

But under current precedent, it's unremarkable.

Someday, "they" will develop a machine to hook up to people's brains to accurately record their thoughts and their intent (sale or personal use) regarding the drugs and other indicia in their car. Doing so would seem to be as lawful under the Fourth Amendment as searching a cell phone, and it would be as lawful under the Fifth Amendment as a forced blood draw.

The interesting Fourth Amendment issue would be when evidence of other crimes is uncovered in the suspect's thoughts. Arguably, the search would be overbroad if the technology could not hone in on the specific memory centers that referenced the crime being investigated. On the other hand, the police generally have the right to seize evidence in plain view anywhere they have a right to be, i.e., your brain.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Did a tiny bit of digging. The decision was in January.

One other thing I found in the search was that police in Michigan don't just look at your phone- they download the whole database from it.

[Alex]

Wasn't there another recent ruling somewhere that causing a computer to wake up, even if in the course of siezing it, was a search requiring a warrant?

[Ghoulish Delight]

While I have no love for Hank Williams Jr. and am not going to shed a tear for him or the loss of that insipid song, I can't say his stupid analogy was anything other than stupid, not offensive.

Surely it falls under the, "Unless it involves the mass slaughter of human beings, don't bring up Hitler in a political discussion," idiot umbrella. But I don't think he was actually comparing Obama to Hitler.

[Betty]

Yeah - I tend to think he's more of a dumbass without a lot of common sense more than anything else.

[Strangler Lewis]

While I have no love for Hank Williams Jr. and am not going to shed a tear for him or the loss of that insipid song, I can't say his stupid analogy was anything other than stupid, not offensive.

Surely it falls under the, "Unless it involves the mass slaughter of human beings, don't bring up Hitler in a political discussion," idiot umbrella. But I don't think he was actually comparing Obama to Hitler.

Yes, the smart thing to have done would have been to clarify that actually he has no use for Jews so that while, yes, Obama happened to be Hitler in his analogy, it's not like Boehner was the good guy.

[Kevy Baby]

Only because I am sure I am not the only one curious about what Hank actually said, I am using one article (http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/10/06/hank-williams-jr-compare-president-obama-hitler/) (which seems to mirror what I am finding on other sites) to show the quote:On Monday, Williams went on Fox & Friends, the morning show for the Red States, where he was asked who he liked among the current GOP candidates. (No one, in case you care what Hank Williams Jr. thinks.) Then he felt the urge to express his distaste for Obama’s ill-advised “golf summit” with Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner. And here’s what Williams said: “It would be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu, okay?”And to be clear, my intention is not to take a side in this one, simply to post the quote and its context.

[JWBear]

You know... He really never said which one would be Hitler... :evil:

[Alex]

He also didn't say either of them would be Hitler.

It seems pretty clear to me that he simply meant it was a meeting between people who have nothing in common, don't like each other, and can't possibly accomplish anything by having a meeting. (Though given Hank's politics it is also clear that if roles were assigned, Obama would be the Hitler side.)

But the first rule of public political discussion is you never use Hitler in any way unless you want it to be taken in the worst possible way. That said, it is a stupid song so if buckets of faux outrage is what it takes to end the tradition then I must say this outrages more than anything since I learned Jaleel White was a klan member and this lead to the end of Family Matters.

[JWBear]

It was a joke, Alex. :rolleyes:

[Strangler Lewis]

Other potentially apt comparisons:

Reverend Fred and Richard Simmons (with Obama being Reverend Fred)
a Klan wizard and Barack Obama (with Obama being the Klan wizard)

[Alex]

Yes I know. Apologies for going on to discuss re original topic seriously without first stroking your ego on your humor skills.

[Alex]

Lani and I are in Kennebunkport and apparently George Bush hasn't yet gone back to Houston for the winter.

Anybody have anything they'd like me to pass on if I am able to get by the Secret Service?

[JWBear]

Yes I know. Apologies for going on to discuss re original topic seriously without first stroking your ego on your humor skills.

You could have gone on to discuss the original topic seriously without responding to my post. By responding as you did, you made yourself look even more humor impared.

[Strangler Lewis]

Lani and I are in Kennebunkport and apparently George Bush hasn't yet gone back to Houston for the winter.

Anybody have anything they'd like me to pass on if I am able to get by the Secret Service?

According to the National Enquirer, Barbara Bush is on her way out. And they're never wrong. Except, perennially, about Doris Day. So perhaps it's a sad time in Kennebunkport.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Lani and I are in Kennebunkport and apparently George Bush hasn't yet gone back to Houston for the winter.

Anybody have anything they'd like me to pass on if I am able to get by the Secret Service?

Nothing repeatable in polite company. :)

Hopefully the security doesn't get in the way too much.

[Alex]

You could have gone on to discuss the original topic seriously without responding to my post. By responding as you did, you made yourself look even more humor impared.

You continue to equate being underwhelmed with your sense of humor as lacking a sense of humor. You may misjudge the quality of your output.

But still, apologies for using your comment as a springboard to a serious response to the topic without first rolling on the floor overwhelmed with mirth so that you'd know you're appreciated.

[JWBear]

It may come as a suprise to you, Alex, but I don't give a rat's ass if you appreciate my humor or not. And if you feel underwhelmed by any witticism that I utter in the future, please feel free to ignore it.

[Alex]

Then why are you constantly evaluating my sense of humor based on whether I show proper recognition of your jokes?

I do generally ignore your attempts at humor but that just seems to cause you to get defensive and point out how humorless I must be. So I'll keep ignoring your jokes (well, more like ignoring you thought they were funny) and you ignore my ignoring of them.

Then all rat asses will be safe.

[JWBear]

Then why are you constantly evaluating my sense of humor based on whether I show proper recognition of your jokes?

Perhaps because nearly every time I make a humorous statement you respond as if I were making a serious comment. You seem to completely miss that it was humor and feel the need to pick it apart. It makes you look to be so humorless that you can't even recognize a joke when you see it.

It used to annoy me a little, but now I find the mechanical regularity of it to be rather amusing... and a bit pathetic.

[Alex]

But I thought you don't give a rats ass. Now I'm confused. Perchance you've outwitted me?

[Kevy Baby]

Yes I know. Apologies for going on to discuss re original topic seriously without first stroking your ego on your humor skills.VAM

You could have gone on to discuss the original topic seriously without responding to my post. By responding as you did, you made yourself look even more humor impared.Methinks Alex "gets it" much more than most.

[BarTopDancer]

Alex is frakking hilarious. I'm so glad he's back in the internets where he belongs.

[Betty]

Open letter to that 53% guy (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025555/-Open-Letter-to-that-53-Guy)

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's awesome.

[BarTopDancer]

Awesome!

[innerSpaceman]

:snap:

[JWBear]

Very well said!

[Betty]

I know right! It's like we'd all collectively forgotten what that "American Dream", as he defined it, was something we should all be striving for, instead a race to the bottom of pay and benefits. It's not about socialism. I've passed it along via facebook. I hope everyone I know reads it.

But then I'm hoping the protests spread. I think it's exciting. I want to participate.

[BarTopDancer]

I want them to be more cohesive with a rational common goal instead of random demands and a splintered group.

I occupied my coworkers cube on Friday. We called it Occupy Eddy's Cube. My demands were: bring me chocolate every day, give me back my scissors, stop using all the tape and throw stuff over the wall at White Chocolate (another co-workers nickname) on demand. Then he told me to get out before he had me fired for loitering and trespassing and I reminded him the Tea Party was a fvcking felony (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-5-2011/parks-and-demonstration). Then we laughed so hard we cried.

No wonder people think IT is a bunch of screw offs.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The net result of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, by income level (spoilerized for the sqeamish)

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Average-tax-change-from-9-9-9-plan-10-18-2011-OPT.jpg

source (http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/9-9-9-in-one-really-long-graph/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JaredBernstein+%28Jared+Berns tein%29)

[Betty]

Wow.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Dang.

I mean, that's the point of why he wants it, and I knew flat taxes are regressive onto the poorer sections, but dude.

[Alex]

My one beef with that chart is that I'm seeing it misrepresented to show how regressive the 9-9-9 plan is. It doesn't really show that.

It shows that it is more regressive than the current tax plan. But that is essentially self-evident since it is the current Republican platform that the current tax code is too progressive. So obviously any Republican tax plan is going to be more regressive than the current structure and when expressed in gross dollars even a small proportional benefit to the top 0.1 is going to dwarf the changes for everybody else.

Disagree with it, but it isn't surprising.

Now, I would not be surprised at all to learn that the plan is horribly regressive (since it exempts from taxation massive financial transactions and transfers that are mostly engaged in by the wealthy), I just haven't seen that quantified in the things that many say demonstrate it.

[Alex]

From a single story on resignations in Bachmann's New Hampshire campaign staff.

Just seems like a good presentation of the rhetorical power of word choice. Both of these are completely true. One, to me anyway, such like much more of an indictment of Bachmann's future prospects:

More than a third of Michele Bachmann's New Hampshire campaign team resigned last week...

One of the two people who did resign...

[Ghoulish Delight]

HuffPo Bingo (http://fluffpo.tumblr.com/post/12037502635/huffpo-bingo-okay-heres-how-you-play-grab-the)

I hit bingo by page 2!

[3894]

The anti-Recall Walker thuggery begins. This morning in Wisconsin we woke to find: 1) our pumpkins smashed, 2) a carved wooden bear statue stolen (weighs about 400 lbs.), and 3) the Recall Walker bumper sticker ripped off the Jeep and stuck onto its windshield.

We filed a theft and vandalism report with the county sheriff.

If you see a spare bear in the vicinity of Central Wisconsin, it’s ours.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Seems a little extreme... and not something that's going to change your mind....

[Moonliner]

So sorry Coach, I don't give a damn what your legal responsibility was. You knew and you let it continue. You don't get until the end of the season for a quiet retirement. You leave now. Goodbye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Alex]

Well, now we know how the freshman dorm RA becomes president of a major university through the normal chain of succession.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Penn State, why have I heard notsonice things about them before?

Oh, yeah. This. (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/440/game-changer)

[Strangler Lewis]

So sorry Coach, I don't give a damn what your legal responsibility was. You knew and you let it continue. You don't get until the end of the season for a quiet retirement. You leave now. Goodbye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Yeah, except I think he got fired because he flipped the bird to the Board of Trustees when he said he would retire after the season to clarify his status so that the Board would not have to spend one second thinking about where he stood while it addressed the problem. Turned out the Board had a spare second.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Turned out the Board had a spare second.
Trying to cover their asses. Closing the barn door after the horses have raped young children.

[Alex]

I like Herman Cain. Of those that have announced their candidacy, he is my favorite by far. Don't like any of the others, really. Only other one that might take over for Cain would be Rick Perry should he get in.

Romney - eh. Gingrich? Blech. Ron Paul? The man is insane. Palin? Nope. Pawlenty - don't know much about. Bachmann? Santorum?

Nah - Cain. I like Cain.

Was curious and this post (from May) was apparently the first mention of Cain on this board. Since Perry did get in, I'm curious if he overtook Cain.

[JWBear]

I wonder if he still likes Cain.

[Ghoulish Delight]

He did express discomfort with Cain's anti-Muslim b.s. at the time, so that combined with Perry's appearance has probably turned him from Cain at least earlier on. But who knows what he's thinking of late.

Anyone catch Perry's complete whiff on his government agency talking point? Amusing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

WHAT THE SH*T?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ)

[Ghoulish Delight]

So sorry Coach, I don't give a damn what your legal responsibility was. You knew and you let it continue. You don't get until the end of the season for a quiet retirement. You leave now. Goodbye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The idiots protesting in his favor really, really need to reexamine their proprieties in life.

[Moonliner]

The idiots protesting in his favor really, really need to reexamine their proprieties in life.

Or like Ashton Butcher, get their head out of their asses and catch up with the news now and then.

[Ghoulish Delight]

err. Proprieties = priorities. Wow.

[Strangler Lewis]

Actually, this has all saved me from making a grave mistake. After five years of coaching youth sports, I've contemplated committing sex crimes to get out of being asked. Turns out it doesn't make a difference.

[Ghoulish Delight]

For the record, I also think the people who showed up for the candle light vigils for the victims also need some examination of priorities. Theirs are less out of whack than the dummies flipping new vans. And I understand the impetus and inevitability of the response from the community. But as an individual decision to bother involving ones self publicly in something that has nothing to do with you...really you've got to have better things to do with your life.

[JWBear]

I can usually get a pretty good idea of Fox News's current talking points from having lunch with my mother. For instance... Obama forced Congress to create the "Super Congress" committee. Liberal corporations created and are funding OWS. The women who have accused Herman Cain are all in the employ of George Soros. :rolleyes:

[lashbear]

Dear Australian Media...

I know President Obama is a nifty person, and that there are a lot of people who want to know his every move, and when he goes to the toilet, and what he's doing at every second of the day, but can we please have our television programs back?

I don't want to watch Obamas limousine driving for hours, or random shots of buildings where he is going to be in half an hour, or images of security guards. I want The Golden Girls.

Can we please get over him now?

PS: Gillard & Obama have agreed to have 2500 US Troops here in Darwin. China is now concerned and looking more closely at Australia. Nice... :rolleyes:

[Alex]

Really? If we were going to attack China we'd do it from Australia? And not use the thousands of troops already in Korea, Japan, and Afghanistan?

But don't worry, they won't hurt Australia. It's where Jackie Chan gets white people for his movies.

[€uroMeinke]

Maybe they'll build a theme park?

[BarTopDancer]

Dear Australian Media...

I know President Obama is a nifty person, and that there are a lot of people who want to know his every move, and when he goes to the toilet, and what he's doing at every second of the day, but can we please have our television programs back?

I don't even think they show that stuff here. Then again his motorcade has a bad habit of making its way through Los Angeles during rush hour and that's enough to piss people off. They don't want to mess with the TV schedule too.

[lashbear]

Maybe they'll build a theme park?

I wish :rolleyes:

[Ghoulish Delight]

You, sir, are 99% prick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B_6d3DFayZw)

[wendybeth]

That guy will be the first one out the window when his money disappears, GD. What a smug little prick. (He reminds me of the rich guys in 'Trading Places'). Tori is studying the French Revolution now, and the current socio/political situation makes for some interesting discussions.....

[Gn2Dlnd]

That guy is standing on the balcony of Nick & Steph's Steakhouse, looking across the street at the plaza where I have my Friday farmer's mkt. After 3 weeks of no market, they finally took down the fvcking chain link fence (just a little over-reaction, Brookfield properties?). Sadly, some of these people are my customers. Made for some interesting conversations. I'd like them to continue to buy my product, but if I lose a customer or two because I won't smile and agree, so be it.

[JWBear]

Bill and I were just discussing the House Republican leadership caving on the payroll tax cut. He commented "Looks like Obama just got a Boehner!"

[BarTopDancer]

When it comes down to it, the average American on the 'anti-tax credit right' isn't going to want MORE taxes taken out because some credit that benefits them is about to expire and deep down inside the Republicans know this.

[3894]

NSFW but so spot on.

Iowa "Nice" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qLZZ6JD0g9Y#t=0s)

[Gn2Dlnd]

Yeah, but it was angel food cake. If imma go all-hands into a cake, I want there to be at least the possibility that something's going to get stained. OTW, why you all mad at me, Iowa? I didn't say nothin'!

[JWBear]

Mmmmm.... Angelfood cake......

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm really over all this religion from political candidates. Over, over, over, shut up. Tell me how you're going to fix the problems. I don't care that you believe (though apparently enough people do that candidates feel it necessary to fly the flag) but I really really don't.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Santorum did NOT say "black people".

He stumbled over his words.

[BarTopDancer]

Stephen Colbert turned control of his SuperPAC over to Jon Stewart (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71393.html). He's exploring a Presidential run in SC.

It will sure be awesome watching people react to "Stephen".

[Ghoulish Delight]

While I am not pleased that the FBI shut down megauploads, I have zero sympathy for anyone whining that they lost critical data. If you were using that ****ty site as your only data repository for critical data...you deserve to lose it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Despite dropping out far earlier than Rick Perry, Herman Cain received more than double the votes than Perry did today in South Carolina, thanks to Stephen Colbert's ridiculousness.

However if you Google "South Carolina primary", the bar graph on the results page (supplied by AP) lists Rick Perry's ~2,500 votes, but lumps Cain in with "Other".

[JWBear]

Heard on the radio today:

Poor Mitt... He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

[scaeagles]

That line was originally used by Texas Governor Ann Richards talking about George W Bush.

[Ghoulish Delight]

*blink* *blink*

Do I know you from somewhere?

[scaeagles]

Yeah, been a while, hasn't it?

[JWBear]

That line was originally used by Texas Governor Ann Richards talking about George W Bush.

That works too!

[BarTopDancer]

That line was originally used by Texas Governor Ann Richards talking about George W Bush.

*blink* *blink*

Do I know you from somewhere?

He's ALIIIIIIIVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEE

[scaeagles]

Sports gettin' in the way. Nothing personal. Was helping with my son's middle school football team, then basketball season hit with me coaching high school boys, my daughter starting on her varsity team, and my son playing on his 7th grade team. Not to mention work where we were converting our massive customer database to SQL and rewriting software to be compatible with same. Basketball has two weeks left and work is back to being somewhat sane since our late December release. I took a much needed day off of life today (at least until my game tonight).

Glad you noticed anyway. :)

[innerSpaceman]

Wow, even I missed scaeagles!

[Kevy Baby]

*blink* *blink*

Do I know you from somewhere?

Yeah, been a while, hasn't it?He was anxious to let us know Epstein had died (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?p=356358#post356358)

[CoasterMatt]

Hey scaeagles! Good to see ya.

[JWBear]

Carefull! We don't know that he didn't what happened to him while he was gone. He could be a ZOMBIE!!!!

[Ghoulish Delight]

You excited to cast that vote for Newt in November, scaeagles?

[Moonliner]

You excited to cast that vote for Newt in November, scaeagles?

Looks like the welcome back love fest was short lived.

[Strangler Lewis]

You excited to cast that vote for Newt in November, scaeagles?

Be careful how you sling that around. Remember, your own son has Gingrich-admiring genes.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Hey, Scaeagles! :)

[Ghoulish Delight]

*blink* *blink*

the **** is going on around here? Who are these people?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

*blink* *blink*

the **** is going on around here? Who are these people?

I must have smelled blood... or ham. ;)

[scaeagles]

I confess....I didn't really miss you guys at all, I just hadn't heard a good ham or sphincter joke in a long time.

As far as who I am voting for.....I would vote for ANYONE over Obama. Meaning any one of the candidates that are or have been in the Republican primary process. I honestly do not know who I will be voting for in the AZ primary yet. But I do know that no matter who the nominee is, that person will get my vote in the general.

[Moonliner]

I confess....I didn't really miss you guys at all, I just hadn't heard a good ham or sphincter joke in a long time.

As far as who I am voting for.....I would vote for ANYONE over Obama. Meaning any one of the candidates that are or have been in the Republican primary process. I honestly do not know who I will be voting for in the AZ primary yet. But I do know that no matter who the nominee is, that person will get my vote in the general.

From my armchair, here is the breakdown I see.

There just are not enough Republicans (29% of population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states)) to get their candidate elected all by themselves. Even allowing for a good bit of voter apathy among the dems.

To get a Republican candidate in the white house they are going to have to pull independents in greater numbers than the dems. So the question is not so much who's the best Republican but who can pull in more independents. After all coming in second in a winner take all race is pointless.

So between the current front runners who is going to be better at getting the independent vote? Newt or Romney? Seems like a fairly easy question to me.

[Strangler Lewis]

What's the answer?

[Moonliner]

What's the answer?

Really?

Romey. Newt is a freaking flake ball.

[Strangler Lewis]

See, I don't agree. Well, I more or less agree about Newt, but not about who independents are likely to go for.

Did I say independents? I meant "cussed independents," who seem to get off on the candidate that says the biggest FU to everybody.

Romney is this year's John Kerry--a presentable but ultimately unlikable middle ground guy anointed to lose to the incumbent until we can come to some false consensus once again in four years that it's time for a change.

[Moonliner]

See, I don't agree. Well, I more or less agree about Newt, but not about who independents are likely to go for.

Did I say independents? I meant "cussed independents," who seem to get off on the candidate that says the biggest FU to everybody.

Romney is this year's John Kerry--a presentable but ultimately unlikable middle ground guy anointed to lose to the incumbent until we can come to some false consensus once again in four years that it's time for a change.

I never implied Romney would pull enough independents to swing the election away from Obama, just that he will pull in more than Newt.

When it's down to a two man race, Republicans are gonna vote Republican and Dems are gonna vote Dem. So all the current Newt'ers WILL vote Romney come election day. Just as Scaeagles said he would. So the more independents a candidate can get the better their chances are. That makes Romney the better candidate (unless a late bloomer shows up).

In the primaries, a vote for Newt is pretty much a vote for Obama and I find that amusing.

[BarTopDancer]

I confess....I didn't really miss you guys at all, I just hadn't heard a good ham or sphincter joke in a long time.

As far as who I am voting for.....I would vote for ANYONE over Obama. Meaning any one of the candidates that are or have been in the Republican primary process. I honestly do not know who I will be voting for in the AZ primary yet. But I do know that no matter who the nominee is, that person will get my vote in the general.

You can always write in Stephen Colbert ;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I confess....I didn't really miss you guys at all, I just hadn't heard a good ham or sphincter joke in a long time.

As far as who I am voting for.....I would vote for ANYONE over Obama. Seriously. You must be getting as sick of this damned private sector job growth and decrease in public sector jobs as I am.

[scaeagles]

Uhh.....I'm not so impressed.....

From this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-11-percent/2011/12/12/gIQAuctPpO_blog.html) article. I would link to the original story from the financial times but it is a subscription website.


In particular, it's this sentence by the Financial Times' Ed Luce, who writes, "According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent."
...
Since 2007, the percent of the population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7 percent to 58.5 percent.


And from this (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/first-time-jobless-claims-in-u-s-increase-displaying-seasonal-volatility.html), which interestingly tries to spin 370,000 new claims as good news, saying that the layoffs have been "moderately low". Great news for al those laid off that it was only moderate.

Claims for U.S. jobless benefits rose last week, displaying the usual volatility around holidays that has masked an improvement in the labor market.

Applications (INJCJC) for unemployment insurance payments climbed by 21,000 to 377,000 in the week ended Jan. 21, up from an almost four-year low in the prior period, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 47 economists in a Bloomberg News survey projected 370,000.



Not impressed with the job creation.....more and more people are applying for first time unemployment.

[Alex]

More last month than the moth before, but fewer than the 35 months before that.

Not saying you should be impressed but your quote does not support "more and more" when for the last 3+ years we've been saying the number needs to get down below 400k for it to be a good number and we've been slowly getting to it.

And important to note that a high first time number isn't necessary a horrible sign since even at the peak or the economy with 5% unemployment 300k a month were fired.

[scaeagles]

Indeed. Good point on the first time claims, however my point wasn't meaning an increase in the number every month but that every time a report comes out there are a huge number of first time claim, meaning more and more people are losing their jobs.

And I also don't understand the "we need to get it down to less than 400K". While every reduction is good, it hardly seems to be something that should fill us with happy feelings. I've heard the same thing, but don't get it.

[Alex]

Its because even in the best of times there is churn. The new froyo shop on the corner closes after 3 months, firing 4 people. Two banks merge and 1000 people are fired in HR as redundant.

That's not necessarily bad and results in first time claims. Lower is better but the floor on it will still sound like a big number and each individual in that number may be unhappy. But in itself isn't a big indicator of the strength of the economy. Now, I'd those 300k people are still on unemployment 8 months later, that's a real bad sign and more the case now then at the peak when 90% (making up a number) would have a new job within three months.

[BarTopDancer]

The Colbert Super PAC filed their paperwork this morning and disclosed it has brought in "a staggering $1,023,121.24".

[JWBear]

The Colbert Super PAC filed their paperwork this morning and disclosed it has brought in "a staggering $1,023,121.24".

Hmmm... I feel the sudden need to start a super PAC of my own...

[Ghoulish Delight]

WP headline: Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-the-most-polarizing-president-ever/2012/01/29/gIQAmmkBbQ_blog.html)

Well, with that headline, CLEARLY they have some cut-and-dry hard evidence of that claim, right?

The ONE measure they present is the gap between Obama's approval rating within the Democratic party vs. his approval rating from Republicans. They point out that the gaps in his first 2 years of office were the largest for the first two years of any President. Okay, interesting point so far...

Except note the ONE chart from the study that they republished. It shows that Bush owns the TOP 3 SLOTS for the largest gaps in history, and 6 of the top 10. And if you read the writeup on Gallup's site, it points out that Bush's first two years were buoyed by post 9-11 good will (such as it was). And the WP article even says things like, "While it’s easy to look at the numbers cited above and conclude that Obama has failed at his mission of bringing the country together, a deeper dig into the numbers in the Gallup poll suggests that the idea of erasing the partisan gap is simply impossible, as political polarization is rising rapidly."

All that without even bringing up names like, I don't know, Abraham Lincoln.

Fvck that headline writer (and their editor).

[Alex]

Yeah, big leap on the direction of causality implied in the headline (same as similar assumed directions of causality by Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, big leap on the direction of causality implied in the headline (same as similar assumed directions of causality by Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc.)

The stupidest thing though is that you don't even have to argue against their stupid definition of "most polarizing". Even using the definition they give, the numbers don't support the conclusion, and they published the very table that contradicts the headline. It's like declaring the Green Bay Packers the winningest Super Bowl team in history because they won the first two, then immediately showing the chart that shows 3 teams that have more wins than they do.

[Alex]

Oh, I agree. I just meant that even if the underlying numbers make sense the implication on the headline on direction of causality is unfounded.

[JWBear]

Speakingof Lincoln... Wouldn't the president whose election led to a civil war be considered "The Most Polarizing President Ever"?

[€uroMeinke]

Speakingof Lincoln... Wouldn't the president whose election led to a civil war be considered "The Most Polarizing President Ever"?

Obama still has a few months left of his first term...

[scaeagles]

Speakingof Lincoln... Wouldn't the president whose election led to a civil war be considered "The Most Polarizing President Ever"?

Indeed. And yet he is widely regarded by many as one of, if not the best, President ever.

It would be interesting to see if the things he got away with then wouldfly today under any circumstances.

[Alex]

I think Millard Fillmore was probably the most polarizing president ever.

Mostly because he inspired the name of a political cartoon that you apparently either really love or really, really hate.

[Moonliner]

Indeed. And yet he is widely regarded by many as one of, if not the best, President ever.

It would be interesting to see if the things he got away with then wouldfly today under any circumstances.

I guess it goes without saying that "greatness" is directly tied to being on the winning side

[JWBear]

I guess it goes without saying that "greatness" is directly tied to being on the winning side

That, plus his assassination turned him into a martyr.

[innerSpaceman]

It would be interesting to see if the things he got away with then wouldfly today under any circumstances.
Yeah, like suspending habeas corpus. That could NEVER happen today. :rolleyes:

[scaeagles]

I suppose I should have worded more carefully. Of course those things can and do happen today, but my "would fly" was meant to consider public opinion in regards to being the best President ever. Lincoln was regarded as one of the best....I am not among those that would consider Bush to be one of the best (if there are any at all).

It is interesting to think about how Lincoln would be perceived today and how his political motivations in many of his decisions would be spun in the modern day world of the press and politics.

[Alex]

Indeed. Good point on the first time claims, however my point wasn't meaning an increase in the number every month but that every time a report comes out there are a huge number of first time claim, meaning more and more people are losing their jobs.

Read something this morning that had this chart of the weekly first time claims number since 2007. Just thought I'd share to put the current numbers in context.

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen89551041-C0D9-02F1-CC53-09B33F61B778.jpg&width=600

[alphabassettgrrl]

Alex, I like the look of that chart!

[3894]

"Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if Romney is the Republican nominee."

Imagine the heaven of a bifurcation of the Republican vote between Newt and The Donald. Please, Lord, let it be so.

[Betty]

"Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if Romney is the Republican nominee."

Imagine the heaven of a bifurcation of the Republican vote between Newt and The Donald. Please, Lord, let it be so.

Wait - the news this morning was all about their thinking he would endorse Newt. That didn't happen? Huh.

[Alex]

Knowing Trump, if the news this morning had been that he was going to endorse Romney I'm guessing he would have endorsed Newt. It's gets him two news cycles and that's all he cares about.

Especially with the next season of Celebrity Apprentice starting soon.

[Betty]

I'm kinda hoping they all go neck and neck to the end, trying to rip each other to shreds the entire time. That sounds kind of bad when I type it out though.

[Moonliner]

Knowing Trump, if the news this morning had been that he was going to endorse Romney I'm guessing he would have endorsed Newt. It's gets him two news cycles and that's all he cares about.

Especially with the next season of Celebrity Apprentice starting soon.

I vote for Herman Cain to join the cast of the next Celebrity Apprentice.


But that's mostly because I never watch it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think I figured out why the Colbert Report suspended production last week. His mother was fine, Stephen just had to take a couple days to infiltrate the Indiana state legislature, where he managed to convince everyone he was freshman representative Bob Morris from Fort Wayne.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/21/10469492-lawmaker-radical-girl-scouts-out-to-destroy-american-family-values#.T0SUnEknS_M.mailto

I mean, this IS a Stephen Colbert joke, right?

After talking to some well-informed constituents, I did a small amount of Web-based research, and what I found is disturbing. The Girl Scouts of America and their worldwide partner, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), have entered into a close strategic affiliation with Planned Parenthood. You will not find evidence of this on the GSA/WAGGGS website—in fact, the websites of these two organizations explicitly deny funding Planned Parenthood.

...

The fact that the Honorary President of Girl Scouts of America is Michelle Obama, and the Obama's are radically pro-abortion and vigorously support the agenda of Planned Parenthood, should give each of us reason to pause before our individual or collective endorsement of the organization.


An excerpt from the response from a representative of the Girl Scouts.

Not only is Rep. Morris off the mark on his claims, it's also unfortunate in his limited research that he failed to discover that, since 1917, every first lady has served as the honorary leader of Girl Scouts, including Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush.

See? Clearly all part of an elaborate sketch on the Colbert Report, right?

Right? Sigh.

[Strangler Lewis]

Well, now, you never know. I have a friend who as a teenager years ago got a job washing dishes at a Girl Scout camp thinking he'd spend the summer starring in his own sex romp. The counselors all turned out to be lesbians.

At least that's what they told him.

[JWBear]

Imagine what it must be like to be married to that a-hole.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I could be wrong, but these last few days feel like death throes for Santorum. Going to the Jeremiah Wright well, Rick? Why, because that worked so well last time an opponent tried it? Everything he's said recently has just sounded like desperation to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

No, Mitt, there's nothing wrong with being successful in America. What's wrong is pointing to the spoils of that success as your way of connecting with people. What's wrong is saying, "I'm just like you...look at all the fancy cars I have and the super wealthy people I know!"

[BarTopDancer]

No, Mitt, there's nothing wrong with being successful in America. What's wrong is pointing to the spoils of that success as your way of connecting with people. What's wrong is saying, "I'm just like you...look at all the fancy cars I have and the super wealthy people I know!"
He read one too many US magazines.

Santorum wants the general public to remain uneducated and stupid. It's the only way he'll be elected. Hell, most of the Tea Party platform seems to revolve around keeping the public uneducated. College is for elitists and elitism is bad. See how elitist Obama is? And he is the debbil!

[alphabassettgrrl]

one of my coworkers says Santorum wants all the moms to home-school the kids. No college needed. But how smart are those kids going to be if mom doen't have the education?

And reportedly, Santorum holds more degrees than Obama. His problem is that college is a mind-expanding scene, and he wants good little sheep who will do as they are told, and not think too much.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Rush Limbaugh can go f.....

You know what, nah. Not even worth my effort. Anyone with the kinds of personal problems he's had that insists on lashing out at others the way he does just begins to seem to me like someone who is profoundly unhappy with himself and his life. At this point it's pitiable, really. I don't even want to be angry about his bullsh*t anymore.

I wish I could just let his bluster join the background noise, but I worry that too many people do still listen to him and are influenced by him.

[Alex]

I'm busy enough to be on the outside of the news beyond basic headlines.

What did he do this time?

[Ghoulish Delight]

He called a female law student advocating in front of congress of birth control coverage a slut and a prostitute because asking for birth control coverage means that tax payers are paying for her to have sex. When people called him an asshole for doing so he doubled down and said that since the public is paying for her sex she should release a sex tape publicly on the internet.

[BarTopDancer]

What he really means is he thinks she's hot and wants to see her naked.

[alphabassettgrrl]

What he really means is he thinks she's hot and wants to see her naked.

Probably not far from the truth.

[Kevy Baby]

Well, the name calling is stupid, but he is correct about this point:...because asking for birth control coverage means that tax payers are paying for her to have sex.However, paying for birth control is a helluva lot cheaper than paying for the kid (and the pregnancy care)

[JWBear]

And... There is nothing in Obama's contraception mandate that would have taxpayers paying for contraception covered under private insurance offered to employees of private sector companies.

[Alex]

Well, the name calling is stupid, but he is correct about this point

Perhaps much of the time, but there are reasons women take birth control other than to prevent pregnancy.

[Betty]

Plus - don't we pay for men to have sex with viagra? And birth control pills, to some extent. (If women aren't having sex, men aren't either, right? Who are they having sex with? oh. nevermind. ;) ) Most plans pay for vasectomies though...

I just feel that if men got pregnant too, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Seriously - no birth control. No abortions. And if you do you're a slut*. (but of course, he'll cheat on his wife and that's all fine and dandy.)

*oh noes! What century is this?

[alphabassettgrrl]

Yeah, pretty much. Lots of things insurance covers could be considered objectionable to some people: treating type II diabetes, high blood pressure, any cancer resulting from smoking, heart disease, vaccinations, etc.

But insurance covers lots of things that you'll never use but that other people need. It's a pool. That's why it's more affordable. So yeah, if it's ok to cover Viagra, it's ok to cover contraception.

[Kevy Baby]

I believe that contraception is far more likely to be covered than Viagra. I don't know this as a fact, but my anecdotal experience indicates it.

[wendybeth]

Lots of private plans cover Viagra, as does Medicaid, a fact that caused not an inconsiderable amount of controversy when it was revealed to the public. Apparently, ED is a medical problem- and unwanted pregnancy isn't? Also, the Pill is prescribed for a variety of medical conditions unrelated to desiring to prevent a pregnancy.

I'm willing to bet all those old farts like Limbaugh use Viagra.

[Kevy Baby]

Yes, some plans cover Viagra and some plans don't cover birth control. However, I would have a hard time believing that there are plans that cover Viagra but don't cover BC.

[Alex]

Lots of plans that cover Viagra also cover birth control. But are any plans required to cover Viagra?

It is the required part that is at issue. She definitely doesn't deserve to be called a slut or any other names.

But I have some sympathy for the question of whether it should be part of a government mandate that no copay be the minimal acceptable coverage for prescriptions.

I'd also say it is a sign of how broken having insurance be (generally) tied to employment is stupid, since once employed it pretty much creates a monopoly situation. Whereas if everybody who mandated to buy their own insurance on an exchange with certain price points, if contraceptive coverage is desired, and it really is cheaper in the end for the insurers as many claim (or isn't significantly more expensive), then it would become a point of competitive advantage for some insurance to cover it while a "conscientious objector" insurance plan can die on the vine if that means nobody wants it.

But instead we insist on putting a disinterested (for the most part) middleman in the equation and the employer is only going to care about cost.

[katiesue]

I thought this article from the LA Times last week was interesting. Healthcare Insurance: How the patchwork coverage came to be (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/27/health/la-he-health-insurance-history-20120227)

[Betty]

Are plans required to cover pregnancy?

[Snowflake]

Rick Santorum just lost himself the nomination (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/porn-titans-not-worried-rick-santorum-banning-business-192050828.html). Snort.

Rick Santorum has made a campaign promise to bar "hardcore pornography" from American websites, magazines and television, but industry giants who produce much of the nation's porn aren't worried that the crusading candidate will stop the multibillion dollar industry from churning out the next "Deep Throat."

[Gn2Dlnd]

^ Michael Lucas gives good duckface.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

That is his only face.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

NYC Bans Food Donations To The Homeless (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/) because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content.

I feel like this "solution" is worse than the problem.

[JWBear]

Mayor Bloomberg is just trying to uphold the free markets. No one should get food for free. If they can't affort to buy it, it's just their own tough luck! They should get jobs! No socialist give-aways! That;s the GOP way!

[Alex]

I would like to see the actual regulation as I suspect that the article is writing it as misleadingly broad (I suspect it is only second hand prepared foods, not "food").

I'm saying the rule is good, I just suspect it isn't quite as broad as described.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I know our local food bank takes some secondhand, prepared food, bread in particular, so there is a precedent for handling such things.

I would think something like bagels would be especially easy to track. They're not that complicated.

[Alex]

Not hard to track, but if you've also established regulations such as "City managed food kitchens must provide meals that are nutritionally balanced to meet requirements X, Y, Z" then not knowing the actual nutritional content for Neighbor Larry's Famous Clam Chowder Popsicles is an issue.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Feeding people who are homeless should be a high enough goal that a little effort is worth it. I mean, do you want to help them, or do you want to follow your guidelines and help them less? If I were homeless, I'm not going to care about the nutritional content. Food, bring it on, even if it's marginal. Beats eating out of trash cans.

[Alex]

One question would be: will anybody go hungry because of this. Is it a question of feeding people or not or just a question of what you feed them?

Again, I have no real idea if it a good rule or not. I just have a strong suspicion that the news story isn't accurately representing it.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Copyright Math (http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/20/the-numbers-behind-the-copyright-math/) (a TED Talk)

[innerSpaceman]

I'm glad you come here to link to all the things I think of linking to, SM. :cool:

[Ghoulish Delight]

Bleh, I am not pleased to see Obama appealing to "judicial activism". It's a stupid concept and will be easily taken advantage of by conservative pundits.

This whole thing could have been avoided if he and congress had the political fortitude to pass this thing the right way in the first place. If they had implemented the individual mandate as a tax instead of a fine (i.e., vote in a new tax for which you can receive a credit by purchasing health care) there would be no case against it. Functionally equivalent, but unquestionably within Congress's power. But of course, calling it a "tax" would have guaranteed it never got passed to begin with (despite being an identical end result).