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?

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.

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%?

$22,000? Here is what I found. Not even close.

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...)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Damnit, is there NOTHING that China won't try to beat us at?!

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

Obama must be running on military time then.

Did you hear about the fake Apple stores?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Outside.

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.)

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

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

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

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

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

^ LOL

He should have said "lunch" ;)

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

^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 ;)

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

Fair enough.

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"!

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.

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".

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.

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 (which does mention that while official employment has remained flat, contractors have exploded during the last 20 years.

Here's 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.

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

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.

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.

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


(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.)

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.

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

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.

You ARE a mind reader.

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

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.

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

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?

Link to AP story

And of course everyone defines fair differently.

So what?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2011/sep/2...ch-ar-2450720/

One suspects the sheriff is misinformed.

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


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.

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.

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

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.

I think atheists are welcome at UU...

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 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.

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

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."

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.

Different kind of jail.

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

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.

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.

Speaking of unconstitutional:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/ne...nal-elections/

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.

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

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.

Calif. Appeals Court Approves Cell Phone Searches During Traffic Stops

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?

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.

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.

There, I fixed that embarrassing typo for you.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Only because I am sure I am not the only one curious about what Hank actually said, I am using one article (which seems to mirror what I am finding on other sites) to show the quote:And to be clear, my intention is not to take a side in this one, simply to post the quote and its context.

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

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.

It was a joke, Alex. :rolleyes:

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)

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

VAM

Methinks Alex "gets it" much more than most.

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

That's awesome.

Awesome!

:snap:

Very well said!

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.

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. Then we laughed so hard we cried.

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

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



source

Wow.

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.

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:

HuffPo Bingo

I hit bingo by page 2!

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.

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.

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

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

Oh, yeah. This.

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.

Trying to cover their asses. Closing the barn door after the horses have raped young children.

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.

I wonder if he still likes Cain.

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.

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.

err. Proprieties = priorities. Wow.

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.

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.

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:

OK, This Sux....
 

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:

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.

Maybe they'll build a theme park?

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.

I wish :rolleyes:

You, sir, are 99% prick

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.....

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.

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!"

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.

NSFW but so spot on.

Iowa "Nice"

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'!

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

Santorum did NOT say "black people".

He stumbled over his words.

Stephen Colbert turned control of his SuperPAC over to Jon Stewart. He's exploring a Presidential run in SC.

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

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.

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".

Heard on the radio today:

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

*blink* *blink*

Do I know you from somewhere?

Yeah, been a while, hasn't it?

That works too!

He's ALIIIIIIIVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEE

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. :)

Wow, even I missed scaeagles!

He was anxious to let us know Epstein had died

Hey scaeagles! Good to see ya.

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

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

Looks like the welcome back love fest was short lived.

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

Hey, Scaeagles! :)

*blink* *blink*

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

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

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) 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.

What's the answer?

Really?

Romey. Newt is a freaking flake ball.

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.

You can always write in Stephen Colbert ;)

Seriously. You must be getting as sick of this damned private sector job growth and decrease in public sector jobs as I am.

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

From this article. I would link to the original story from the financial times but it is a subscription website.

And from this, 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

WP headline: Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.

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).

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.

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.

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...

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 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.

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.

Yeah, like suspending habeas corpus. That could NEVER happen today. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

"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.

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'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.

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


But that's mostly because I never watch it.

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/20...nEknS_M.mailto

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


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

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

Right? Sigh.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

What did he do this time?

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.

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

Well, the name calling is stupid, but he is correct about this point:However, paying for birth control is a helluva lot cheaper than paying for the kid (and the pregnancy care)

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought this article from the LA Times last week was interesting. Healthcare Insurance: How the patchwork coverage came to be

Are plans required to cover pregnancy?

Rick Santorum just lost himself the nomination. Snort.

^ Michael Lucas gives good duckface.

That is his only face.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Copyright Math (a TED Talk)

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

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).

You mean "Copyright Maths"






*runs from room*

I most certainly do not.

No. It's "Copyright The Maths"

Wait, someone who was the CEO of the RIAA is an arrogant idiot? Color me unsurprised.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is proposing to ban all cell phone use while driving.

I think I agree with Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association who said:

The National Motorists Association? I had a lobbyist out there, and I didn't know it.

I know nothing about them, but somehow I'm guessing that, much like the NRA, they exist in part to find legalistic, reasonable sounding cover for people to act like belligerent a**holes.

But the campaign sounds like a good idea. I envision a series of billboards featuring topless women and big letters saying "Now that we've got your attention . . . put down that phone and watch the road."

For starters they can stop using the Amber Alert boards for anything but amber alerts and traffic updates. Everyone slows to read the long messages and/or they become just another part of the scenery losing their effectiveness.

Gov. Walker, we've got your pink slip all ready for you. Pick it up Tuesday evening.

:snap:

Hopeful. I've got a friend in Oconomowoc who is also hopeful

Guess the people of Wisconsin, on average, do approve of what Walker has done.

Can't quickly find state senator results on my phone. Did the recalls get just one of them?

I don't know what the heck goes on in Wisconsin, but really? REALLY?


I mean we recalled Gray Davis. He was about as offensive as a flea. Sheesh.

That's pre-Citizens United. We were outspent 7 to 1. As Politico said this morning, It's also pre-recession. Dear Governor was skillful at channeling anger that would have been rightly aimed at the financial institutions and their lackeys in government at school teachers, nurses, librarians, snow plow drivers, etc. - you know, all those who brought Wall Street to its knees in 2008.

As an ex-Californian now living in Wisconsin, I'd like to say that CA and NY are smarter and hipper than WI. You are not. Citizens United is a cash tsnumani.

Talking with people here and reading online comments last night and this morning, many Walker supporters seem to be misinformed. They believe that WI now has a budget surplus, no teachers lost their jobs, the public employee unions refused to make concessions, the Democratic challenger was going to take away their hunting guns. This is what the ads told them over and over again. None of it is true. My gut says that about 1/3 of the voters found these ads persuasive.

This is what Citizens United will bring to all 50 states for Obama/Romney. We will be drowned in never-ending airwaves slime. It will be at the top of our computer screen and on sidebars. More than $63 million was spent on the Walker Recall in this tiny state of almost 6 million people and on just a governor. We're about to enter presidential Citizens United territory. It will boggle all our minds. The informed can wade through, just like pre-Citizens United but multiplied many hundreds of times.

Now we wait and see if Walker will be indicted in the corruption investigation. The LoT lawyers will correct me if this is wrong but I understand that, traditionally, indictments of this nature aren't done in a 60-day window when there's an election. If you like salon.com and have time, here's a good rundown of the probe.

Yes, just one of them.

I have some, but not a ton of sympathy for people who are ill-informed and/or who are that influenced by television commercials. Sorry to be harsh, but stupid and/or lazy people get the government they deserve. If they didn't take the rest of us down with them, it wouldn't quite so sad.


Make no mistake, I AM sad for ill-informed and gullible people. Their lack of intelligence or sense of civic duty does not make them bad people, and I'm sorry for the trouble they continually get themselves into with their ill-advised votes. But I'm much more sorry for the trouble they continually get the rest of the nation into.

Don't people have cable TV in Wisconsin? I mean, who the frell watches commercial TV anymore, and when they do - who watches the commercials?


The way to beat back Citizens United is just to buy everyone a freaking DVR or Tivo. Sheesh.

Listen, I am so crispy-fried done that I am thinking of looking for a 9 to 5 so hubs and I can move. Know of anyone who wants to hire a vintage broad with mad skillz?

Are you out there, Scaegles? This is for you:

Ronald Reagan riding a velociraptor

His hat fell off. A true hero's hat never falls off.

At lunch today I overheard a conversation between two middle-aged women. They were discussing the Colorado shootings. One of them commented "Welcome to Obama's America!"

WTF? Really? What does the President have to do with the shootings?!

Because Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a secret Muslim homosexual born in Kenya Africa who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who brainwash good Christian children into becoming terrorists after getting them to eat Halal food as proscribed by Sharia law which is why we have to pass laws to protect our American traditions against such devious infiltrators who hate White people.

duh!

I would have had a difficult time keeping my mouth shut - depending on the circumstances, probably wouldn't have.

I thought Obama was "trying" to take away guns and ammo.

If everyone at the theatre had been armed, there would have been a different outcome when the smoke bombs fell and the shots came out of nowhere.

If he doesn't like the magazine, he shouldn't read it!

Because those bullets would magically find their way through the body armor he was wearing. Duh.

He was also wearing a ballistic helmet so even a head shot wasn't a guarantee. In the dark, tear gas, surrounded by panic.

The "if everybody was armed" argument always seems to assume an amazing amount of tactical training and preturnatural calm.

Or...

An armed moviegoer sees a dark figure, dressed in black and holding a gun slowly make their way through the smoke-filled haze half-blinded. They take that headshot only to find out they killed a police officer. Or, the police officer (who does have the proper training) sees their raised weapon and takes his own head shot.

Nah, still not comfortable with having a bunch of armed vigilantes running around, even in light of this tragedy. Some have proper training, many do not.

To me there's a pretty significant difference between rifles in the truck with an actual purpose and being so afraid of society that you feel the need to be armed while sitting in your seat at the movies, while sitting in class at school, while getting your hair cut at the salon, while eating at the local chain buffeteria. That's a mindset I can't quite get to, feeling so at risk that one feels the need to be able to kill other people at a distance at all times.

If everybody in that theater had had a rifle in the back window of their cars, I suspect just as many people would be dead.

Now, I don't really have that much of an issue with guns as a recreational toy. But while if there had been 200 more people with guns in that theater it might be true that fewer people would have died (though I don't know how true with the combination of the circumstances and his speed in shooting about 70 people in a minute or two), it is also true that if there had been one less person in that theater with guns then it is definite that a lot fewer people would have died.

Do you have concealed carry in CA?

Wisconsin does.

This sign is in the front row of a family pizza joint in a small town. I took the photo last weekend.

It is difficult for me to understand how someone could feel the need to pack heat to grab a slice of cheese pizza and a Pepsi. But then, I didn't understand the gun and knife very visible on the guy ahead of me at the gas station, either.

For killing Bambi, sure. For self-protection in a scary situation, maaaybe. In a safe small town? I do not understand.

No open-carry laws here that I know about. Was when we lived in Montana, though almost nobody did. My mom says signs like this are showing up in Minnesota now that they allow open carrying.

I'm not a supporter of Concealed Carry Laws, but I don't understand your point, 3894. Certainly if a gun is not needed to grab a slice, it's also not needed to catch a movie.

Except of course, when it is.



Supporters of concealed carry point out that an armed citizenry is a safe citizenry, and there's a certain insane logic in that (would a crazed gunman shoot up a movie theater if the law of averages says 10% of the audience would be armed?)

Of course, there's the recent Harvard study that shows a distinct correlation between states with lax gun laws and states with higher rates of suicide and homicide.

There are some decent arguments on both sides of the issue, but it's going to be pretty hard from now on to say you don't need to be armed to go about your daily consumer business.

Do you really want to go into a say a bar, where half the patrons are armed? I don't. And I don't think it would slow down anyone who plans the kind of attack in Aurora. They usually want to be killed anyway they just want to go down in flames.

My former sister in law was always armed (probably still is). I'm not sure why you needed a gun for brunch at the Del but whatever.

I don't feel that having everyone around me armed makes me at all any safer. All my family but my parents are all hunter/gatherer types so everyone's got a gun cabinet in their house etc and honest I have no problem with that at all. I just don't see how having a gun on you all the time makes you safer. Or anyone else around you for that matter.

I believe the reasoning is that if you knew the audience was full of gun weilding patrons even a psychopath would think twice before starting that sht.

Or, if you wanted to start ****, you'd wear a lot of armor and attack with a maximum of surprise and distraction.

Then there's the question of how exactly the police should charge into a room containing dozens of armed people in a mood to shoot things.

Because psychopaths are known for their reasoning?

No, but Holmes defies so much typically known about mass murderers, and now people want to take this new "type" into account. He did not want to go down in a blaze of glory or take his own life; rather, he's the first to peacefully surrender. Also, he's a very intelligent guy who may be psychopath, but not an idiot. In fact, there's quite a few murderous psychopaths are uber-smart - and yes, might not view a crowded room as shooting ducks in a barrel if it was assumed a few of the ducks could shoot back.


I don't agree with ANY of this concealed carry stuff, or even with the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but I do see how this might be a modicum of deterrent to march into a movie theater or pizza parlor or brothel and start shooting.

Here's my view on what has happened to my risk:

The odds of me being shot in a movie theater were not changed by by what happened in Colorado. At best, all it has done is highlighted that I had never really given any though to the odds of me being shot in a movie theater, and being freshly aware that such odds exist they, through a psychological illusion, seem larger than they were before.

Therefore, since the odds of me being shot in a movie theater are infinitesimally small I suspect that the odds of my life beign saved by 20 people in every given movie theater being armed and prepared to defend me against such an unlikely event is outweighed by the increased risk of one of those guns being in the possession of an idiot who will find a humorous (to everybody but me) way to accidentally shoot me.

However, that's still a small risk. And seeing as we are saddled with a 2nd Amendment that was horribly written in terms of anticipating the technological future, I generally go along with concealed carry and open carry.

That said, if I learn that you're a person who needs to be able to shoot someone at any time to feel safe in a remarkably safe society (even if not as safe as some others) I will probably judge you poorly. Whether you care that I've judged you is at your discretion.

You're assuming a psychopath would think twice... Or even care.

Just as with capital punishment, cases like these are all make weights. We say that we need a death penalty for Hitler or Bin Laden or Gacy when what we really want to do is execute the poor black kid who never had the chance to know better.

With guns, we use absurd cases like Holmes to get to our goal of being Bernard Goetz or George Zimmerman.

I'm also generally struck by the fact--perception?--that the people who want to carry guns in the interest of perfect and impenetrable security are the same people who want to drive overly large vehicles at unregulated rates of speed on the theory that you can't remove all risk--read, risk to others--from daily life.

V3894M

Looks like Romney is doubling down on his commitment to represent the wealthiest Americans.

Well, now 3894 will have to vote for Romney to support her state.

Democrats are smiling ear-to-ear. Yes, Romney has been working hard to gin up his base, which are merely anti-Obama and hardly pro-Romney. But every step he takes just alienates the holy-grail of swing-voters. He's already lost women, latinos and youngsters. Now with his pick of Ryan he's going to lose senior citizens. It's going to be tough for him to cobble together a winning recipe.

His only hope is that all the efforts to block democrat voting in Ohio, Michigan and half-a-dozen other states really works. This is all going to come down to turnout. Obama would be wise, imo, to lay off expensive advertising and invest in door to door bus service to get every democrat to the polls, and arrange entertainment for the really long lines.

Yeah, in the end I just don't see the Republican base being mobilized to vote FOR Romney. Just as the Democratic base had no interest in voting FOR John Kerry. It really at this point seems like the closeness of the poll numbers is on the strength of "anyone but Obama", but by the time November comes around, I think there will be a lot of, "Okay, maybe not anyone."

I'm not sure if I should be more alarmed about comments on "legitimate rape" or "armed revolution".

Up until now, I've always felt that the US is fairly even keeled. That is, that no matter who was elected, nothing seemed to change all that much.

This election feels so much more polarized. Am I just paying more attention to politics as I get older? Am I getting more entrenched in my views when I think "the other side" is go off the deep end a bit? Or is it that people say whatever they think will get them elected and in reality nothing much really changes. People are all talk but don't mean what they say?

I am appalled at the term legitimate rape! Seriously cannot believe what I heard and he worked on that with the new VP candidate! Scary stuff

I think I heard the squeal of glee from Claire McCaskill all the way out here in San Francisco.

VAM





I heard it, too. :)

All Ready for the Republican Convention!
 

Got my nerf balls and wadded up paper to throw at the screen.

I'm hoping we'll see Hurricane Isaak wash them all out to sea. That would be entertaining.

I think today's ruling against Samsung is a terrible ruling and severely restricts innovation and competition in any design market.

Okay, I'll assume that your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

To the extent that the ruling relied on design patents that should never have been issued in the first place it is a terrible thing.

It is not. I think it sets an awful precedent. Perhaps, with the patents in place, there wasn't much choice, legally, in the ruling. But it's a depressing result and those patents should never have existed. This ruling makes it impossible for anyone to design a phone with a large screen with a thin bezel, essentially giving Apple a monopoly on the smart phone market. And provides a blueprint for any other company to due the same with other products.

I rarely watch any of the conventions or speeches. But I ended up watching Obama's entire speech tonight.

Sealed the victory, which he was already on his way toward. Nothing substantively mind blowing in the speech, but "rousing" is the word I'd use.

I just can't see at this point the conservatives having enough enthusiasm to bring people out to vote for Romney. As evidence, I've only seen one Romney bumper sticker in OC, compared to the absolute blanket coverage of McCain stickers 4 years ago.

Then you caught my boyfriend* Dick Durban introducing Pres. Obama!



*Durbin gave a stump speech for Russ Feingold here a couple of years ago. The "crowd" wasn't more than 20 people. Durbin locked eyes with me the entire time. Hubbo kept elbowing me in the ribs but I didn't move.

Durbin and I had a moment, people.

A friend posted something on facebook like if you want us to stay out of your bedroom then pay for your own birth control and abortions. I'm going to assume the out of your bedroom is a gay reference and last I checked having gay sex requires no birth control nor would result in a pregnancy needing an abortion correct?

Sometimes I hate being from a small close minded town.

I know I've never been pregnant and I'm pretty certain I've never gotten a guy knocked up.

Give 'em something to talk about.
 

I love Al Franken. http://youtu.be/JIgamWn7IzA

That was awesome, Betty! :snap:

Mitt Romney should be the tester on new planes that have windows that go down. He's right, it's hot and stuffy and we should be able to get fresh air while sitting on the tarmac or if the person next to you is wearing too much, or not enough perfume/cologne.

For the record, other attendees at that event have reported that the line was delivered as a joke and received a laugh from the crowd.

Well they take stuff out of context all the time. So there. Or something.

Nope. Have you seen the tape? It was not delivered as a joke, and there was no laughter.

Umm, link please? I've heard of no such video.

Okay, found it.

Honestly, hard to say. He did have a smirk on his face, a self satisfied chuckle, and a bit of a shrug leading up to the line, though he kind always has a smirk doesn't he. There was some audible reaction from the audience, but with absolutely no pause to allow for a laugh, hard to tell if it was a laugh or a collective, "Uhh, wtf?"

Watched it a couple times, and I honestly can't say one way or the other. I have no doubt that he has no ability to deliver a joke, so it is very plausible that he though that was hilarious.

link. Judge for yourself.

Now why would I want to form an opinion based on fact when I can just have my own ignorant emotional position?

He was definitely not offering it up as a sober policy proposal, but - to my observation - not the same type of delivery as his other flat-on-their-face attempts at humor.

I can't go as far as "hard to tell" though. If it were a joke, I think he would have given some clue that he was telling it in the same vein of ridiculousness as it conveyed to all thinking people around the world. Also, coming directly on the heels of a rather serious (and appropriate) bit of concern for his wife's safety, there was nothing to indicate an instant segue to an entirely different tone of lightness.

Haven't seen the video but just from the transcript I read it not as asking why you can't generally roll down the windows on an airplane but why there isn't some emergency mechanism to break the seal of the airplane and allow external oxygen to flow in when the cabin is in a low oxygen situation. That there might be situations where maintaining cabin pressure might be worse than keeping it.

But regardless, I don't care much. Even if it was just a stupid thought that popped into his head, I've certainly expressed such stupidity when talking extemporaneously.

But you're not running for president, are you. And, in doing so, how many times do you have to say something retarded "extemporaneously" before it becomes an indication of a more serious problem (like, ya know, true idiocy).

Worse, to my mind, are the three recent occasions where Romney made specific policy statements in recorded interviews, "extemporaneously" - that his campaign had to immediately retract and denounce.

Oh, I don't put this kind of extemporaneous error anywhere near the same bucket as policy squishiness and self contradiction.

But to answer your question, I don't really take any level of brain farting of the type this item would be to be a sign of idiocy. Presumably I'm not an idiot and I do it all the time. No, I'm not running for president, but then I don't place speaking skills all that highly on my list of presidential qualities. Nice to have, but not necessary.

I don't think Romney would be a good president, but I'm comfortable thinking that without having to think him an evil or stupid person.

But I'm not saying you shouldn't find it important. You can judge based on whatever criteria you want.

It was obviously a joke, the kind of lame joke a political candidate makes when he's embarrassed to find his smoke-stained wife standing on stage next to him after he's just tried to have her murdered on an airplane to garner sympathy votes.

I just hope nobody dies of alcohol poisoning...

All participants will pass out within 10 minutes.

Mitts flag is bigger but I like Obama's tie better.

Watching with the 16 year old know it all (as all 16 year olds do)

Me - Mitt's eyes look bloodshot
Madz - he's probably drunk all the time
Me - He's Mormon
Madz - so
Me - they don't drink
Madz- Maybe it's a front

Madz - Mitt keeps getting redder. (pause) He IS a Republican.

I remember a post on some board or another with all of you....it was after the first Bush-Kerrey debate in 2004 when Bush was awful and got destroyed. I was depressed and came on and posted about those feelings.

I guess now, 8 years later, most of you know how I felt. True Bush went on to win - I'll beat you all to the punch - but that was a serious beat down.

True.

Obama needs to stop acting presidential and call his opponent a liar and a badman.

If acting presidential means avoiding eye contact, stuttering, looking confused and in need of a teleprompter, and having no command of facts, then I agree - Obama was presidential!

Agreed, scaeagles, Romney looked much more polished than Obama.

Too bad Romney just kept hammering on the $716b lie about Medicare. They both uttered some falsehoods but man, he must have mentioned it 30 times, and it's such baldfaced BS that his campaign won't let go. It's disgusting.

Add in that Obama was able to say um, hello, you might want to do some math, and I just hope people were paying attention to what was being said instead of Obama's stuttering.

First debate with an incumbent almost always favors the challenger anyway. Why waste the good ammo on a losing fight?

Win, lose, poised, clumsy, it does not look like a statistically significant number of potential voters were swayed from one candidate to another by this debate.

Hair Swap

If history holds, Romney is likely to close the gap by somewhere in the area of 2.8 percentage points, give or take. Which would put them in a statistical dead heat for national popular vote, but still leave Obama with a large likely electoral vote lead.

I suddenly find Romney much more trustworthy with O's hair. On the other hand, Obama looks like a preacher with Romney's coif.

I only watched the last half hour. At least in that window it didn't seem like there was any real beat down going on either way but I'm willing to defer to the quickly solidifying conventional wisdom.

I look forward to the quadrennial practice of the media deciding what both participants did wrong within 30 seconds of the debate ending then the candidates overreacting to those rulings and getting pummeled after the second debate for overcompensating.

I was told to stop yelling at the TV after he said this. Apparently I can't watch a presidential debate quietly. ;)

Kinda looks like Sharpton.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought that scaeagles.

How many cycles do it think it will be before a Democratic presidential nominee shows up at a debate in a red tie or Republican in blue?

I want to run just so I can show up in a green tie and blow people's minds.

I found it interesting that the whole Red State/Blue State only started in 2000.

I found it interesting that of all the televised first presidential debates between an incumbent and challenger, only ONE was won by the incumbent.





And that sure wasn't Obama ... it's kinda easy to guess who it was. :cool:

What???? You mean you don't think Bob Dole won Bob Dole's first debate with Clinton? :) Bob Dole would say "Bob Dole won that debate and Bob Dole knows all about debates and Bob Dole".

Then people will assume you're a Muslim... Or Irish... Which won't make any difference, becuase everone knows they're all terrorists anyway. Why do you hate America?

Well, how did you think I was going to blow their mind? Certainly not with cognitive dissonance.

Robo Romney

Indicate your position on the political spectrum for various issues, and Robo Romney will mine Romney quotes that agree with your position.

watching with the teen again. Romneys knuckles look bruised. Has he been in a rumble?

I lasted 5 minutes before I started utilization my special radio to headset microphone and telling Romeny to STFU you fvcking liar and Obama to answer the fvcking question.

I propose winner take all cage fight. More entertaining.

I nominate Alex for moderator.

I'll second that. Can we get a vote?

I was going to one-up by nominating Alex for President but I figure we should at least hear his platform first.

I was amused, but also kinda horrified by Mitt's 'binder' statement, then I got pissed when he said he was for flex time so the little woman could get home in time to cook and clean. Made me want to hit the next man I saw, which unfortunately was poor Eric. I continue to be amazed at the disparity between the sexes with regards to equal pay, work division in the home, etc. Amazed, and angry.

Obama didn't really answer that question either. And I'm sure that young Epstein--or whatever his name--was went straight home and dropped out of college to cut his losses.

It kills me to say that I am really respecting Gov. Christie for how he is not politicizing Sandy, working with Obama and the government and generally put aside his differences to do what is best for his state.

Now, it's probably too much to hope that once he sees how organizations like FEMA, and you know, the FEDERAL government and taxes will help restore his state that he will change his views.

It's probably too much to hope that all these people who are against government handouts will see how tax money and federal funds are useful. And if they don't, it's way too much to hope they will just ask their parents for money, or do it themselves, with no help.

Or, as I said on Facebook

I wonder how many of those anti-"socialist", anti-government assistance people will accept/demand/look for help from the Feds and State to rebuild after Sandy. And I wonder how Fox will spin it.

I had a similar reaction. My estimation of Christie went up several notches. And that it happened on Fox News was priceless.

This is not really politics, per se, but I wasn't sure where else to put it...

I've read or heard people make comments to the effect that whoever wins on Tuesday will be president on Wednesday. For example "I can't wait to see Obama moving out of the White House on 11/7!" "I'll be so happy to wake up on 11/7 and find Romney is now President!"

Don't these people have any understanding that the term doesn't end until January, and no matter the outcome on Tuesday, Obama will still be president until then? It drives my crazy.

In fact if Romney wins, The vans to move out the Obama's and the vans loaded with Romney stuff will show up at the White House at the same time the president is being inaugurated.

Here is a photo of that during Obama's inauguration....

If the Mayans are right it won't matter because the world will end before January anyway.

Yes. The residence staff have just 7 hours to pack all the outgoing first family's possessions, load them into the trucks; then paint, wallpaper, and clean before moving all the new family’s stuff in and unpacking it. Nothing is touched until the outgoing POTUS and FLOTUS leave for the inauguration, and everything has to be in place for the new family by the time the inaugural parade is over. It’s an amazing feat of coordination!

That's how we won the war.

I can see both a literal and metaphorical meaning in saying Romney will be president on the 7th. Before I judge, can you point me to an example of this?

Woot!

Same sex marriage passes in Maryland, and they will be able to honeymoon at our brand new full service casino! Now that's a good night.

I guess our honeymooners will just have to celebrate by getting stoned. ;)

Only outcome I'm bummed about so far is apparently we are still unwilling to give up the death penalty.

Yes, that was the one really dark mark in an otherwise supernova-bright election night. I'm also a bit sad that Michelle Bachman and Paul Ryan retain their seats in Congress, but oh well.

But gay marriage wins in four states, a near sweep of senate races, that presidential win, defeats of Republican loonies Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock (rape brand) and Allen West (general loonie brand), and more than half the California ballot initiatives going well is really quite a fantastic result. Really the best election night I can remember.

Watching the Fox News commentators coming unglued was fun too.

I missed all that and Diane Sawyer as well. Between hiding my eyes watching the initial returns, I was switching between MSNBC and CBS and Turner Classic Movies.

I saw the Diane Sawyer clips alleging she was drunk. Honestly, it didn't come off like drunkenness to me. To me she just sounded like her normal self, but maybe a little tired.

But reveled in the schadenfreude I absorbed from the Fox casters.

Apparently God doesn't like people who don't use their brain, or the science he created ;)

I think VicJac has crossed into the realm of mental illness.

Yes, there are people out there that truly believe that you can not be a Christian and a Democrat. If you claim to be both, then you are "false" Christian.

Clearly, having list the election their god has been revealed to be the false one. Hail Zeus

I'm trying to figure this "Christian" thing out.

Obama is a Christian
Romney is not

How did electing Obama over Romney disappoint the Christians?

I have to admit I wasn't sure so I Googled: "Are Mormons Christian?"

Holy hell did that open a can of worms......

Christians believe in Christ - that's the definition right? And Mormons do believe in Christ, they just added some mumbo jumbo on top of it.

The larger question need not be answered because the common ground is white people who believe in theocracy and generally short hair. As opposed to dark-skinned, long-bearded theocrats who are to be feared (probably correctly). This allows American evangelicals to profess love for Israel (Netanyahu-style) while simultaneously having little use for American Jews.

Thank you.

Yeah, apparently not quite that simple. Who knew religion could be so complicated.

Ask most devote Christians and they will say that Mormons are not Christians.

Yes but Mormons themselves, at least the ones I know, consider themselves to be Christian.

In my book, anyone who professes themselves to be Christian IS some type of Christian. Christians tend to disagree with this standard. The matter is rife with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Since how someone labels their religious beliefs forces no obligations on me, I don't care. And since there is no universally accepted sanctioning body I don't care if other people care.

Looks like we're going to go over the fiscal cliff. Can't wait to see how much more they will be taking out of my check. I'm almost thankful there's no hockey so I can axe cable without worrying about how I can catch games.

“at least for a few seconds, it’ll feel like we’re flying.”

Is it weird that I'm a little disappointed at how pathetic Glenn Beck's big reveal was? I mean come on, with that build up, you gotta deliver some good crazy Glenn. You're not even trying anymore!

What did Glenn Beck reveal? I think you're the first time I've heard his name in months.

Last week, before the chasing and the shooting and the booming, he jumped on the "Foreign national in the hospital that is quietly being deported" bandwagon. He said he had proof that the government was investigating him in connection with the bombing (nevermind that the person in the hospital was NOT being deported, reports conflated 2 different people), and that if Obama didn't confess before yesterday, he'd release that proof.

Well the "proof" was a letter sent to Napolitano, signed by 4 GOP geniuses in congress that read (and I'm only slightly paraphrasing here), "You keep saying this guy isn't being investigated, and isn't being deported, but we TOTALLY heard on TV that he is. So you got some 'splainin' to do."

If you kick me in the balls and then offer me an ice pack, don't expect a lot of thanks.

The first clue you've made a stupid decision - you can't be honest with your child as to why you made him "[cry] for about 10 minutes."

Good riddance

Ah, but summer camp is where I circle-jerked with all my supposedly straight camp-mates - because, well, for horny boys (i.e., practically all young teen boys), camping is to them what prison or the navy is to grown men. It brings out the gay in all - and all it takes is one. (But believe me, as the gay boy at camp - I was NOT the one to even suggest, much less instigate, us all pulling out our dicks and jerking off together in a big circle).

So (continue to) have fun at camp, ye Boy Scouts! ;)

Anatomy of misinformation

A story has been going around about a recently released document through Freedom of Information. It's generally headlined something like, "List of words that will get you on a government watchlist if you tweet them: Includes 'pork', 'emergency', and 'snow'" [or some other combination of individually innocuous words]

I read the report.


1) The thrust of the document is guidelines for monitoring ALL media outlets for information that will help Homeland Security get a picture of a breaking news story (fire, weather event, terrorism, etc.). It's not at all about any sort of long term tracking, it's about getting information about now.

2) While it does talk a lot about monitoring social media, it's explicit in saying that the interest in social media is for a) stories tweeted by major media outlets or b) tweets from any source that then get picked up and distributed by major media outlets. The document does not concern itself with isolated individual tweets. They are looking for NEWS

3) Social media is not enough of a source on its own to raise interest. Only when there's corroboration through other more credible sources.

4) There's a whole section about NOT including "Personally Identifiable Information" in the reports. Hard to build a watch list without personally identifiable information.

Nice job internet, way to uncover NOTHING

Well now.

Got a call, purportedly from my bank, about an automatic bill payment (HOA dues). No detail on the call. I logged into my account online and saw a message on the payment saying the payee was being investigated by the "Risk" department.

I called my bank (at their main number, not the number given on the phone message), and they confirmed that the call was legitimate.

It seems they were concerned about a word that was in the memo of the payment.

A couple interesting facts about that word.

1) It's been there since I started that recurring payment 2 years ago.

2) It's the name of our street and is also on the check as the street address of the account.

I pointed this out and asked why it was suddenly a problem. Apparently a new security policy.

After the call I googled the word.

Interesting fact #3 - it's the name of an ancient city in Syria.

Facepalm, GD. Wow! :eek:

You learn something new every day.

You live on Mosopotamia Blvd.?

Quick tip, Mr. President. When declining to get on board with a boycott, try not to say, "No one is more offended than me." Because clearly, people are more offended than you.

Question that I have no idea how to google. A lot of employers in the US keep workers hours to a minimum in order to avoid making them "full time" employees and having to provide benefits. My question is, in other countries with socialized medicine so that's off the table, is this also the case? Do they not let employees have enough hours to make a living?

The link comes up with a lot of US statistics. I guess to refine my question it's in countries where the benefits are off the table. Can people who who choose to, a lot work part time on purpose, get enough hours say at Target or McDonalds to be full time. Here the trend seems to be to hire more people so they all work less hours so they don't have to pay benefits. Am I making any sense?

I'm just wondering if taking health benefits off the table to to speak, would make a difference for people who work minimum wage in getting to work as may hours as they'd wish.

France, for example, had (a think the recent governments have loosened it) a 35-hour maximum work week with a pretty strict cap on overtime. One of the express purposes of which was to force employers to hire more people by limiting how many any individual could work.

Minimum wage is about $12/hour and I can't speak at all to how close to a living wage that is.

But yes, if there is no additional employment cost of allowing someone to work 40 hours instead of 20, I'm sure most employers would prefer to have one 40 instead of two 20. But there are a lot of things that muddy the issue on employment cost besides just healthcare.

Thanks Alex - that was what I was finding out trying to research - it's a pretty muddy subject.

While I believe the plight of the families of the Arizona firefighters make an excellent object lesson as to why relying on employer-provided health benefits is a disastrous model for the country, and find the whole thing tragic and depressing...I can't say I'm no board with the request for the governor to step in and grant the benefits. This doesn't seem to be someone using a technicality to get out of paying out what they should. To me, they signed up to be seasonal workers, and signed up to accept the limited benefits that come with that.

I have to agree. It's sad for them but it's what they signed up for. My Dad was a firefigher for a few years then a logger. Both considered seasonal workers. He never had any sort of benefits (at least from logging). Yes you do work more than 40 hours in the season, but you don't work year round. And they do get some benefits, just not the benefits they would if they were full time. They're kind of trying to make it sound like they're out in the cold. Even back in the day, early 70's, it was difficult to be considered full time. Dad went back to college to finish his degree so he could be considered and he ended up getting passed over. That was when he moved to logging.

Hmm. The civil case against Paula Deen was thrown out of court by the judge. Essentially because the judge determined that since the person bringing the suit was not the target of the alleged racial discrimination.

I suppose I follow the logic there, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it. As I see it, that means if I am at a workplace where the management is allowing the N word to be thrown around with impunity, and I'm the only one with enough courage to stand up to it, then I don't get the same legal protection if I decide to confront it, because I'm white and it's not aimed at me. Doesn't sit right.

On the work hours question above, there was a story on the radio about a group in France trying to counter persistent unemployment by reducing the weekly work cap to 32 hours. It did not mention a simultaneous increase in minimum wage.

I don't normally pick a horse in the Pulitzer race...or generally have any clue who the horses are...but I'm making the call this year on photography.



It's everywhere.

Never seen it before. What is it?

The girl found living with a Roma family in Greece. DNA tests proved she wasn't theirs so it was assumed she was kidnapped. But then they tracked down the biological mother who says she "gave her away" because she couldn't afford to provide. Which has brought speculation that she sold her. And thus, that little girl and that picture are now the face of the human trafficking problem. And as sad as it is to say this, having a little blonde girl as the image is probably going to make a lot more people pay attention.