RIM running scared...

I owned a Blackberry for 3 years before I got an iPhone 2 years ago. In the 3 years I owned a Blackberry, they did absolutely nothing to create any type of application marketplace. Trying to find apps for the blackberry was like hunting for white truffles in Northern Italy, hard and expensive.

After 3 years, I was able to interface with the Corporate Exchange server and play Brickbreaker. In contrast, Apple has created a superlative device along with an ecosystem of applications developers vying for your time and attention. Many of the apps are so cheap you can literally throw 'em away if you don't like 'em.

Apple does just fine with Exchange and I couldn't be happier. RIM sat on their asses and ceded the market to Apple. Now they're whining. Interesting to say the least.

in reference to:

""We've now passed RIM, and I don't see them catching up," Mr. Jobs said. He then argued it was going to be tough for RIM to create a competitive software platform and convince developers to make applications for it."
- Tech Rivals RIM and Apple Wage War of Words - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

World must be ending...

Maureen Dowd asked for "W" to show Obama the right way to handle the whole ground zero mosque fiasco!!!

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Our Mosque Madness - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Funny...

I expected Al Franken to be an asshole. I was right.

in reference to: The Mirthless Senate - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

As if I couldn't despise Dodd-Frank more!!!

The Congressmen as well as the bill...

Now we find that Dodd-Frank protects the flawed GSE mortgage giants, Fannie and Freddie from the capital requirements in imposes on private mortgage originators.

I don't know why I should be surprised. Barney Frank has been so far up their ass for the last decade, protected them from serious reform time and again, that you'd be forgiven if you thought he had a seat on the board!

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Too Big Not to Fail - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

You're doin' a heckuva job Barry...

By all means, let's stick around another decade. We're obviously doing the Afghans a huge fuckin' favor. Congress needs to ignore the fucking neocons and get the hell outta Afghanistan. If nuclear arms leak out of Pakistan, too bad, we live with it. M.A.D. is still an effective deterrent.

in reference to: Afghan Civilian Deaths Up 21% - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Unintended consequences...

How can you write a law that's this ambiguous? What utter bullshit. Seems completely ripe for abuse "from time to time" by the people running the CFTC.

Here's sort of a rule to live by - if you can't specify it clearly in a simple English paragraph, it probably shouldn't be written as a "law".

Obamacare (we have to pass the bill to known what's in the bill) @ 2000+ pages

FinReg (nobody effin' knows what it all means) @ 2000+ pages

At what point do we stop passing bills that we cannot understand? Dems are already backpedaling on the silly-assed financial reporting regulation of Obamacare which stands to cripple small business with really unnecessary paperwork - sort of the Congressional equivalent of searching the sofa cushions for spare change - because of the tremendous outcries against this unnoticed rule.

What other time bombs are ticking in these behemoths?

in reference to:

"According to the language of the law, sometime later this year it will become unlawful to enter into swaps “in excess of such amount as shall be fixed from time to time” by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. But what will that amount be, and when will we find out? What is meant by “from time to time”?"
- Op-Ed Contributor - Reap What You Swap - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Imagine the outrage...

If this were a Republican Senator...

in reference to:

"One piece of footage features a nameplate being placed outside an office or cubicle, and it appears the person named does not exist--not in voter databases, nothing on Lexus-Nexus [sic], no such person on Facebook or other social media. In fact, the only Elizabeth Ackland that could be found in Wisconsin died in 1877."
- God Save This Partisan Court - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Help Morons vote!

So, I realize I'll be in the minority on this. But, do we really want people to have the right (that's correct, it's a right) to vote if they're too stupid to fill out the registration forms without help? At what point does being informed become important? I know, I know, you can't take away someone's right to vote, but you could make it mandatory that they exercise said right and be able to fill out the damn forms.

Certainly know why Obama wants this to be enforced - these morons ain't gonna be voting Republican in the fall...

in reference to:

"The guidelines make it clear that people applying for benefits must not only be offered the chance to register but must be given help in filling out the forms if they ask. If states do not comply voluntarily, lawsuits are likely to follow."
- Editorial - A Welfare Check and a Voting Card - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Sounds like we're doing God's work...

Maybe if we continue to starve the beast, we'll rightsize this monstrosity that government has become. We bring the troops home and cut our military spending in half, roll back some that toxic Obama/Pelosi/Reid garbage, cut the corporate tax rate to be somewhere in line with the rest of the wold and voila, you've got a real stimulus.

in reference to:

"Government workers were walking the plank from coast to coast. About 143,000 temporary Census workers were let go, and another 48,000 government employees at the budget-strapped state and local levels lost their jobs."
- Op-Ed Columnist - The Horror Show - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Still an apologist...

While she gets in some shots, Maureen is still apologizing for the first Lady's tone-deaf behavior over the last few weeks. Amazing that the Times will let the Obamas get away with just about anything. Notice how Dowd can't help but take a parting shot at GWB as well? Sad that Dems are still blaming Bush for all of their troubles...

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Feliz Cumpleaños, and Adiós - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

I always loved Colorado...

Here's one more reason why. Taking on outrageous pension liabilities and saying - NO.

Look, both of my parents were teachers. I understand more than most the sacrifices they made from a career perspective. But guys, it's still a pretty good gig - 2-3 months a year off, and pay over the entire year. A rabid union that defends indefensible tenure practices, so once you hit it you're set for life, and reasonably good middle class pay.

You will not get rich going into teaching, but you will have a pretty nice job with a decent salary, great vacation plan, and excellent benefits. That said, go look at the costs of Immediate Annuities that would be needed to generate the same income streams promised these retirees. For a man, you'd need to plunk down $860,000 for that same income stream and 3.5% COLA.

Now, I got some great friends who are teachers - really good with their money and all that, but I can pretty much guarantee that unless they're inheriting it, they ain't saving that much ($860,000) money on their teacher salary, even if their salary over their working career had been $10K a year higher (which is wholly unrealistic) and every dime of that increase had gone into a decent fund earning a nice conservative 3-4% after inflation, they might, just might, get close to that $860,000 figure - much would depend on when they chose to retire.

As the Colorado governor (a Democrat) so eloquently stated:

“The New Deal is demographically obsolete. You can’t fund the dream of the 1960s on the economy of 2010.”

It's great that the government and taxpayers of Colorado yanked their heads out of the sand and said they had to address this now, before they bankrupted the state. Unions will want to sue - let 'em. You can't pay unrealistic obligations on the backs of the few workers who remain. The best of them will vote with their feet, and a shrinking tax base is a surefire way into bankruptcy - and guess what? Once there, a judge just sets aside obligations and current contracts in favor of far more Draconian cuts. It's better for the Unions to be an active part of the solution now, or passive participants in bankruptcy court.

in reference to: Your Money - The Coming Class War Over Public Pensions - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Oh yeah, almost forgot about that...

Nice of the Times to remind us that Obama was a liar before he assumed the throne...

in reference to:

"It was Mr. Obama who enjoyed such a rich windfall in small Internet donations as a candidate that he rejected the public option with its spending limits. He did so despite earlier promises to continue with a system that had served presidential politics well for a generation after the big-money corruption of Watergate."
- Editorial - A Campaign Vow Come Due - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

There you go again Paul!!!

One great thing about the Ryan plan is that it first focuses on spending cuts. It's the fact that it embraces the conservative theme of personal responsibility (vouchers, etc.) that drives Progressive morons like Krugman crazy.

Here's the thing. Nobody doing serious thinking about deficit reduction thinks we can get away without increasing the revenue side. That fight is over, and whether or not people like Ryan want to admit it, we're gonna have to have some changes in tax policy.

Some of Ryan's proposals on that front make sense, including the gross simplification of the tax code. I prefer something like the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer) but in any case, whatever tax code emerges, it MUST include all workers and income levels. The days of 47% of the country paying no income tax have to be gone.

But, as I said, the beauty of Ryan's proposal is that he starts by cutting spending. That's the key. It's like immigration; first you seal the border, then you address the "structural problem" of the 12 million illegals who are already here. The thing is, you stop digging the hole.

Then, once we've cut right to the frickin' marrow - across the board too, defense, everything - we see what we absolutely can't live with and find a FAIR revenue plan to address those shortcomings. Said revenue plan must be shared across all sections of the economic spectrum, not just those in the top 5% either.

I love the idea. Krugman and other idiots on the left want to start from the other side. They say, let's raise taxes and cover a higher level of spending, then stop the spending - at the higher level. Doesn't work, and they know it - once these programs are in place they never, ever go away - the only solution will be to keep increasing taxes as the programs grow organically to consume ever larger percentages of GDP. But, as long as we're paying people not to work, and subsidizing money-losing green-energy industries, people like Krugman will be happy.

We won't have many more opportunities to address our deficit problems on our terms. We have a populist wave of anger at the Democrats for spending, and a real enlightenment and mobilization around the deficit. As a new Republican Congress (I hope) takes over after the midterm elections, we could do worse than start embracing Ryan's ideas - they make a helluva lotta sense.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The Flimflam Man - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Sad? Absolutely...

Still doesn't mean we should be there. Unless we're willing to raise this to a level of death and destruction that will make the Israeli disproportionate responses look tame, we ain't gonna win this one.

This is not our problem - although it's sad that we've probably made things worse for these women by occupying their country for the past decade and in doing so, helped step up the recruiting of more and more radical Islam pieces of garbage.

This is not a reason to stay folks, it's yet another reason for us to leave.

in reference to: Afghan Women Fear Their Fate Amid Taliban Negotiations - TIME (view on Google Sidewiki)

On a par with the Civil Rights struggle?

Is it just me that gets pissed as all hell when bleeding hearts (like the Times' editorial staff) liken the protests against "stepped up" immigration enforcement to the 1960s civil rights movements of African Americans?

Go back and read that last sentence. What's the last word there? Lemme help you out - it's "American". The people struggling for Civil Rights in the 60s were American citizens.

Nobody is suggesting that the rights of Mexican (or Honduran, or Costa Rican, or Ecuadoran) Americans be curtailed. But folks, let's get this straight - illegal immigrants are criminals. Nonviolent? Sure. Willing to do work that many Americans won't? Absolutely! Doesn't change the fact that by being here without official permission, they are breaking the law.

You don't like the law? Fine - elect people to Congress who will change the law to make you happy. But do NOT come down on Arizona for seeking to enforce the laws that the Federal government has ignored. And don't give me that bullshit about enforcement actions and deportations increasing under Obama's watch - that dog won't hunt.

We have a problem on our border - we need to seal it. Some would say that we should make it very, very difficult to get across and I'm sort of OK with that - why shouldn't we treat illegals like invaders? But if that's too Draconian for you, fine - either way you gotta seal the border.

Secondly, we need a way to ensure that only legal American citizens can work in this country. As a Libertarian, my stomach turns at the thought of a national ID card, but as much as I hate it, it's probably the only way to ensure that there are no jobs for criminals period. And, we need to make the penalties for those who hire illegals particularly onerous. They need to be so bad that nobody will want to run afoul of the law.

I also see no earthly reason why criminals should be allowed to consume emergency health care. If someone shows up who cannot prove his/her citizenship you don't turn 'em away - you treat 'em and you alert the authorities. Said criminal is then on the next deportation cruise to Guadalajara. They show up again? They go to American Federal prison where they do hard labor - maybe building roads or whatever - welcome to the land of opportunity!

You do this right, and voila - immigration problems are a thing of the past.

in reference to: Editorial Observer - The Hunt for American Decency in the Arizona Quicksand - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Thank God we bailed 'em out...

Love, love, love this! Scathing indictment of the utter failure that is the Chevy Volt. The UAW and their masters in the White House should be very fuckin' proud of this incredible accomplishment!

Makes me almost giddy to think of what they'll be able to accomplish when they start regulating the entire Healthcare economy - won't that be something? I'm sure that we won't be disappointed, same as I'm sure we won't see any rationing!!!

Way to go guys - nothing like the "invisible hand" of Government to keep things on the straight and narrow - with many apologies to Adam Smith.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - The Volt - G.M.’s Electric Lemon - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Tick, tick, tick - NY Times moron alarm clock in 3, 2, 1...

Uh- go back and read the editorial on how royally the largest owner of GM (that's Government Motors thank you) has screwed the pooch on the visionary (not) Volt.

Now, think about how much fun you had going through that cavity search at the airport the last time you flew, even though you and I and everyone else there knew it wasn't making that flight one bit safer...

Now, re-read this article. You really want to give the Feds (I'm sorry, Nanny McPhee) something else to fu*k up, er, regulate?

in reference to: Editorial - The Beltway’s Lethal Ride - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

The Times is right on this one...

Obama is a raving disappointment on civil liberties. I'm hoping there's enough enmity for the White House in the hearts of Congressional Democrats - Obama has screwed them at every term, although they've certainly abetted it - that they offer a rebuke and deny this wholly unreasonable request for additional warrant-less searches.

Unbelievable the chutzpah of this guy - Obama is a mendacious piece of sh*t.

in reference to: Editorial - Breaking a Promise on Surveillance - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Nice to see Paul almost pleading at the end...

Elizabeth Warren is a bitch on wheels and represents the worst militant aspects of the Progressive movement. I believe the President, even one as disappointing as Obama, should have the right to nominate those individuals he chooses to head important agencies or to the bench.

That said, Warren is far too polarizing a figure to be entrusted with an agency that, by their own admission, most Congress-persons do not yet know how it will operate. There is much potential for mischief here, and a steady, reasonable choice is called for.

Republicans would be within their right to filibuster such a nominee, and I would absolutely support it. Obama should go deeper into his list for this one.

Back to the rest of the article. Couple of shockers - in the last paragraph, Krugman excoriates Progressives, suggesting that if they stay home because Obama has disappointed them, they're culpable for the (coming) Republican onslaught.

As one of the people who had hopes that, while Progressive, Obama could at least be counted on to repeal the worst assaults on individual rights of the Bush administration, I see know reason for Progressives to support someone who has abandoned them so totally.

Second, it amazed me to see the lead sentence of the penultimate paragraph - "O.K. I don't really know what's going on." Humility from Krugman - get outta town!!!

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Curbing Your Enthusiasm - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Blah, blah, blah...

Maybe rather than bitching about the exposure of "secret" materiel - and really, what isn't these days of BushObama - perhaps you'd be better off heeding the majority of your nation who realizes that this war is lost already. It's time to bring the troops home morons.

This felonious behavior you condemn has another name where I come from - Patriotism. Look it up, there ain't much floating around the White House these days.

in reference to: Statement of National Security Advisor General James Jones on Wikileaks | The White House (view on Google Sidewiki)

See Tom Friedman if you wanna get this done...

Let Obama try it before the midterms. Dems are already fu*ked - don't see how this helps 'em. And, if they really care about it, they should embrace Tom (Kermit) Friedman's prescription to ensure that all revenues from the carbon tax be:

- 1/3 Used to offset Corporate taxes
- 1/3 Used to rebate payroll taxes TO ALL WORKERS
- 1/3 Used to cut the deficit - along with matched spending cuts to balance out the new revenue of course

Offer this bill up and most of us fiscal conservatives will be all over it. No redistributive elements to the "poor" and absolutely no money flowing into the general fund for spending. The bill should be written such that a super-majority of the Senate is required to overturn or modify the revenue and usage provisions. 'Nuff said

in reference to: Editorial - Climate Bill Out With a Whimper - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Could we be saying adios to Charlie Rangel?

No cause for celebration my ass!!! This guy is a piece of garbage, and a race baiter. He has no business serving in any elected capacity. One wonders how he has the time to represent his constituents what with his full time job of evading taxes...

in reference to:

"It has been no cause for celebration to see Mr. Rangel in decline as allegations have surfaced on a series of serious misdeeds"
- Editorial - Congressman Rangel Faces Ethics Charges - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Friedman gets it partially correct...

Once you get past the whiny part, I actually agree with a lot of what Friedman says. Love that part at the end about rebating 100% of any revenues from a carbon tax in the form of tax cuts and deficit reduction.

Friedman's problem of course, is that sure you can probably find more than 7 Republicans who'd sign on if this was specified. But, there's no way in hell the Democrats would let that revenue flow out the door without trying to redistribute it to their constituents - the poor, the public (teachers/firefighters) unions, etc.

Instead of excoriating Republicans, why not turn the lens on the Dems? Demand that they make these revenue concessions if for no other reason than to paint the Republican opposition in a bad light? But that's not the way of the NY Times editorial staff.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - What 7 Republicans Could Do for America - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Bob Herbert = Moron

I guess Herbert's ideal world would entail us all reading each night (probably Marx or Lenin) by candlelight.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - We’re Not Ready on Nuclear Power - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

States rights - or wrongs?

So, it's OK to recognize states' sovereignty when it represents a cause you approve of (Gay Marriage) - but when it's something you disagree with (Obamacare health mandates) - then, well states can't supersede the Fed!

Now, please folks, don't misinterpret me. I couldn't give two shits about whether or not gays marry - I'm a live and let live kinda guy. In fact, I'm a bit torn when I see states passing anti-gay legislation. On the one hand, I see Federalism at work and the majority's opinion being codified in state law. On the other, I see a group of people (gays) being told by a government that basically they don't enjoy the same rights as another group. As a Libertarian, it's hard to stomach that type of discrimination.

Point here, is that the Times gets all rah-rah when the court sets aside state laws it doesn't like (Gay marriage restrictions, AZ Immigration), and cries foul when the court might set aside laws it approves of (like gun control). You can't really have it both ways.

in reference to: Editorial - Redefining Marriage - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

So, it's cool to pass a law requiring me to eat 3 servings of fruits and vegetables a day - according to Kagan - sure!

Seriously, the scariest thing about Mike Myers - er - Elena Kagan joining SCOTUS is her seemingly unlimited view of the Commerce Clause. Liberals feel that it can be used to justify, well basically anything. If the Congress wants to pass a law that says you have to exercise every day - in Kagan's world that's perfectly reasonable as it could be argued that exercise provides a broad "economic good" by (potentially) lowering healthcare costs.

Welcome to communist era Russia! You can already see that she's absolutely gong to vote with the Liberal block to protect the Obamacare mandate - although it will be the first time the Commerce Clause has been used to justify forcing U.S. citizens to purchase something from private vendors.

And, I've heard the tired argument about how it's legal to require auto insurance. That's true, but you can also choose not to drive and voila - no requirement. The mandate is in no way linked to any exemption.

The liar Obama is now calling it a tax, hoping that by doing so he can squeak it in under the Congress's ability to levy taxes and fees. This after saying, vehemently on George Stephanopoulos' show (This Week - you can find the clip on You Tube) that it was absolutely not a tax!

in reference to: Kagan's Commerce Show-and-Tell - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

If you haven't tried this, it's pretty awesome...

Love being able to add To-Do items from Firefox. Pretty nice web interface too. Recommended.

in reference to: Toodledo : Your To-Do List (view on Google Sidewiki)

Dell Computer Sucks

So, 'bout a decade ago, I bought a Dell for my home system. State of the art at the time, nice machine - still a commodity mind you, but nice. I took advantage of the payments plan at the time cause it was something like no interest for some period of time - I thought I'd just pay it off after the trial period ended.

Anyway, I get the machine, and set it up - everything's great. I wait for some monthly bill to arrive; never comes - I get busy and forget about it. About 2 months later, I start getting collection calls from Dell. And I mean they're nasty. Real pricks. I explain that I'd have been happy to send them payments if they had just sent me a statement - you know, like every other company in the world operates.

Dell had the gall to tell me that even though they were wrong for not sending me statements (never figured out what happened) it was my responsibility to determine where to send payment, and how much to send!

Long story short - I sent 'em a check for the whole amount and vowed to ever purchase anything from Dell again. I'm happy to say that I've kept that vow for the last 10 years. I've held several management positions, up to VP, with purchasing authority and I've never once, in all these years, bought Dell either personally or (better still) professionally.

When I read something like this, it just confirms what I found out years back - Dell was a garbage company that had poor controls, and the worst customer-service I'd ever seen.

Since this will also get posted to my blog, I hope they see this. It's a post that was long overdue.

in reference to: In Suit Over Faulty Computers, Window to Dell’s Fall - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Andrew nails it again...

We can only hope that some rational Congress in the next two years votes to cut off funding of Obama's Vietnam strategy (and yes, I use that term intentionally).

I don't by the we have to stay because it makes us safe - that's utter bullshit. Occupying a country that really doesn't love us is feeding the recruiting efforts of militant Islamic groups - period.

Think of how much safer we'd be if we pulled the troops, then channeled 1/10 of the Afghan budget into securing our ports and borders.

Being in Afghanistan didn't stop the latest (Times Square) attack - but it certainly caused it. At what point do we as voters throw out all of those who would tie our security to the occupation of a country that has stymied world powers for centuries?

Afghanistan is the place foreign policies go to die. We would do well to remember that, and start bringing our troops home.

I can't begin to express how big a coward and a liar Obama is.

in reference to: Obama: Hostage To Petraeus - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (view on Google Sidewiki)

Stevens is right on this one...

Unbelievable that this can stand up to legal scrutiny. There'a a point at which we enter a Kafkaesque universe in which up is down, left is right, and arbitration clauses must be challenged by arbitration. Scary sh*t here, although to some extent you can understand it. Without any form of viable tort reform on the horizon, businesses have found a way around the courts by inserting these arbitration clauses. While I find 'em loathsome, I certainly understand the impulse.

Until we get serious about reform, and continue to allow jackpot justice in may areas, companies will continue to act in their own best interest. This is an unfortunate side effect of a business culture that's had enough.

in reference to: Editorial - Beware the Arbitration Clause - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Interesting analysis

This one has me entirely conflicted. I abhor the idea of more power accruing to the executive branches, especially in light of the last two to hold the office. That said, I detest the Sarbannes-Oxley bill - I feel it has made American corporations less competitive and has killed several potential IPOs that might have been great due to the fear inspired by having to deal with SarbOx compliance.

I guess on this one, I'll have to say I'm rooting for a limitation of executive powers - we've all seen how bad that can be with Bush/Obama; and the fear of what they've done and might still do definitely outweighs my loathing of Sarbannes-Oxley.

in reference to: High and Low Finance - Justices May Roll Back a Law Inspired by Enron - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

A great start...

Good news; especially about not getting the "Doc Fix" in. Now we can start seeing some cost controls "imposed" on Medicare! I never thought the Republicans had the stones to unite on this one. I'm heartened that they do.

I'm not for one moment thinking that there was not an intense political calculus to this - clearly, opinion polls citing a vast majority's concern over the deficit led to this decision, not some high-minded fiscal conservatism. But, the new crop of Republican nominees would lend hope to the fact that this might change. They won't be bullied or bought, and they understand their mandate is to shrink the beast.

This standoff is a great, great start. I'm not naive enough to think that the Doc Fix won't eventually go in, but the delay here might be enough to cause a good portion of physicians to say "Enough's enough - I can't trust the Government" and stop seeing Medicare patients. That alone might be enough to kill Obamacare and send us back to the drawing board to get a consumer-centered model.

I can dream...

in reference to: Unemployment: Outlook Grim For Jobs Bill Ahead Of Vote (view on Google Sidewiki)

So, I'm not as smart as you Stan...

How do we evaluate teachers? Do we assume that by virtue of the fact that they were once certified that they are always excellent? Your fundamental argument seems to be that you can't evaluate the effectiveness of educators until the "fullness of time" has passed. Does this mean that I have to wait till my kid's 18 to get a disastrous 1st grade teacher (who may have irreparably damaged the child) fired for incompetence?

How would I go about it?

Seriously - I'm all ears. In my job, I have goals that I need to accomplish. Goals are:

Understandable
Measurable
Time-boxed

I need to accomplish X by August 15th. It will be judged successful if the following criteria are met.

If I miss enough of these, guess what? I'm probably gonna lose my job. That's what I understand. Now, allowing for the fact that teachers are "different" - how can something similar be put in place? I really, really, really want to know? Cause if you can't measure it, you can't put a price on it.

Really - I'd love to hear the thoughts. I don't want some system that's highly subjective, cause that'll raise the usual "teachers are victims of capricious acts of administrators" or "nepotism, nepotism, nepotism". So, leaving that it has to be somewhat objective - how do we do it?

I'm for anything that provides accountability. But, it has to be measurable and timely - that is, you can't say it's measurable over 18 years - that's utter tripe. Help me out guys. Gimme a good answer and I'll carry the water for you.

in reference to: Deep in the Heart of Texas - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Hey Jo Bonner...

Fu*k off!

Obama strong-armed BP, probably using threats of EPA sanctions and Justice department investigations if they didn't acquiesce to the blackmail fund. One wishes they'd paid out all their ready cash in a one-time special dividend to protect themselves from the thieving hand of our government.

Like the abrogation of GM/Chrysler bondholder contracts this clearly exceeded the authority of the the executive. How's it feel to be governed by Hugo Chavez?

in reference to: Editorial - Serial Apologies, No Contrition - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

What a disappointment...

So, I was all excited to see what a nation forced to cut its deficit would look like. As I read further along, I became totally disheartened. The article is way short on specifics regarding the cuts that will be made, but very explicit about the way taxes will rise all over the godamned place (VAT, Cap Gains, Income, industry, you name, they'll tax it - the Beatles were correct, although Sir Paul as a billionaire seems to have had a change of heart, but I digress...).

Most discouraging is Britain's stated plan to create/extend a permanent underclass that pays no income or payroll taxes at all. As we see in the U.S., this is a recipe for building an entitled majority that allows a productive minority to finance their welfare. No incentives for them to improve their lot.

What could have been a great look into the future of our own country as the Chosen One and his merry men abandon all fiscal restraint and continue to generate huge, generational deficits, became just another manifesto on how to raise taxes. A truly wasted opportunity.

in reference to: U.K. Prepares for Deep Budget Cuts - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

All those words...

And not a single one devoted to spending cuts. A 'modest' VAT of course - Paul never met a tax he didn't like - but not an iota of verbiage about the spending side of the balance sheet. Interesting...

in reference to: Now and Later - Readers' Comments - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Emergency, huh?

If they really thought that spending more money to keep people from working was important, why did they lump it in with other general budget items? If this is such a great idea, not to mention a noble one, why don't we all just quit working and let the government pay us to do nothing? I mean, why am I going at it 70+ hours a week? So I can pay for the others' right to not work? Does that really seem right to you?

And, just because the Times says it's so, doesn't make this emergency spending, exempting it from pay-go rules. You want this, find a way to pay for it, preferably a cut somewhere else, not a tax increase.

Finally, taxing the "carried interest" of Hedge Fund managers as normal income strikes me as a really friggin' bad idea. All you'll do is start to throttle back one of the few drivers of new private employment out there today.

in reference to: Editorial - The Unemployed Held Hostage - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Hey Moron - we are prepared to live with it!

You know Bobby, if you really wanted to provide aid to the states (which I heartily disapprove of), perhaps you shouldn't have blown $1 trillion on a healthcare reform bill that's gonna continue to grow in size and be a boat anchor around your Democratic colleagues' necks for at least 2 election cycles.

Consider:

1) Laying off teachers potentially weakens the unions. This is a good thing and will make reform that much easier
2) One could argue (and I will) that the cuts that state and local governments are now making are just forcing them to a point of equilibrium. I mean at some point you have to wonder how they got to this point. That is, nobody told them to spend EVERY GODDAMN dime they collected when times were good - RIGHT?

So now, when the inevitable charge card bill comes due from years of spending to finance every Liberal dream imaginable, including expanding the Public Union's share beyond the dreams of avarice, they come begging, hat-in-hand to the taxpayers for salvation.

I say fu*k 'em. Let 'em drown. What do I do when I run out of money? I stop spending! I might ultimately declare bankruptcy. I suggest that what's good for me is good for profligate state and local governments. Bankruptcy is especially appealing. It would afford Senior status to municipal debt, which would in most cases prevent pension funds and investors from taking too much of a hit, and abrogate Union contracts that are driving most of the fiscal problems in the first place.

Image a world where governments are forced to live within their means. Just the same as you and me - wouldn't that be something?

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Unfazed by Reality - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Solution is simple...

Just have team Obama step in and set aside the contracts of the pensioners like they did with Chrysler and GM debt-holders! I mean, it's already proven that contracts mean diddly-shit to the Obama administration. Oh that's right! These are public employees - we have to protect them at all costs - they're union members!!!

So, as much as I loathe the public unions, I have to agree that they have the same rights as the bondholders that Obama screwed. I'm absolutely against the unilateral decision to reduce contractually guaranteed benefits. The solution is to let the states either:

1) Cut elsewhere - I heartily approve
2) Raise taxes - think you know how I feel about this - frickin' retarded
3) Declare bankruptcy - My favorite. This will allow the rule of law to abrogate the incredibly unreasonable union contracts and put the states back on sound footing. If this had been the approach for Chrysler and GM and the courts had dictated the outcome, I would have understood it, no matter how much I might have detested the outcome.

In any case - I don't know how I really feel here. I hate the public unions so much that any time they lose I'm a happy guy. But, I hate the idea of the government overreaching and potentially setting some (more) dangerous precedents even more I think. In this case, I kinda find myself in the uncomfortable position of supporting the union claims.

in reference to: Pension Cuts Face Test in Colorado, Minnesota - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

So basically Obamacare sucks?

What you're really saying, is that all of those critics - including myself - were right when they said that Obamacare's cost-cutting assumptions were flawed and based on predictions that would never, ever come true.

The doc fix is one of the most disgusting of all Washington phenomenons and yet so very predictable. Put in place a cost-cutting mechanism, then, when it's about to gore somebody's ox, in this case the doctors, immediately take a mulligan and pay the money anyway! It's a beautiful thing!

And, since the based Obamacare on the same type of flawed assumptions that Congress can overturn without requiring any sort of spending offsets elsewhere (or God forbid a revenue gain) or a super-majority to pass, we'll NEVER see any sort of the cost-containment "feature" of this mythical bill. Those of you who believed the CBO estimates on this were morons - they only provided political cover to pass the greatest expansion of government since LBJ. If these cost containment features are allowed to hold, the doctors will flee Medicare in droves - which wouldn't be an entirely bad outcome - we'd return to fee for service and people, even Granny, would start taking an interest in the cost of their own care.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Obamacare! Hope everyone is happy!

in reference to: Editorial - The Doctor Payment Follies - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Clearly, the only solution is...

More spending! The NY Times' editorial staff, including that pompous idiot Krugman never met a social program they weren't willing to break the bank on. What's another trillion dollars in deficit spending among friends?

It's a boat anchor around our children and grandchildren's future. It'll ultimately mean that people from our generation do not get what we're entitled to from Social Security.

Here's an idea - let's just stop spending. Don't do it. See what happens. We might all be pleasantly surprised by the way the capital and financial markets respond to a little bit of fiscal sanity and maturity?

in reference to: Editorial - The Wrong Message on Deficits - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Anything that hurts ObamaCare...

Is OK by me. Just what did these morons expect? They cut around $200 billion from the plans to pay for coverage for the uninsured, and expect the private insurers to not try to make it back? And guess who the premium increases and benefits cuts will hit? That's right - SENIORS! The most reliable voting block in all of America will be told by their private plan providers that the reason they're cutting services (teeth cleaning, hearing aids, etc.) and raising prices is because those Democrats in Congress fu*ked with their Insurance!

It's comical to see this moronic administration now try to bully these same providers into not raising premiums before the mid-terms. Comical, but certainly not unexpected. I love everything about this article - it captures the naked ambition of Administration and Democrats to kill Medicare Advantage. I can only hope we see something similar happen to Social Security should conservative/Libertarians regain control of Congress. What goes around...

in reference to: HHS Warns Medicare Advantage Plan Insurers on Rates - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

QVC Sucks...

You'd think they'd tell you on the air that their credit-card processing system is down. All they do is tell you to call back later!

Tried placing website order and it just says "we're having technical difficulties". Completely unacceptable. Used to love these guys. This is unbelievably shitty customer service.

in reference to: QVC Official Site - Online Shopping for Jewelry, Beauty, Electronics, Fashion and more (view on Google Sidewiki)

Call me old-fashioned...

Guess I'm one of those old-timers who believe the constitution means what it says, unlike Souter. And btw, near as I can tell, there's no constitutional right to "national security".

Pretty simple in my book; you err on the side of protecting individual privacy and liberty. You err on the side of providing the people with too much information.

Everything else is - to use Roberts' unfortunate metaphor - calling balls and strikes. The rules of the game are codified in the Constitution of the United States. End of story.

in reference to: Editorial - Justice Souter’s Counsel - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Screw Timothy Geithner

Apparently, the only prescription the Times is capable of touting is more spending. Let's get this straight - Germany managed it's financial situation better than the rest of the EURO idiots (Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.), but now it's Germany's fault - for not making them stop earlier?

How exactly was that supposed to happen. The enforcement arm of the European union was toothless, and that's not Germany's fault. Why should Germany have to bail out the profligate nations who allowed public unions to build a totally unrealistic wage/benefit structure?

Of course, the same could be said for US bailouts. The answer, as always is that Germany, and the U.S., are run by morons.

in reference to: Editorial - Germany vs. Europe - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Consider the source...

Couple things:

First, John Yoo is a piece of shit. A lawyer who helped advance the worst of the Bush administrations assault on human rights (torture and indefinite detention) and citizen liberties (warrant less wiretapping anyone), I'm actually kinda shocked that the hyper-Liberal Times acknowledges his existence. I guess a Berkley pedigree opens certain doors - but I digress...

If Kagan actually does believe in limiting Presidential authority, then by all means, we need to get her seated on the court as quickly as possible. First Bush (moron) and now Obama (liar, spendthrift) embraced the theory of a unitary (omnipotent if you like) executive branch which resulted in the demolition of our rights (some of which are listed above). Anyone who seeks to rein these assholes in deserves some credit and leeway; I don't care how Liberal she is.
Even turning these types of decisions over to a feckless (and almost certainly gridlocked) Congress is trading up from Bush/Obama.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - An Executive Without Much Privilege - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

More Obama Chicanery...

Another great Times editorial. Skip to the bottom - you already know that our real budget problems lie with mandatory programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) although I absolutely think we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and slash the defense budget to pre-2001 levels.

The great thing about the Times, is that the only sacrifice you see them calling for is in the form of tax increases - although at least they seem to realize that Obama's gonna have to break yet another campaign promise and hit the middle class as well as the "rich".

Never once do they suggest that the mandatory spending programs be reformed. Typical Progressive/Liberal garbage. Note also that the bill itself does nothing but allow the Executive to use rescissions as a political club to advance the White House agenda.

Also, since the bill targets only discretionary spending, which if you exclude the military (which nobody will ever vote to cut - it's unpatriotic you know, no matter how wasteful it is), doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to the mandatory stuff.

The downside is that it will be difficult for lawmakers to oppose this bill. Legislators of both parties should strongly consider a united bipartisan rejection of this ill-conceived bill before they cede even more power to an executive branch that is already out of control.

in reference to:

"rescission"
- Editorial - Waste, Fraud and the Truth in Government Spending - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

What utter morons...

At what point do we tell these dipshits that enough is enough? Like a cigarette tax or the lottery, this will be highly regressive, and worse, a naked grab for more revenue to avoid the common sense reckoning that spending cuts represent. Show me a study that shows a tax on soda reduces obesity - betting you can't, cause it hasn't been done.

When times were good - governments spent like there was no tomorrow, creating and supporting a permanent underclass that has known no patronage beyond the local, state, and federal governments that support them. There was no thought to putting money away for the inevitable bad times, and now that they're here, rather than starve leviathan, they are desperately looking for new ways to keep the party rolling.

Come November, the music stops. I'm hoping none of these idiots finds a chair...

in reference to: Merkel Loses Political Clout in Germany Over Handling of Crisis - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Bring it on...

Can't wait for this to be litigated, and it will go all the way to SCOTUS.

My guess is that if team Obama really thought this assault on state and individual rights was constitutionally sound, we wouldn't be hearing so much pooh-poohing of the lawsuits.

A conservative-leaning court that has been publicly 'dissed by the Chosen One, might tend to set some limits on the heretofore untouchable "Commerce Clause". Let's hope they do. The real beauty of such a decision would be that because the individual points being litigated aren't severable from the overall bill, invaliding one (or both) would invalidate the entire reform bill!

It's the audacity of hope I tell you...

in reference to: Editorial - Health Care Reform and the Courts - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

SCOTUS Dynamic will change...

Whether or not you agree with the decision, it underscores the importance of the Stevens/Kennedy dynamic. The court's split rulings always come down to how Kennedy will vote. In the cases where Liberal jurisprudence has carried the day, it has usually been because Stevens was able to persuade Kennedy to come over.

'Twill be interesting to see if Kagan wields the same type of clout - although I'm guessing not. I don't think by any means that Kennedy is a strict constructionist/conservative, although I think he leans that way. I think he loves the attention that the deciding vote - which he almost always casts - brings him and is looking for someone to help him see a way to rationalize what he's inclined to do anyway. There are plenty of carrots offered as well, the most obvious of which is getting to write the majority opinion.

I'm guessing that even if Kaga turns out to be a flaming Liberal, that the overall makeup of the court will tilt further right in the absence of Stevens as Kennedy aligns more often with Roberts and Scalia.

in reference to: Editorial - A New Standard of Decency for Juvenile Criminals - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Krugman's at it again...

When the Democratic party is really in the shitter, and there's not one damn good thing Paul can say about the economy, he turns to baiting conservatives, it's his comfort zone.

Bob Bennett lost in Utah because he voted for TARP, period. Wyden-Bennett was a good piece of legislation (minus the mandate) - certainly better than the abomination that passed for healthcare reform. But there's a good number of people who feel that TARP was wrong and unnecessary and Bennett paid the price.

Krugman is right in saying that Obamacare looks a lot like Romneycare. Romneycare was wrong, and is quietly consuming the budget of the state of Massachusetts. Deval Patrick (Barack Obama's mini-me) has already resorted to price controls for insurance premiums, and is poised to go after doctor and hospital fees as well.

Even Obama isn't stupid enough to go after the providers (yet), cause the minute the doctors stop seeing medicare and medicaid patients the game is over. I hope this happens soon by the way.

Calling for an end to the Department of Education seems like a true act of moderation and necessity to me. I'm less convinced about the Fed, but in general, doing away with large swaths of government bureaucracy wouldn't sadden me in the least.

Finally, he's unfortunately right about the right-wing media ideologues. Limbaugh and Beck make me physically ill. But, there are those of us - intelligent, fiscally conservative, Libertarian, individualists who are not racist in the slightest and think that the direction Obama and the Democratic party are taking us is unsustainable and wrong.

Giving voice to such opinions isn't wrong - it's patriotic.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The G.O.P. - Going to Extreme - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

WSJ again calls for us to surrender our liberties...

I've said this before (some of you probably hate hearing it), but it bears repeating.

"I don't care of Osama Bin Laden is calling me collect at home, you better by God have a FISA warrant before you tap my phone."

At what point do we realize that by surrendering our liberties to oppressive Bush and Obama administrations, we have allowed the terrorists to win? There is no such thing as perfect safety folks, and to think that it exists is both delusional and dangerous.

Extremists over the world wish to do us harm. Sadly, some will succeed. When this happens, we should focus on identifying those who are culpable, and killing them. Not a long-term military operation against peoples who have know idea why they're being invaded (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq), but surgical incursions against terrorist organizations resulting in their utter eradication.

What we should not do is blame our government for failing to protect us. We have to make a choice about how much we're willing to give up for this protection. I for one prefer to live in a country where my rights are preserved. If that means I'm a bit less safe then so be it. Giving Obama (or God help us, Bush) the ability to suppress or suspend our constitutional rights does not make us safer, just diminished.

We would do well to remember to ask the question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

in reference to: Surveillance and Shahzad - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewik

It's a good first step...

I'm a little concerned about what that remaining 60 points that is "locally determined" would look like, and what the scale would be for identifying ineffective teachers. For example, if you need to get 5 points or less (out of 100) to be ranked "ineffective" nobody's ever getting fired.

Again, I'm sure the local school administrations will still find ways to protect the morons, but, at least it starts to loosen the grip of the unions and their idiot seniority rules, and it provides a way for parents to force out the most egregious of the bad ones. All-in-all, it's positive.

in reference to: Editorial - A Deal for Better Schools - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

So, only Greece is bad?

This article starts off on a promising note, castigating Greece for profligate policies and calling on her to accept harsh budget cuts (apparently, only the United States should just spend, baby, spend).

But, towards the end, the article seems to indicate that other European countries that are currently in trouble (Spain, Ireland) suffer not from over-spending, but from a global economic crisis! I'm amazed that the Times doesn't call for more spending in Greece! Krugman and the times editorial staff seem to be in lockstep with the idea that only good old-fashioned Keynesian spending will bring these guys (including the U.S.) back from the brink.

Utter rubbish. The solution, as always is to live within your means - if the money ain't there, don't spend it.

in reference to: Editorial - Europe’s Bailout - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Kagan may be the best we can hope for...

At worst, she's another Stevens or even to his left. At best, she becomes for Obama what Stevens was to Ford - not what he thinks he's getting - a justice who's more conservative than Liberal.

Perhaps the middle ground is best, we have someone of Kennedy's demeanor, perhaps just to his Left, who needs to be led. She could be the deciding vote in several cases.

On the surface, I don't like the pick, I'd have preferred someone not from the Ivy League, but I guess it's hard for the Chosen one to see beyond those gilded halls. Given his background, I'd have a hard time opposing this nomination if I were a sitting senator.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - What It Takes - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

There's an easy fix...

Rather than the Progressive/Liberal knee-jerk response of price controls, there's a much easier solution. Just revoke the insurance companies' antitrust exemption and let the competition help drive down the costs.

Love the fact that the reason the needed to increase prices was due to:

"it lost heavily on policies issued to participants in two state programs that required Anthem to cover people with pre-existing conditions and capped the premiums it could charge"

Sounds a lot like what's mandated by Obamacare doesn't it? Means that without significant price increases it's not affordable. And don't kid yourselves about the "mandate". Assuming it isn't struck down as unconstitutional (which I pray for every day), nobody in their right mind would buy insurance if they're relatively healthy - they'll just pay the modest penalty and when they get sick, they'll buy insurance.

Meanwhile, team Obama (although God willing, he won't be around in 2013), will be forced to start setting prices for services, etc. And folks, that's the first step towards single-payer and rationing. As health insurers flee markets in which they can no longer earn profits, and doctors stop seeing certain classes of patients, you'll end up with the Liberals' wet dream of European healthcare.

Stupid, stupid, stupid...

in reference to: Editorial - The Anthem Saga - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Makes me sick...

She's ANGRY that the bank wouldn't do more to reduce her debt load? Who held a friggin' gun to her head and told her to bury herself? You can't afford it, you lose it. Good sweet Christ at what point do people stop asking for others to clean up their messes and take responsibility for their actions?

in reference to: When Mortgage Relief Is a Band-Aid - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Delicious Irony

To think that the Obama administration and his Progressive caucus have rent their garments and gnashed their teeth lo these past 5 years - railing against the injustice of foreclosures and asking that Bankruptcy courts modify legally binding contracts.

Come to find out that after all is said and done, and the foreclosures or discharges happen, the poor saps are also potentially liable for a big tax bill! Read the attached story if you can. I don't feel sorry at all for these people; the one in the lead took cash out 3 times! Why shouldn't she pay income taxes on this if the bank writes it off?

in reference to: A Surprise Tax Hit on Foreclosures - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Maybe more T-Shirt vendors?

While I feel that NYC needs to layoff teachers (and bunches of other public-sector workers) - if I were a teacher, I'd be livid that police officers are seemingly protected from Bloomberg's (asshole that he is) cuts. All because of this past weekend's bomb scare.

Near as I can tell, we probably need more T-Shirt vendors than police officers, as the police didn't seem to do squat to prevent the bomb entering the city but a vendor certainly identified the problem. And, the actual suspect was seized after the feds got involved. What exactly did the NYC Police Department do?

in reference to: Editorial - Blame Albany - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

How original!!!

As much as I normally disagree with Tom and his shrill, metronomic calls for "Green" investment, I was hanging in with him till he got to that point about how the Chosen One could turn it all around - to wit (paraphrased):

"I want to keep any revenue we generate here to build American schools, American highways, American high-speed rail, American research labs and American economic strength"

So, Tom would be in favor of adding the revenue from cap-n-trade (or a carbon tax) to the general fund to basically encourage more spending? Wow, what an original idea...NOT. Until the revenue from any such tax is refunded to the people or earmarked specifically for deficit reduction, you can pound sand. And, I hope every fiscal conservative out there sees it for the naked revenue grab that it is and votes it down.

in reference to:

"I want to keep any revenue we generate here to build American schools, American highways, American high-speed rail, American research labs and American economic strength"
- Op-Ed Columnist - Failure Is Not an Option on an Energy Bill - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Sounds like the perfect outcome...

Given the abomination that was Obamacare, and the pending disaster that is the Financial Reform bill, sounds to me like Lindsey and Harry's feud might be the best possible thing that could happen.

I'm probably not alone in thinking that if recent bills are the examples of what we could expect on "Cap-n-spend" or "Immigration/Amnesty", we'll all be better off if they are stillborn in the senate.

in reference to: Editorial - A Dangerous Squabble in the Senate - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Might be the end for McCain

And he deserves it. After the disastrous pandering to the right in the 2008 presidential election - capped by his tapping the moron Sarah Palin as his running mate - he's abandoning all principle to keep his senate career alive.

Now, I'm the first to agree that we need some type of comprehensive immigration reform policy. And, I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that it must include some path to citizenship - preferably after several thousand dollars in fines are paid. But - and this drives me 'effin nuts about the Times - let's not make any mistakes here: These people ARE CRIMINALS. By entering our country illegally, they have BROKEN THE LAW. If you don't like the law, change it, but don't hid behind euphemisms like "undocumented immigrants", these people are criminals pure and simple, and deserve to be treated as such.

in reference to: Editorial - Come Back, John McCain - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

A bit of a misrepresentation?

So, the U.S.'s implicit military backup didn't exist as some type of deterrent to invading Israel? How many billions of dollars of aid will Israel receive this year from the U.S.? How many has it received throughout the years? How much cut-rate weaponry, of an extremely advanced nature, have we provided Israel with over the years to allow them to maintain a strategic superiority throughout the region?

Israel may not have "needed" the U.S. to intervene militarily, but let's not for one single minute believe that they haven't exploited the U.S. relationship to their strategic betterment.

in reference to: The View From Jerusalem: Israel is Anxious about the Obama Administration - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Wrong...

I'm pretty sure the facts of the case as represented are wrong - no surprise considering the source. My understanding is that the Christian group did NOT require members to sign a statement of faith, only that members who wanted to run for office in the club do so. That's not discrimination to me.

If I'm wrong and the Times is correct, then I submit an advance mea culpa, and agree that the Christian Legal Society at Hastings should be denied school funding.

Now, I despise the "Evangelical" movement. I believe they're responsible for co-opting and perverting the conservative agenda for 20+ years now, but in this case, they are absolutely in the right and I'll defend 'em as such.

in reference to: Editorial - A Case of Discrimination on Campus - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

How 'bout Fannie and Freddie...

I think Republicans should get behind this bill with two caveats:

• They should require that the same proposed regulations apply to Fannie and Freddie, including spinning them off to full privatization
• They should abolish the consumer-protection aspect of the bill. It's unnecessary.

Let's see what convictions the Dems have when one of their favorite Liberal programs (Fan/Fred) is up for the same emasculation they want for the banks.in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The Fire Next Time - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

'Bout time somebody said it...

We're basically paying people not to go back to work. Contrast this article with the silly shit from the NY Times op-ed page this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/opinion/13tue1.html)

Liberals (like the Times) want to exempt unemployment extensions from their own "Pay-go" rules, which require any new spending to be offset by either cuts or increased revenues (taxes). They claim that the unemployment benefits extension should fall under the category of emergency spending.

So, my questions are:

• At what point do we stop? We've already increased from 26 weeks to something like 79 weeks. When is the emergency over? If I'm unemployed, why would I go back to work - the government seems dead set on paying me to stay home - the rational mind (econ 101) would seem to think this is a great deal.
• And, if we're gonna support this ongoing underclass with my tax dollars, why don't we ask for something in return? Have these recipients of my "compassion" cleaning up the trash that lines the roads in my town. Have 'em stationed at malls to clean windshields or wash cars. For God's sake have 'em contribute a little bit to the people who are footing the bill for them to sit on their fat asses and continue to not work...

in reference to: Incentives Not to Work - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Who are we protecting?

I would dearly love to hear the Progressives' definition of "Predatory Lending". I mean really, what is it? Is it possible to pass a law that restricts credit for consumers who are too "unsophisticated" to understand the lending agreement? Who protects these - let's call them Darwin candidates - from themselves? Whose job is that? Oh that's right; it's team Obama to the rescue!

Could be this the natural circle of personal responsibility closing up again and the market policing itself, albeit in a quite destructive fashion? I read my mortgage agreement; understood what I was signing, and more importantly, understood that if I didn't make those monthly payments I would lose my home. How much simpler does it get?

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Bank Failures - Why Georgia? - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Health care cost control?

Paul, I thought you (and every other Liberal) said that Obamacare was awesome with respect to cost control. And yet, down about paragraph 12, you seem to imply that healthcare costs are still a problem.

If so, what did this trillion dollar boondoggle that just passed buy us? I'm just askin...

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Learning From Greece - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Good article

I actually have no problem with Cap-n-trade or an overt Carbon tax with one caveat:

None of the proceeds must go to government. All must be refunded proportionately (non-progressively) to taxpayers. So, the people who pay 95% of taxes would receive 95% of the redistributed revenues.

What do you think the chances are that this will happen? If the goal is to preserve the planet, clearly the policies are about limiting "bad" behavior, not increasing revenue. More like a fine right? If so, government doesn't need the money; the end that justifies the means is that climate catastrophe is averted, correct? If Krugman's arguments are to be believed then, we should have no problem returning the "fines" the taxpayers, should we?

Right. When's the last time you saw the Government give up a chance to take more of your money? And, believe me, you will end up paying more as the "cost" of carbon gets redistributed up and down the wholesale distribution chain. Why should we then, receive refunds for the increased costs? If Krugman and his colleagues are right, over time the fines received will decline to zero as we tax the bad behavior out of existence. And, through the miracle of the "free market" green energy sources will emerge to take their place, thus sayeth the chosen one. So imagine this utopian existence: in 20 years, the cost to heat your home via coal-fired electricity will rise to $1000.00 per month. But, that'll be OK, because using solar and wind, you'll be able to heat your home for only $900.00 per month! That's green energy making a difference folks.

in reference to: Magazine Preview - Climate Change - Building a Green Economy - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

"No" won't work...

Until the patients themselves are paying for a good portion of their treatment, rather than today's incredibly screwed up system where somebody else (insurer) pays, there's absolutely no incentive for people to consume less care.

It's analogous to your car insurance covering a brand new paint job if you get a small scratch in a parking lot, only if your company paid for this "gold-plated" car insurance. Other than the small inconvenience of having to wait for the car to be painted, why wouldn't you have it done? You wouldn't be paying for it, your insurance would. And, your insurance would be provided by your employer.

Sound familiar? As is, you pay directly for your car insurance, and set a deductible that you think you can live with. Damage that falls under the dollar amount of the deductible you either fix out of your own pocket, or live with. Car insurance is really there to cover catastrophes like major accidents. It doesn't cover routine maintenance like oil changes, wiper blades, etc. - it's there in case you have a true emergency.

Healthcare on the other hand, covers everything you can think of. Why shouldn't you be able to pay for a physical, or treatment for strep? You need health insurance if you get cancer, or have a major injury.

The entire system is skewed by third-party payers, and until we address this, we'll never bring down costs.

in reference to: Economic Scene - To Cut Health Costs, U.S. Needs to Learn to Say No - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Wouldn't it be great?

If the Supreme Court invalidated the individual mandate? BTW - since the there's no severability for that portion of the bill, the entire thing would be trashed.

It's a tremendous longshot. It's doubtful that the judges would want to take a stand on this, but there are a couple of things working in favor:

1 - As the (misguided) article suggests, there is no clear precedent on a mandate to purchase something from a private enterprise
2 - Obama's F-you to the court in the state-of-the-union address after the Citizens United might have pissed off the conservative block enough to return the favor

In the end, it's unlikely - I doubt that Kennedy will stand for it - but we sure can hope. And, it will definitely get there. No way Republican Attorneys General will drop this in the run-up to the midterms; best for them, it's doubtful the case would be argued before the next term.

Let's keep our fingers crossed anyway...

in reference to: Editorial - The Legal Assault on Health Reforms - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Meet Senator Robert Menendez...

A piece of shit. Strong-arm tactics that are probably illegal. And, I'm sorry, but what does diversity have to do with corporate America? Aren't these entities formed to maximize profits for their shareholders? Last time I looked, most corporate by-laws didn't include towing the Democratic Progressive line for diversity.

I'm pretty sure there are laws on the books protecting the downtrodden minority masses already - they're called "Equal Opportunity" regulations. Hiring entities are required by law (however misguided) to follow them. Menendez needs to get a life.

in reference to: Robert Menendez poll draws scrutiny - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

It was always Class Warfare - Duh!!!

When team Obama decided to avoid any serious attempts at controlling medical costs, there was only one way this legislation could pass, and that was to increase revenue.

Typical of the Liberal movement, the policies targeted the top 5% of earners, who already pay better than 60% of all federal revenues. Problem is, you can tax 'em at 100% (I know the Dems would love this) and still not cover the gaping deficit holes that are represented by Social Security, Medicare, and now Obamacare.

The larger issue is that an increasingly large percentage of the company pays little or no income taxes at all - in fact, a good percentage receive revenues from the government in the form of "earned income tax credits". It's extremely easy for this constituency to continue to ask for more and more when the price is borne on the backs of productive citizens.

This is the ultimate failure of Obama-care. It does nothing to force the consumers of healthcare to limit their consumption. Other than premiums (which most still do not pay), they have no idea how much it costs for any given procedure, and thus no reason to shop for better prices - why should they - somebody else is paying the bill. The sad thing is that increasingly, the "somebody else" is the American taxpayer.

in reference to: Economic Scene - In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Glad to see common sense prevails (for once)...

Clearly the schools and the D.A. had no business getting in between parents and children and disciplinary choice. Bravo to the court that smacked down the District Attorney, who sounds like a grade "A" asshole (along with the school officials). Clearly an episode of overreach and trying to make points with a conservative constituency. Perhaps time would be better spent prosecuting real criminals, and perhaps the schools should focus less on policing morality and more on educating students.

in reference to: Editorial - Prosecutors Gone Wild - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

How do I get my reward?

Hey Jimbo - windfall taxes are never a good idea. Perhaps instead of this perfect hindsight your conscience should have been in play on 9/19/2008 with the result of a "No" vote. You lost the high-ground at that time - don't try to reclaim it now.

And, I'm curious. How exactly would I be repaid? Or, would the receipts from these taxes just go back into the general fund for you to keep on spending? Or would it be a direct rebate? If that's the case, can I assume that it would only be to people who ACTUALLY PAY TAXES - or would it be for the Democratic constituents who live off the taxes of more affluent individuals?

Just curious - let me know where to get my check - I'll bank it against the day you arbitrarily decide that I make too much money...

in reference to: Jim Webb - How to reward taxpayers who bailed out Wall Street - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Still happy with The Chosen One?

He proves to be every bit the piece of garbage that Bush was. Absolute power and all that. The minute he took the oath, he through all his campaign promises over the side of the boat with respect to individual rights and transparency.

I'm literally dying to get to 2012. In 2008 I stood on principal and didn't vote for either Obama or McCain. This time I'd vote for Charles Manson if he ran on the opposition ticket and could unseat the most destructive President we've had in a generation.

in reference to: A little secret about Obama's transparency - latimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Uh - what?

I love David Brooks, he's more in the WFB school of conservatism and usually strikes a great balance between the rabid liberalism of the Times and the idiotic spiel of the Fox News crowd.

However, it feels like he mailed this one in. While I'm sure Phillip Blond is a great guy, the ideas that Brooks distills seem incredibly non-specific - push power to front-line civil servants - what the hell does that mean exactly? Some life-based examples that have worked would be great.

On the eve of the most contentious legislation to emerge in Congress in 50 years, Brooks is strangely silent on HCR, after making great arguments against it all week. I would have expected a reasoned assault to continue - I feel as though I've been cheated.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The Broken Society - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Carrots everywhere, but no stick?

Except for a very oblique reference to "weeding out" bad teachers, I don't see any real call for taking a hard stance on evaluating and FIRING teachers who aren't getting the job done...

More crap to keep the teachers unions happy. Until we get to a point where there's a system that measures the performance of teachers and provides a mechanism to get rid of those that don't meet minimum standards, we're never going to make progress on education.

in reference to: Editorial - Mr. Obama and No Child Left Behind - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Excerpt from David Brooks/Gail Collins "conversation"

I like the way David sums it up. Democrats will do literally anything to pass this abomination. As much as I hate the Republican congress under GWB, they never tried "Deem & Pass" with anything remotely resembling the importance of Healthcare reform.

This is pure and simple, a way for Democrats to avoid voting on the senate bill. Voters are smarter than they think and they will get hammered for this in November (thank God). I can now only hope that the Republicans use every procedural and parliamentary contraption known to the Senate to obstruct the Reconciliation process - especially the union giveaways.

in reference to:

"Yes, my own view may be distorted by the fact that I’m disappointed in the health care bill. But at least I violently opposed the nuclear option when the Republicans tried it a few years ago. I don’t think it is mere partisanship that makes me believe that representatives should have the guts to actually vote for the legislation they want to become law."
- Is Passing the Health Care Bill Really a Bad Idea? - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

A preview of Obamacare...

Guys, I know I'll seem heartless, but this is actually a good thing. Any development that starts to expose the true cost of medicine/care is knowledge worth freeing.

Sadly, with a nationalized healthcare system, with coverage rules created by fiat, we will ultimately devolve to this. Because Obamacare offers no hard cost controls (at least none that are legislative-proof), and nothing is done to share some of the cost of routine care with the consumer of the care, one of two things must happen:

Costs (prices) must be dictated by government - which is what you have here
Taxes must continue to rise beyond every confiscatory boundary we current respect, effectively killing growth for decades

Insurance was never meant for routine preventative care - that's like thinking your care insurance should cover oil changes and wiper blades. Insurance should exist to cover the catastrophic events in life. As long as we continue to think of it as an all-you-can-eat buffet (and there's nothing in Obamacare to change this), we're f*cked.

in reference to: With Medicaid Cuts, Doctors and Patients Drop Out - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Bobby's back to his normal hyperbolic self...

Pretty sure (but not 100% cause I'm lazy) that NUMMI was a UAW plant. If so, can't really blame Toyota (or any other automaker for that matter) for bailing. And don't let Bobby's whining get to you, California's problems are it's own fault, not Toyota's or yours or mine. And, you can bet they got more out of NUMMI in terms of salaries, local consumption, and taxes than Toyota ever did from the "dredging the Port of Oakland".

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Workers in California Crushed by Toyota - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Utter Rubbish

Krugman wishes away the fiscal problems with this abomination of a bill by indicating that future Congresses that back away from cost controls represent an indictment of our inability to control costs in general, not the bill itself?

Isn't that alone enough of a reason to scrap the bill and focus on a legislative-proof fix to healthcare costs? Do that, then do your Progressive magic and cover the uninsured. That's all many of us are asking.

If Krugman actually believes that this bill contains costs, why not simply pull out the cost control portions and pass this as a separate bill. Then tie increased coverage in tiers to actualized savings? You can cover as many people as you like, but you gotta pay for it up front. Isn't this how it should work?

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Health Reform Myths - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)