rpm wrote:What would be worse, the use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity (which is probably what it would take at this point) that might kill hundreds of thousands, or having a the Iranians or their surrogates use a nuke on the Israelis, triggering a strategic nuclear response from Israel which would kill tens of millions?

No good choices here! For us, or the Israelis. It's really in the hands of the Iranians, who have showed no inclination to back down.

I guess it depends on if you value Iranian lives differently from Israeli lives. If Ahmadinejad is actually as dangerous as he seems based on his talk, sounds like preempting their nuclear capacity could be the safest answer for all involved. If he's a nut job who doesn't actually have the power/will to act on his bs, then seems like watching and waiting could be the smartest course of action. Seems like the consensus for now is on the latter, but I'm not sure what it would take to shift to the former. There's no way Israel is going to allow nukes to threaten their country.

klezman wrote:I guess it depends on if you value Iranian lives differently from Israeli lives. If Ahmadinejad is actually as dangerous as he seems based on his talk, sounds like preempting their nuclear capacity could be the safest answer for all involved. If he's a nut job who doesn't actually have the power/will to act on his bs, then seems like watching and waiting could be the smartest course of action. Seems like the consensus for now is on the latter, but I'm not sure what it would take to shift to the former. There's no way Israel is going to allow nukes to threaten their country.

Based on the last few millenia, what I've learned is that it's never bad policy to take the words of those who say they'd like to kill the Jews at face value. The magnitude of harm from the type 1 and type 2 errors are wildly asymmetrical.

klezman wrote:I guess it depends on if you value Iranian lives differently from Israeli lives. If Ahmadinejad is actually as dangerous as he seems based on his talk, sounds like preempting their nuclear capacity could be the safest answer for all involved. If he's a nut job who doesn't actually have the power/will to act on his bs, then seems like watching and waiting could be the smartest course of action. Seems like the consensus for now is on the latter, but I'm not sure what it would take to shift to the former. There's no way Israel is going to allow nukes to threaten their country.

I wasn't thinking of a differential value of lives. Rather, I think that if tactical nukes are used to effectively destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities, it will kill a few hundred thousand Iranians -- and undoubtedly a few tens of thousands (including Jews, Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians) as the Iranian surrogates hit back and the Israelis retaliate.

But, if the Iranians pop a nuke on the Israelis, killing some where north of tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Israelis, the Israeli strategic response -- the only response that a rational nation could make -- would entail the death of millions, even tens of millions of Iranians.

Arguably, even if one were concerned primarily with Iranian lives, fewer Iranians are likely to die if the Israelis or Americans take out Iran's military capabilities using tactical nuclear weapons than if the situation is permitted to fester until the mullahs get their hands on working nukes.

BTW, a lot of serious people think the Iranians already have a few nukes - possibly old Soviet or Pakistani weapons - but their reliability is highly suspect.

PetiteSirah wrote:Based on the last few millenia, what I've learned is that it's never bad policy to take the words of those who say they'd like to kill the Jews at face value. The magnitude of harm from the type 1 and type 2 errors are wildly asymmetrical.

I wholeheartedly agree. At the same time you're not going to go and kill every wacko who says they want to kill the Jews. I figure it's not worth the backlash from the rest of the world if he's not actually a danger. Not the same as not taking him seriously...just a question of how credible the threat.

rpm wrote:I wasn't thinking of a differential value of lives....

Gotcha. I can't find a flaw in your logic. Therefore somebody should attack the Iranian nuke sites...?

klezman wrote:I guess it depends on if you value Iranian lives differently from Israeli lives.

Don't forget about American lives. If we're talking about the U.S. waging war on yet another country over there, the value of American lives is worth mentioning. I would not be eager to sacrifice myself or any of my loved ones for this cause, so I'm loathe to commit others to it.

If the concern is for Israel's security, why not let Israel take the lead? Israel is a big boy, figuratively speaking. Why would we want to jump in prematurely? Would that send the message that we consider Israel unable to manage its own affairs? Would Israel even appreciate such a move, or would it rather we provide more of a supporting role?

chemvictim wrote:Don't forget about American lives. If we're talking about the U.S. waging war on yet another country over there, the value of American lives is worth mentioning. I would not be eager to sacrifice myself or any of my loved ones for this cause, so I'm loathe to commit others to it.

If the concern is for Israel's security, why not let Israel take the lead? Israel is a big boy, figuratively speaking. Why would we want to jump in prematurely? Would that send the message that we consider Israel unable to manage its own affairs? Would Israel even appreciate such a move, or would it rather we provide more of a supporting role?

The number of Americans likely to be killed in a war with Iran is not insignificant, but it would pale in comparison to the number of people who are likely to die in a war between Israel and Iran.

Consider the potentially existential stakes for the Israelis and take seriously both the often-announced Iranian intention to wipe Israel off the map and the even-more-often-stated Israeli determination Never Again to submit meekly to the destruction of Jewry.

It's not a pretty picture. There is a case to be made that the Israelis should take care of the Iranians - they're the ones facing the existential threat, not us (at least in the medium run).

There is also a case to be made that the job requires more muscle than the Israelis have, unless it's done with nuclear weapons (which opens a whole different Pandora's Box). Some apparently well-informed analysts say the Israelis have the capability to take the Iranians out conventionally (for at least 5-10 years, giving time to get rid of the mullahs), some apparently equally well-informed analysts say they don't. I don't know who's right. It's been 30 years or so since I had access to enough information to take sides in that debate.

As I've repeatedly said, there are NO good options here. I think the probability of a war involving Iran and Israel - with or without the US - within the next couple of years approaches unity asymptotically. The problem in a world of imperfect information (and the certainty of second-guessing by those opposed to any policy choice) is how to determine the least worst outcome, where even the failure to act decisively is a choice itself and delay may not be our friend, and then to do what we determine makes the most (which may not be much at all) sense.

rpm wrote:The number of Americans likely to be killed in a war with Iran is not insignificant, but it would pale in comparison to the number of people who are likely to die in a war between Israel and Iran.

Consider the potentially existential stakes for the Israelis and take seriously both the often-announced Iranian intention to wipe Israel off the map and the even-more-often-stated Israeli determination Never Again to submit meekly to the destruction of Jewry.

It's not a pretty picture. There is a case to be made that the Israelis should take care of the Iranians - they're the ones facing the existential threat, not us (at least in the medium run).

There is also a case to be made that the job requires more muscle than the Israelis have, unless it's done with nuclear weapons (which opens a whole different Pandora's Box). Some apparently well-informed analysts say the Israelis have the capability to take the Iranians out conventionally (for at least 5-10 years, giving time to get rid of the mullahs), some apparently equally well-informed analysts say they don't. I don't know who's right. It's been 30 years or so since I had access to enough information to take sides in that debate.

As I've repeatedly said, there are NO good options here. I think the probability of a war involving Iran and Israel - with or without the US - within the next couple of years approaches unity asymptotically. The problem in a world of imperfect information (and the certainty of second-guessing by those opposed to any policy choice) is how to determine the least worst outcome, where even the failure to act decisively is a choice itself and delay may not be our friend, and then to do what we determine makes the most (which may not be much at all) sense.

I wouldn't expect Israel to submit meekly, I'm just not in love with the idea of the U.S. running in ahead, guns blazing. Just as Israel is under a more serious threat than the U.S. is, Israel would also be made more vulnerable if we Goodnight, everybody! it up somehow (which is more likely than not). It just seems that Israel is in a better position to take the lead, being in close proximity and more intimately familiar with the threat. The U.S. can provide support where it is needed, but let Israel run the show. I don't trust our leaders on this. I don't want them in charge of any more wars, they obviously suck at it.

chemvictim wrote:I wouldn't expect Israel to submit meekly, I'm just not in love with the idea of the U.S. running in ahead, guns blazing. Just as Israel is under a more serious threat than the U.S. is, Israel would also be made more vulnerable if we Goodnight, everybody! it up somehow (which is more likely than not). It just seems that Israel is in a better position to take the lead, being in close proximity and more intimately familiar with the threat. The U.S. can provide support where it is needed, but let Israel run the show. I don't trust our leaders on this. I don't want them in charge of any more wars, they obviously suck at it.

I think the issue is more one of retaliatory response. If Israel is openly the primary "aggressor", the backlash against her is going to be much more polarizing to the region and probably will provide enough incentive for substantial, continuous attacks against Israel for years. Whereas, if the US takes the lead role, the backlash will most probably be similar to what it has been with Iraq and others.

If you are looking to minimize total lives lost, the US-lead option is probably best.

Of course, the Israelis have been addressing the issue "quietly" for years, with some limited success...

coynedj wrote:And by the way, my current home state of South Dakota is supposedly the second-freest state but it has never been on a woot wine ship-to list.

Methinks the criteria must be incorrect!

I browsed through the PDF, and there is a nifty pie chart showing the various factors. South Dakota is not so very high on the "personal freedom" list, and alcohol regulation is only 2.4% of the total. It's on top for "economic freedom." I looked at the economic factors, and it appears they'd have far less impact for the average working person than for business owners.

For my own purposes, I care about personal freedom more than economic freedom, so my favorites would have to be Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada.

I had a very interesting conversation with a criminal defense lawyer I know well at a bar lunch yesterday. He said that in the past decade, at least in the larger NYC metropolitan area in which we live, the commoditization of goods -- the vast increase in the availability of more and more sophisticated consumer goods at lower and lower prices (in real terms) and on credit -- has lowered serious crime rates significantly. For example, where there were some 30000-odd car thefts annually in Queens ten or 15 years ago, there are probably no more than 3000 or so annually today.

Similarly, certain types of assaults (on the street, purse snatching, etc.) has declined because of ubiquitous use of cell phones -- a mugger must worry that either the victim or a passerby can not only call 911 for immediate help, but can often take a picture of the perpetrator which will enable police to identify them.

Hence a larger and larger proportion of the crimes that do occur take place indoors, such as burglary, where the police presence and the other citizen witness presence is lacking.

Violent crime seems down as well as more and more citizens are armed.

And, of course, as other crimes decline, the proportion of drug crimes rises even if the absolute numbers don't.

Moreover, police will concentrate more on remaining crimes in order to justify their large numbers and budgets.

Food for thought.

rpm wrote:I had a very interesting conversation with a criminal defense lawyer I know well at a bar lunch yesterday. He said that in the past decade, at least in the larger NYC metropolitan area in which we live, the commoditization of goods -- the vast increase in the availability of more and more sophisticated consumer goods at lower and lower prices (in real terms) and on credit -- has lowered serious crime rates significantly. For example, where there were some 30000-odd car thefts annually in Queens ten or 15 years ago, there are probably no more than 3000 or so annually today.

Similarly, certain types of assaults (on the street, purse snatching, etc.) has declined because of ubiquitous use of cell phones -- a mugger must worry that either the victim or a passerby can not only call 911 for immediate help, but can often take a picture of the perpetrator which will enable police to identify them.

Hence a larger and larger proportion of the crimes that do occur take place indoors, such as burglary, where the police presence and the other citizen witness presence is lacking.

Violent crime seems down as well as more and more citizens are armed.

And, of course, as other crimes decline, the proportion of drug crimes rises even if the absolute numbers don't.

Moreover, police will concentrate more on remaining crimes in order to justify their large numbers and budgets.

Food for thought.

I wrote a paper once about conceal and carry, when it was still a new concept, and they interviewed a gang kid who said he only robbed obvious tourists now cause you never knew what local was packing. Made sense 15 years ago, makes sense now. I'm sad that was 15 years ago. I'm getting old.

rpm wrote:I had a very interesting conversation with a criminal defense lawyer I know well at a bar lunch yesterday. He said that in the past decade, at least in the larger NYC metropolitan area in which we live, the commoditization of goods -- the vast increase in the availability of more and more sophisticated consumer goods at lower and lower prices (in real terms) and on credit -- has lowered serious crime rates significantly. For example, where there were some 30000-odd car thefts annually in Queens ten or 15 years ago, there are probably no more than 3000 or so annually today.

Similarly, certain types of assaults (on the street, purse snatching, etc.) has declined because of ubiquitous use of cell phones -- a mugger must worry that either the victim or a passerby can not only call 911 for immediate help, but can often take a picture of the perpetrator which will enable police to identify them.

Hence a larger and larger proportion of the crimes that do occur take place indoors, such as burglary, where the police presence and the other citizen witness presence is lacking.

Violent crime seems down as well as more and more citizens are armed.

And, of course, as other crimes decline, the proportion of drug crimes rises even if the absolute numbers don't.

Moreover, police will concentrate more on remaining crimes in order to justify their large numbers and budgets.

Food for thought.

How does his theory jive with credit drying up over the past few years?

canonizer wrote:How does his theory jive with credit drying up over the past few years?

It's not so much a theory as observations in his criminal practice - he was saying that there was far less work for the criminal bar than there was a decade ago, and that there was more competition (sincere there were many out of work lawyers) for the work that was there. It doesn't affect him, because he and his firm are the place wealthy Fairfield and Westchester people go when they have a serious case, or when their kids get caught doing something they oughtn't and need to have a clean record. But, it's what he sees being in court regularly.

Must flee this state. The gentleman from Fairfax...so uncomfortably close to my current position. Must flee! Fleeee!

Usually I'm damn sorry if I read the comments, but this one is fantastic:

'If you can't say the word "vagina," you shouldn't be making laws about it.'

At least the governor took care of this nonsense.

chemvictim wrote:Must flee this state. The gentleman from Fairfax...so uncomfortably close to my current position. Must flee! Fleeee!

Usually I'm damn sorry if I read the comments, but this one is fantastic:

'If you can't say the word "vagina," you shouldn't be making laws about it.'

At least the governor took care of this nonsense.

course if you click that person's name and read some of the other comments she's made one says she can't believe she doesn't have herpes, cause all her friends do and she doesn't think anyone would "date down because of the herps".

Um......I would.

Vagina.

I know you guys aren't NYT/New Yorker (mag) types but there's a lot of gloating on the liberal/dem side about keeping the white house.

canonizer wrote:I know you guys aren't NYT/New Yorker (mag) types but there's a lot of gloating on the liberal/dem side about keeping the white house.

From my perspective, it would seem that it's warranted. The most viable option is Romney and I don't think he's religious enough (ironic to say that about him, seeing as he's a Mormon and all?) for the crazies who want Sanitarium.

canonizer wrote:I know you guys aren't NYT/New Yorker (mag) types but there's a lot of gloating on the liberal/dem side about keeping the white house.

We'll see.... I remain guardedly optimistic Obama will not be reelected if Romney is the nominee. The sheer scale of the disaster that has been Obama's presidency with respect to the economy, and the looming threat of the implementation of ObamaCare and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts (which even Geithner said would be a disaster a week or so ago) will concentrate the voters attention remarkably in the end. Remember, they (conventional wisdom and certainly the polls at this point in the races) didn't think Reagan would beat Carter or Bush I would beat Dukakis or even that Tricky D.ick (also known as Devious Richard) would beat Hubert the Happy Warrior.

kylemittskus wrote:From my perspective, it would seem that it's warranted. The most viable option is Romney and I don't think he's religious enough (ironic to say that about him, seeing as he's a Mormon and all?) for the crazies who want Sanitarium.

It's more that he's the wrong religion

bhodilee wrote:It's more that he's the wrong religion

He did make an admirable effort to sound as crazy as Santorum and Newt when the whole contraception thing blew up. I have to think it probably just annoyed moderates while failing to convince conservatives. Net loss.

I think Obama will win. Nobody likes Romney. People do seem to like Santorum, for reasons that I can't fathom, but I think (I desperately hope) that he's too crazy to win the general election.

chemvictim wrote:He did make an admirable effort to sound as crazy as Santorum and Newt when the whole contraception thing blew up. I have to think it probably just annoyed moderates while failing to convince conservatives. Net loss.

I think Obama will win. Nobody likes Romney. People do seem to like Santorum, for reasons that I can't fathom, but I think (I desperately hope) that he's too crazy to win the general election.

I don't think it's so clear. It's not that no one likes Romney, it's that no one loves Romney. Each of the others has some rabid partisans - Newt because he is brilliant (even if he doesn't have a steady executive temperament); Little Ricky because he sounds the social conservative clarion call (even if he's an ultramontane who's pining for Pio Nono); Ron Paul because he makes sense on the economy (even if he seems crazy as a loon on defense and foreign policy) - but Romney doesn't have any natural constituency. Moreover, I think that at least within the Republican Party - and probably with independents who don't like ObamaCare - RomneyCare remains an albatross around his neck.

I still have some hope that when voters actually have to pull the lever in November, they will realize Romney will do far less damage than Obama, and that an Obama Unchained would really have serious implications for our republic.

Romney himself isn’t the big problem – he’s far and away the most reasonable of the Republican candidates, as far as I can tell. The issue is that he has in this campaign proven himself to be willing to take any position to pander to the extreme right of the Republican Party. If elected President, would he continue down this course and allow the Tea Party members of Congress to set the agenda for the country? He has not shown much of a backbone so far.

kylemittskus wrote:From my perspective, it would seem that it's warranted. The most viable option is Romney and I don't think he's religious enough (ironic to say that about him, seeing as he's a Mormon and all?) for the crazies who want Sanitarium.

I think, given his financial commitment to the church, you have to give some sincere credibility to his religious leanings.

I don't want to sound particularly alarmist but Mormonism...strikes me as odd.

canonizer wrote:I think, given his financial commitment to the church, you have to give some sincere credibility to his religious leanings.

I don't want to sound particularly alarmist but Mormonism...strikes me as odd.

I think the religion, Mormonism, is totally wacked. But I think the same about Catholicism, scientology, and all the rest. Why does the "Mormon thing" bother you?

kylemittskus wrote:I think the religion, Mormonism, is totally wacked. But I think the same about Catholicism, scientology, and all the rest. Why does the "Mormon thing" bother you?

It has the dubious benefit of emerging at a time of reasonably strong record keeping/journalism.

There are varying reasons for the formation of any religion (defense against borders, inclusion/exclusion, health, explaining phenomena, etc.) but the first century of Mormonism looks like a period in which any senior Church member can make up new rules for personal gain. Coupled with institutional racism and an insular worldview, it's hard for me to see the good in it. The text doesn't bear any morality (the shining defense for the classic monotheistic churches).

Also...converting dead people (especially jews)? The golden plates in NY? The Native Americans as lost tribe?

canonizer wrote:It has the dubious benefit of emerging at a time of reasonably strong record keeping/journalism.

There are varying reasons for the formation of any religion (defense against borders, inclusion/exclusion, health, explaining phenomena, etc.) but the first century of Mormonism looks like a period in which any senior Church member can make up new rules for personal gain. Coupled with institutional racism and an insular worldview, it's hard for me to see the good in it. The text doesn't bear any morality (the shining defense for the classic monotheistic churches).

Also...converting dead people (especially jews)? The golden plates in NY? The Native Americans as lost tribe?

It's at least as believable as Marxism or Obamaism....

Santorum is my favorite candidate to pick on. The opportunities are limitless. He thinks pornography is bad, mmmkay? He's particularly interested in obscene, hardcore Boys. Go fig. . Am I the only person who is wondering what that means to him? I suspect he's doing intensive research on the subject. This is a fun quote: "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration." Boys. Go fig. > families.

For those of you who care more about economic policies, he wants to triple the child deduction. The child deduction is now $1000 per kid, unless you make more than $110,000. Then it gets phased out. Class warfare! Anyhoo, if it changed to $3000 per kid, how many more families could we add to the no-pay federal income tax group? Is that the goal?

He's awesome. I have to be pedantic here, though. "It contributes to misogyny and violence against women." In fact, sexual and violent sexual crimes against women and children have decreased in the past 15 or so years. Not surprisingly, the availability of pornography and the ability to access it anonymously via the internet coincides with that time frame. At the very least, psychologists who study such things find a correlation, and some ague a direct causation relationship. Boys. Go fig. is actually good from that stand point. Its effects on marriage are debatable. Addiction to Boys. Go fig. is the same as any other addiction -- it's a disease that would, and in fact, did exist before Internet Boys. Go fig. did. And watching pornography does not alter the brains of children. And it absolutely doesn't alter the brains of adults which are already formed and fully developed. On top of all that, I'll bet a whole lot of money that I could spend on Boys. Go fig. , that Santorum has watched more than his fair share. It seems that it's always the loudest opposers who are the most avid secret consumers.

chemvictim wrote:This is a fun quote: "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."

There are plenty of real reasons to criticize the Obama administration, from the viewpoint of the left or that of the right. It amazes me that the Republican candidates continue to simply make things up instead.

chemvictim wrote:Santorum is my favorite candidate to pick on. The opportunities are limitless. He thinks pornography is bad, mmmkay? He's particularly interested in obscene, hardcore Boys. Go fig. . Am I the only person who is wondering what that means to him? I suspect he's doing intensive research on the subject. This is a fun quote: "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration." Boys. Go fig. > families.

For those of you who care more about economic policies, he wants to triple the child deduction. The child deduction is now $1000 per kid, unless you make more than $110,000. Then it gets phased out. Class warfare! Anyhoo, if it changed to $3000 per kid, how many more families could we add to the no-pay federal income tax group? Is that the goal?

Apparently, there are well over 180,000 complete Pinkys on Facebook. I wonder how many "obscene" Boys. Go fig. sites sprang up under Bush? Um, that sounds wrong.

Also, what law is he talking about, there's Boys. Go fig. everywhere. Is "obscene" defined other than I know it when I see it?

I think this sums things up nicely.

I generally hate email forwards, but I kinda liked this one:


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.


These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

bhodilee wrote:
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

What would Romney do to change the status quo? Presumably he would take steps to repeal Obamacare. Is that it? Is that enough?

chemvictim wrote:What would Romney do to change the status quo? Presumably he would take steps to repeal Obamacare. Is that it? Is that enough?

I think he would stop trying to tax the hell out of the rich in some strange effort to help the poor. The problem is not one candidate will a) say what really needs to happen (cut back on every welfare-type system set up, stop spending money we don't have on things we don't need, and put the power back into state gov't at the least, if not local gov't) b) actually do what they say, even if they did say the right thing or c) stop this Mexican stand-off that keeps happening between the two sides so that nothing gets done either way. I am so f-ing sick of finger pointing at the sake of actually fixing the issue. Blame needs to be placed, but simultaneously, if not before the blame game, the problem needs to be addressed. But the system keeps 'em politic-ing.

I know others will disagree, but I don't see the Obama socialist outcome-leveling plan that is the premise of the story. Anyone can claim that that's what he wants deep in his heart, but if there's a secret plot for instituting 99% tax rates, it sure isn't being put into action so far.

coynedj wrote:I know others will disagree, but I don't see the Obama socialist outcome-leveling plan that is the premise of the story. Anyone can claim that that's what he wants deep in his heart, but if there's a secret plot for instituting 99% tax rates, it sure isn't being put into action so far.

I didn't see the communism angle either, rather I liked the explanation of "welfare" and found it humorous/sad/maddening.

Makes sense though, I know my raise here has nothing to do with my actual performance, so I don't try very hard.

bhodilee wrote:I didn't see the communism angle either, rather I liked the explanation of "welfare" and found it humorous/sad/maddening.

Makes sense though, I know my raise here has nothing to do with my actual performance, so I don't try very hard.

My pay is closely tied to performance, within a band. I can go up or down almost 20% if I'm a superstar of screwup. I do try hard.

ObamaCare is unconstitional. I'm hoping for judicial change.

PetiteSirah wrote:ObamaCare is unconstitional. I'm hoping for judicial change.

QFT