Rex Kickass

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 11:47 AM) the question comes down to: "when do these extended benefits actually run out?". Obviously an infinite amount of time is not reasonable. The problem is, there is a high probability that the jobs lost are not coming back and will not be replaced with new jobs any time soon. Extended benefits get phased downward when the job market tends to do better. The problem is that there are over 1 million people who have already lost or are about to lose benefits after 99 weeks of active job searching. Our job market fell so far, so fast that a lot of these people are long term unemployed, but not necessarily giving up. The market has just been that bad for that long.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2010 -> 10:18 AM) Well, the corps did lots of crappy crap on his watch as well, does that count? Actually to George Bush's credit, he did do quite a bit to reign in the excesses of the Corps in his first term.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 02:24 PM) They've offered to build several dozen stores. I find it highly unlikely an alderman would be advocating for those stores so strongly if he wasn't going to get one in the ward he represents. So Wal-Mart has cut a backroom deal with the alderman? Good! I don't necessarily think that a big box retailer like Walmart would be a bad thing for a lot of urban areas that need help attracting good access to food. I'm just saying that these big stores don't come in without a huge tax break... and the way I see it, if you can use the same money to help fortify existing small business and create more opportunities for residents in more neighborhoods rather than one big market in one neighborhood, I think that is the sounder policy move.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 01:51 PM) If you had heard the 9th ward alderman this morning on the radio I bet you'd change your mind. His ward has the biggest "food desert" in the city, 40% unemployment, the most crime in the city, the worst health in the city, ZERO hope. You have a huge company offering to pay MORE than minimum wage for jobs (1 BILLION to the city). They've signed a neighborhood benefit agreements (requiring them to hire locals) and they've signed a public works agreements (promised to use unions to build the stores). There's not a single argument against them at this point. It's politics, and the poorest of poor in the city are being hurt by it. Walmart doesn't put themselves in those neighborhoods. Trenton, where I live now, has some of the worst neighborhoods and some of the poorest neighborhoods in the state. They also have an Urban Enterprise Zone which cuts sales tax in half and plenty of areas to make something like that happen. So where is the Walmart? In Lawrenceville, 15 minutes by car away in a city where a lot of people rely on a poor bus system for transportation. It's funny, this isn't exclusive to Walmart either. Seemingly every supermarket in my city sits literally just across the city limits in a neighboring municipality. If Chicago asked Walmart to come in - do you think they'd open shop in the 9th ward? My money would be on "not a chance."

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 12:50 PM) Think of the cost of rent, or to purchase the space, for a Jewel or Meijer-type store. of course it is going to be more. That, plus the added security so they won't be robbed out of business all contribute to higher prices. And as mentioned above, the people have to BUY it. People do buy it. I know, I lived there. I had the choice between a supermarket in my neighborhood which stank of rotting produce and sold basic produce in poor quality for high prices (which, btw, people bought constantly) or spending 45 minutes getting there by subway, or walking three miles to get to a supermarket that had a decent supply of produce in reasonably good quality and a reasonable price. Truth is that in poorer neighborhoods in urban areas, food prices tend to be higher and the quality lower.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 11:04 AM) Yeah, but I don't care. I prefer guys that speak their mind. That's why I love guys like Ozzie in baseball. Is he the most professional all the time? No. Does he say stupid things on occasion? Yes. But he's not a robot, he's a human, just like the rest of us. I'm fine with people critizicing this guy for what he said. It wasn't very smart. But let's look at the situation from a neutral position. It's a guy stuck in an airport or base, talking to a Rolling Stone writer (liberal, clear anti-war bias) while drinking a few beers. He's just speaking his mind and it gets recorded. He's not giving a professional press conference. Again, stupid, but it's not the greatest sin in the world. Deserving of being fired? Eh. I could go either way really. I am not famous and not important. But even I know, if I am talking to a reporter who is working on a story about me and what I do - everything I say is on the record. The reporter from RS was on MSNBC yesterday and said - "nobody ever mentioned anything was off the record, so I assumed they thought it was all on the record." It's super poor judgment, and if you can't handle a single reporter from a pop culture music magazine, how are you supposed to handle an army? The problem is dumping McChrystal means that the the offensive will change, because this gentleman essentially IS the strategy. Given what we've been hearing the last few weeks, that may not be a bad thing either.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 12:38 PM) For it to work, people would need to actually buy and eat the fresh fruits and vegetables. If there was a demand for this, vendors would have started selling it long ago. I've been in low income neighborhoods, usually with a large Mexican population, that has tons of fresh fruit and vegetable stores. If the locals buy the stuff, people will sell it. The price of produce in urban, lower income areas is shockingly high in comparison to other parts of the urban area, and the quality can be disappointing at best. Best example? Brooklyn v Queens.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 12:18 PM) Well, lets be fair. Obama could provide the moon and they'd still find something to be unhappy about. I would say waiting a year for recess appointments to the NLRB, after it was clear that the Senate minority was never gonna let any nominated people through to a vote would be pretty frustrating. Especially given that yesterday, the Supreme Court threw out every decision the NLRB made in the last couple years when it only had two of five members appointed and confirmed.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) here is a genius idea for Bud Selig and other baseball people. Since we have the designated hitter, why don't we add the designated fielder as well, where a guy only plays defense and does not take swings. If we can combine Teahen's bat with Vizquel's defense, third base should not be much to concern with. The DH can sub out for any fielder, not necessarily the pitcher IIRC. Edited to note that I am dead wrong. That's the case in Amateur Leagues, but not pro ball. Sorry!

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 10:39 AM) Ask the bondholders how they are doing after being f***ed by BO? I cannot wait to see the unions negitiate contracts next year with the car cos. Conflict of interest? No, just another b job from BO. Why don't you ask labor how happy they are with Obama. They kinda aren't.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) More Sharon Angle. When Reid is re-elected easily in November, the Dems should thank the Tea Party. This candidate they put up there is drowning, she's apparently incapable of a coherent thought. Rand Paul is going to make Kentucky competitive for the Democrats. Sharron Angle is going to save Reid's career. And Mark Kirk is going to lie himself out of Obama's senate seat. What looked great for the Republicans six months ago might be having them reach for the Pepto in a couple months.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 09:26 PM) Show me where Obama has fixed a thing. Anything? Anywhere? Jobs? Health care? Financial issues? Oil spill? Anything? Didn't GM just post a profit? Five of the last six months we've seen job growth. Those seems like problems en route to being fixed. You really try to have it both ways. If Obama doesn't fix something immediately, you accuse him of dithering and not doing enough. If he does something, anything at all, you accuse him of overreaching and trying to exploit a crisis.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 04:06 PM) You mean debarment. Disbarment is a different legal term. Yes that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 03:35 PM) Because I think its yet another step the executive has taken to control more of government, and another step government has taken to control private industry. I'm fine with it when there is no other remedy, but here BP has done nothing wrong yet but they're already forced to come up with 20 billion to set aside. It's the principle of the thing. I'm not defending them, I'm not saying they don't owe anyone anything, I'm just saying it's crap that Obama can say "give me 20 billion and WE'LL be the ones to pay it out." (and decide who gets what and when) Actually, if anything - judging from Obama's comments about BP after the meeting, the federal government offered BP crucial cover for themselves as a corporation. The reason that this got agreed to so quickly is that it was PR for Obama and it was PR for BP. They basically said that they would pay these claims anyway, all they did was agree to put the money in escrow so that its there for people when BP gets taken over by another company by the end of the year and the BP name disappears.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 03:27 PM) Indeed they could and I don't necessarily have a problem with that if that is how our courts decide to punish them. Disbarment wouldn't be a court process.

Alexi Giannulios and Harry Reid have to have done wonderful things in their past life to deserve these opponents. Sharon Angle is crazy and Mark Kirk lied about his military service AND his 18 month teaching career. Turns out he taught middle school for a year in London and did work-study student teaching at Cornell for a nursery school. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/us/polit...rss&emc=rss HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 12:18 PM) Technically, BP could have sat back, told the US gov to f*** off, and went to court. They didn't have to put down 20B of there own money in this mess. Sure they f***ed up and acted negligently and ignored warnings signs but just because something happened at one location in the entire world, doesn't necessarily mean BP is a crappy company and that upper management is full of dumbasses, etc. BP is a good, incredibly successful company that made a mistake. And the US could have easily responded by invalidating every permit and contract that BP has with the US, which consists of a huge chunk of the oil they extract and sell. The US has BP over a barrel here, actually.

Truthers are so 2005.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 07:42 PM) Y'all loves you some context, don't you? Kill Harry Reid! TAKE HIM OUT! Yea, literally! Seriously? You're right context is key. Maybe it would be wise to use a different euphemism for electoral defeat in the context of discussing the justifications for armed American insurrection. Just sayin'.

Kap, there's something delicious that you decide to announce that Obama has done too little and too much simultaneously.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 03:44 PM) I'm not a scientist or an engineer, so I'm not sure what specific things he can/should do. But unless you're suggesting that he's no longer needed, there's SOMETHING he could be doing, like speaking to BP about his (our) concerns for longer than 20 minutes. And enforcing existing regulation would have prevented this thing from happening as well. Again, why would words on a piece of paper mean jack to a company that clearly skirted the rules and were allowed to because that oh-so-efficient government can't/won't/didn't do its job? Sweet. From now on these wells have to have a redundant blowout preventer. Hell, mandate they have 10 of them. That still requires the company to install it and the government to make sure that it gets installed. IMO there's an equal chance that this type of thing happens again because a blowout preventer fails and because a company gets greedy, works on the cheap, and the gov't fails to catch them. So the solution would be what then? It seems to me that what you're asking for is the same thing I would ask for. Standardization of safety procedures for exploring deepwater wells in the US similar to what other developed countries require, and giving regulatory agencies the teeth necessary to be able to perform their jobs. But doing these things would require our government to do things that the loyal opposition isn't so keen on. Like increase funding on inspections of facilities, enact tougher and more stringent penalties on corporate crime, make it easier for big oil companies to lose their exploration permits and leases, and stop letting the foxes run the hen house by not putting ex-oilmen in charge of enforcing regulations they oppose. Essentially, this would require a sea change in the way these kind of agencies have worked over the last few decades. Since 1980 (and possibly earlier), the US government has been more concerned with protecting business and money over protecting people when it comes to government regulation. We've started to see signs of that change in the federal government since ownership of the big house changed last January. But that change comes painfully slow, sadly. Too slow for many of us, and too quickly for those people who'd rather just blame government no matter who started the mess in the first place.

Republican Senate nominee and Harry Reid's crazy opponent. (Tea Party Approved)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) What does he do better? How about fixing the problem instead of using this catastrophe to institute his agenda? Sorry maybe I misread that part where you suggested he fix the problem. Again, what should he do to fix it? So far, all I've got from you is "have longer meetings." Again, requiring a redundant blowout preventer would have potentially averted this catastrophe. Also requiring relief wells to be drilled at the same time would have potentially minimized the damages to this disaster. So yeah, more regulation could have really helped here. It's not just about being able to shut something down as much as it is also about minimizing damage when disaster happens.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) What does he do better? How about fixing the problem instead of using this catastrophe to institute his agenda? Didn't you find it hilarious that during his speech last night he railed against the MMS for failing to do their job, and then his response is that there needs to be MORE regulation? How totally inconsistent is that? We’ll just add more law to this heavily regulated industry, but THIS TIME we’ll have people ENFORCE it. Oh wait. That’s exactly what didn’t happen before. (on a side note, love that no one is griping about his selection of an ex-federal prosecutor to run a division set with the task of regulating the oil industry. Let’s see, someone with great managerial experience in a different industry, but not in the industry that they’ve been selected to lead….kinda reminds me of another appointment people had problems with. Michael Brown perhaps?) But I know. The government will get it right this time around! There does need to be more regulation. For example, why doesn't the US require relief wells to be drilled at the same time as main exploratory wells? Other countries require it. Maybe you could point out exactly what makes deepwater drilling in US waters more unfriendly than say drilling in the North Sea off the UK or Scandinavian coastlines? "Heavily regulated" is not the word that I would use given that the MMS didn't require backup blowout preventers, delayed testing to accomodate business schedules, etc. The MMS does need to be reformed too. It's obviously corrupted, and from what I understand, understaffed given the complexity of what they do. So the MMS failed to do its job, the head of the organization was fired, Obama accepted responsibility. He is looking to fix that small agency that's been riddled with corruption for decades. Is it unacceptable that the corruption was left to fester for the first 18 months of his administration? Absolutely. But maybe you can tell me what more Obama can do? How can he fix the catastrophe? What exactly could possibly be done? Maybe you can share that with us.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 12:08 PM) Well, now we at least know we need to hire an engineer to be president with deep experience in under water stopography. We did hire a President with significant underwater experience in 1976 you know.