StrangeSox

Obama Fundraiser Turned Ambassador Was Largely Absent From Bahamas Post

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) Not equal but within the same area. McQuery wasn't certain what he saw, he's changed his story a couple times on what he told Paterno. If it turns out to be an abusive relationship and the coach did not report it, or only told her boss, her career and reputation is ruined. There is not downside to reporting it, the only risk is not reporting. I figured that this was your angle since the OP. Stop being a dummy. McQuery saw an adult male sexually abusing a child. By Paterno's own admission, McQuery informed him that he witnessed sexual contact. In this case, a coach corned a 16 year old student and she admitted that she was dating an 18 year old. She did not admit to sexual conduct, at least according to the ruling so far. They are not on the same continent. The coach also did not report this to police or administrators but to the parents.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 05:35 AM) We saw how sending it to the top administrator did at Penn State. I would not have hesitated to call the police. Gay or straight. Reports by an eye witness of child rape =/= a 16 year old dating an 18 year old with no confirmation of sexual contact. edit: though I'd hope that this incident makes schools in Texas examine their policy in instances like this where the age difference is less than 3 years (I don't know if knowledge of sexual contact between a 16 yo and an 18yo should be reported) and that they make sure their teachers are properly trained.

The Nissan Leaf?!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) The argument about making better cars is a decade or two stale. GM and Ford products have improved a lot in that time, in fact until recently Ford was right there with Lexus near the top in reliability. I don't do the Buy American thing, I buy the best car for my needs - sometimes its a Ford or GM product, sometimes it isn't. Chrysler, on the other hand, has been a garbage brand all along. 100% agreed

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) Well, and the profits mostly stay here, and the higher paying upper management jobs are mostly here. There is a little more to it than you characterize. Still, I overall agree that the buy American stuff is a bit silly at this point. There are foreign cars with higher American parts and manufacture content than some American cars at this point. Also the engineering

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) The funny thing is that is why he got caught. If they got to vote in complete anonymity, no one would have ever known the difference. Good thing no one votes anonymously!

Voter id would have fixed that

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 08:43 AM) Hey, Toyota does employ a good number of American workers. (Thanks in no small part to a Reagan era trade war regulation requiring them to do so to continue selling their products here). They all have plants here.

US highway system as a subway map:

Newt: BMW, Mercedes, Toyota: the American Auto Industry.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 07:23 AM) No, Parks & Rec. I remember reading recently that the ratings were decent for NBC but low overall. Which is a damn shame when there's so much garbage out there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:52 PM) They do that for SOME projects. Yes, they hire out, but even for random crews that are just filling potholes they use IDOT workers. And I wasn't suggesting hundreds of millions PER YEAR. I meant over time. Perhaps we could be saving a jail or medical center or two! I can't seem to find any data on how much idit contracts out versus self-performing. I did skim through several studies on privatization, though. The general takeaway is that, yes, efficiency is improved, but at least in the short term, these gains are captured by shareholders. This ends up being a net transfer of wealth upwards. The urban poor sees higher access, but the rural poor loses out. Note that this is infrastructure privatization in general and not specifically transportation.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:37 PM) Common sense really. Think of every downstate project. You could hire local businesses instead of shipping in regional IDOT workers to do the work. But i'm also thinking you could easily set up a system like Medicare - hey construction/engineering/whatever company, you want a piece of this project? Here's the bottom line price we're paying. Bidding ensues and efficiency increases. Just this morning I was laughing about the waste of the Chicago Traffic Authority (beyond the typical waste of traffic controllers repeating what automated lights already do). I saw 8 trucks full of salt on one stretch of Clark Street (south of Congress). There was no snow. There was no ice. There was no cold weather that could potentially turn into ice. They were just out driving around. Waste. On my walk to work (I get dropped off down there and walk to my office in the southwest loop) I saw 4 IDOT trucks with guys sitting in them, just waiting. One guy was outside picking stuff up, the rest were drinking their dunkin donuts and reading the paper. Obviously that's probably not normal, but I do think efficiency would go up if companies were forced to submit itemized bills that have to be reviewed before they get paid versus IDOT just paying it out as the normal cost of business. See also: FedEx and UPS versus the USPS. But there can be just as many if not more inefficiencies in the private sector. It's not like privatization is a magic pill to remove waste and corruption. Idot already bids out projects to contractors. At least in my industry, the bidding for government utilities is a lot more budget-focused than the private utilities, and some of these plants just hemorrhage money. And again, it is about performing a public service versus generating private profits. The usps does things for rural citizens that a private carrier just doesn't do. The same holds true for infrastructure, at least for some services.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:23 PM) Yeah, but they still pay for the majority of their No idea infrastructure themselves, do they not? No idea, honestly. But virtually every business benefits from infrastructure subsidization, whether it is roads or mass transit.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) Sorry, the IL dept of transportation. And no, i'm describing a small department of coordinators, not a full on workforce in a variety of areas. I'd privatize everything, from toll booth collection to road work. I'm not saying make it a for-profit business model, i'm just saying get it out of the "public" hands where waste is rampant.i How does this save hundreds of millions, though? what impact have other infrastructure privatization models had on service, quality, availability and actual public costs?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 05:12 PM) It seems to me that Exxon-Mobil is making record profits by selling automotive gasoline that would be a lot less in demand without the roads on which to drive the vehicles it fuels. Why don't they have to subsidize infrastructure? AT&T, Verizon, Sprint pay for their infrastructure... Actually telecommunications is subsidized in many ways such as land access to build out infrastructure.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) The silly examples don't help the discussion. FD's are not federally funded, in fact aren't usually even state funded. They are almost entirely funded locally. I don't think the fed/state divide is important for the more philosophical issue of whether government, at any level, should fund mass transit with tax revenues. That said, you can pick any number of federal programs such as usps, nasa, dod.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) OK, I see now. I sort of agree. I think it is reasonable to push transit agencies for efficiency, and being able to handle day-to-day operations with fares (and other internal revenue) is not a bad goal to have. But yeah, no one expects the roads to pay for themselves, or even for a tiny part of them. So the expectations on transit are, to me, sort of ridiculous at times. I don't oppose nominal fares, but attacking a public service for not being revenue neutral begs the question by assuming that such a service should be revenue neutral. That isn't something I would concede, so if someone rails on Amtrak because it isn't self-funding, I'll shrug my shoulders. On the topic in general I think both what you and shack have said is good.

Fire departments aren't self-sustaining; abolish them. Gas taxes do not adequately fund roads.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) What are you saying "so what" to? The idea that mass transit isn't fully independently funded. It was a cross-post with your post. Plenty of public services aren't self-funded and theres nothing inherently wrong with that.

So what? They are public services, not for-profit corporations.

More on the productivity, wage and COL gaps: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...-come-from.html

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) And those people are clearly morons, preying on an ignorant public. But yet again, you are attempting to say that because some responses to AGW are garbage, that must mean ALL of them are. I disagree. This is a few days old now, but the recently leaked Heartland documents really do confirm the widespread agenda of deliberate lies and misinformation. When one group is completely dedicated not to science, understanding, investigation and exploration but only to their own ideology, you can't have an honest, public debate about this issue. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012...P=ILCNETTXT3487