Fuck its silent in here.......

[CT III]

Looks like poor Paul Krugman hates the Deficit Commission more than he hates the troops and America, which is saying something something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1

We've known for a long time, then, that nothing good would come from the commission. But on Wednesday, when the co-chairmen released a PowerPoint outlining their proposal, it was even worse than the cynics expected.

I don't like that he's underestimating us cynics.

[morpheus]

This is a website I hadn't heard of before today.  They've posted a fascinating set of interviews... http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/the-ulsterman-report-white-house-insider-review/

[Eli]

This is a website I hadn't heard of before today.  They've posted a fascinating set of interviews... http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/the-ulsterman-report-white-house-insider-review/

Seems legit.

[Slaky]

This is a website I hadn't heard of before today.  They've posted a fascinating set of interviews... http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/the-ulsterman-report-white-house-insider-review/

Meaning you read through them? You must have been really bored.

[Gilgamesh]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

[Slaky]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

In a spirit of bipartisanship:

Go, GOP!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-screening-1576602-108259869.html

Did you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.

Mica, one of the authors of the original TSA bill, has recently written to the heads of more than 150 airports nationwide suggesting they opt out of TSA screening. "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," Mica writes. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law."

In addition to being large, impersonal, and top-heavy, what really worries critics is that the TSA has become dangerously ineffective. Its specialty is what those critics call "security theater" -- that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. "That's exactly what it is," says Mica. "It's a big Kabuki dance."

Now, the dance has gotten completely out of hand. And like lots of fliers -- I spoke to him as he waited for a flight at the Orlando airport -- Mica sees TSA's new "naked scanner" machines and groping, grossly invasive passenger pat-downs as just part of a larger problem. TSA, he says, is relying more on passenger humiliation than on practices that are proven staples of airport security.

...

Only adding that, as York notes at the end, simply shifting the reins of unaccountable power from Federal hands to private-but-still-state-sanctioned hands doesn't alone solve anything unless the underlying problems actually get addressed.

And that, as nothing can ever be made 100% safe, if the mere thought of the potential of something bad maybe possibly happening at some point somewhere causes you to piss your pants in fear and to beg someone somewhere to start strip-searching anyone and everyone, maybe you'd be better off staying home with the door dead-bolted. (Just beware of fan death.)

[morpheus]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

[Bort]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

[Brownie]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

[Chuck to Chuck]

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

The health insurance market/companies is/are efficient?

[morpheus]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

[morpheus]

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

The health insurance market/companies is/are efficient?

More efficient than the government?  Yes.

[Yeti]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

3 months on my current employer. Immediately on the future one.

[Bort]

Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

Frankly, anyone able to get elected to Congress should be able to afford their own damn insurance.