MattZ

Oh I know what you mean. I fully trust his instincts too. It's just a bit odd the way this is all coming full circule. As for her bringing him into her cabinet, honestly, I think if she had won the primary that she would have picked him as her VP. Of course no way to know, though. It would have been much easier for her to pick him as her VP (politically) than for him to pick her as his VP. And if she didn't do that, I dont know if she would have him in the cabinet. To be honest, he probably wouldn't have wanted it. But lots of bad things were levelled at her and I have been impressed

Haha, yeah, this is why I initially supported Clinton though!! So funny how things come full circle.

aw shucks, thanks guys.

from cnn (in order of appearance): OTHER NEWS -- Bush's mom recovering from surgery -- Al Qaeda may target New York trains, feds say

MrRain/LouieB - look, I agree with you guys. I just can't fault someone being upset that he appointed HRC to be the face of this country's foreign policy. And I don't think that someone upset about that is naive. Bjorn - thanks bud.

Also, I'd like to say that I've had just about f*cking enough of reading news stories about "credible" "Al-Qadea" "threats" about "attacks" on the NYC subway system. I didn't want to add fuel to this fire by starting a new thread about it, and I didn't know where else to put this rant, and this has become a pseudo-political thread so here it goes. If someone decided that the cure for our intelligence system missing the warning signs to 9/11 is to highlight every threat we get on CNN every few months STOP IT. It doesn't make things better. I still have to take the train to and from work ev

Lou - no one is arguing otherwise (I don't think). The point is that even though you speak the truth, this may not be what people thought they were getting when they voted for Change. And, arguably, it isn't what people were led to believe. Naive or not, everyone's definition of Change is different, and Obama's brilliance was to play on that word. I can't fault people for feeling a bit misled.

No you don't. EDIT: danggit Jules

Not yet -- I am currently deciding between getting a macbook with garageband or trying to make a go of it with my current (and older) dell laptop by buying the mbox2 w/ protools. I know the former will be much more expensive, but also probably much easier and more versatile for other functions (outside of music). The latter option, while cheaper, worries me because if my current laptop is too slow to handle what I am doing then I am stuck. So... to make a long story, everyone made great suggestions, but now I have too much info instead of not enough and I am still in the same quandry of no

So I guess we don't think that Romeo Crenel and Charlie Weis were the reasons for the Pats' success anymore?

I dont think it's naive that people would be upset about Obama appointing Clinton to be his SoS. Many people voted for Obama as a rejection of the Clintons. Not to mention, a vote for Obama over Clinton could have been the direct result of their different foreign policy positions (and Clinton's vote for the Iraq war). And now Obama appoints her to be the face of his foreign policy? I am not freaking out because I like HRC, but man, I could understand why people would be upset. And yes, even before he becomes president. It could certainly be viewed as a troubling development.

Your honor, I strenuously object.

Haha, of course. I hope it was clear that I was just having a bit of fun with this. Thanks. Interesting how George Martin sort of evades the question (about whether John would approve). This travesty is much more worthy of discussing than my playful and admittedly stupid foray into slagging off on Love: the Circus!!

Dude, come on. Really? So he wrote a song based on a poster he saw for a circus and that is supposed to be some sort of evidence that he would have signed off on this? Look, I fully expect someone to post evidence proving me wrong here, but you are going to have to do better than THAT. EDIT: In the interests of full disclosure, I am also pretty sure that John would have sneered at the release of the Anthology and Free as a Bird too (and I love both dearly). So I am being a bit of a hypocrite on top of being a snob.

Haha, of course. No way JOHN would have allowed this to happen, then!!

I dont know the first thing about it, so I should probably just keep my mouth shut. I have an image in my head of what it was. And if the reality even came close to matching what that image is, there's no way that John and George would have allowed it. (Like I said, I don't know the first thing about it, so I am sure someone will now post a link to a 1968 interview with John and George where they both say that they look forward to the music being redone and set to an overproduced circus. It's also entirely possible that the show itself was tastefully done and excellent. Like I said, I ha

I loved the music and the mashups. I dont care how much money they paid Yoko and Olivia. There should never have been a Cirque du Soleil show in Vegas.

No one could possibly argue that the situation of a company like GM or Ford isn't the direct result of poor management. But as has been said many times here, those companies are wrestling with incredibly difficult obligations to employees that put them behind their competition before the game even starts. Sort of like they have to compete with other car companies with one hand tied behind their back. Not to mention, it's hard to blame GM or Ford for the absolute tsunami of a downturn we've seen. People are saving money at every step, credit is tight, etc. GM and Ford would be taking huge

Most of the Time Not Dark Yet

Yes he can. EDIT: not trying to be obnoxious -- corporations are much bigger, with more employees, more complicated, etc. Not to mention, revenues are probably 20x. I am not trying to start a debate about whether the wealth should/shouldn't be spread around among the other employees more, but just pointing out that yes, with a more global economy, many of these companies are much more complicated than they've ever been. Compare the GE of today with the GE of 30 years ago. Come on, it's not even close.

I agree with you in principle, but can you really say "current situation aside"?

No they aren't. They are asking for loans (which would be paid back) or equity infusions (which is an investment by Joe Taxpayer in the business). Neither of those count as "throwing money" at the industry. At least in my book. No one is suggesting that we just write a check to the businesses to do with as they please and pay back if they please.

Is anyone suggesting this?

If there are superfluous jobs or jobs that don't fit into the new model, those jobs won't/can't exist. I have never suggested that the goal is to "save every job." You are right that some industries die, but this industry is not dying. This industry is hobbled by poor management, poor product, and poor/crippling obligations to existing and former employees. We have explored the chicken/egg problem with this. People are still driving cars and will continue to drive cars. Why not work within a royally futzed up system to lessen the burdens that we've acknowledged, while incentivizing the c

Wait, you just advocated that government spend money on infrastructure/energy because this will create jobs, right?