zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:08:19 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:22:15 -0400, Jack
wrote:
don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw buyers to
only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let government
mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well let them
mandate a the price of the saw.

Every conversation you get into, you bring up the SawStop. What Gass
did, has done, or attempted is completely irrelevant because it's the
insurance industry that's pushing the SawStop into businesses.

The issue is the CSPC. They are also considering making the SS
mechanism mandatory.


Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are driving
this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this claim.
Institutional lawyers may be casting fears into their clients, but I have
not seen or heard of one single push by an insurance company - except for
some folks who say that took place - with no evidence. Around here, I know
that the insurance companies are not doing any such sort of pushing - I know
the guy that heads this up for the BOCES in this area. Lawyers - that's a
different story. They promote their own well being by keeping their clients
in fear. And - as you say - right now this is a CSPC thing, and it isn't
even decided yet.

--

-Mike-

On 17 Aug 2012 16:05:20 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 17 Aug 2012 12:16:56 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:56:44 +0000, Han wrote:

My point is that many
people in lower positions, tomato pickers, clerks, whatever, are
paid insufficient wages, and yes paying them more would make
everything more expensive. You may or may not agree, but my
opinion is that more income equality would benefit our society.

I've occasionally wondered if it wouldn't be more equitable to pay
workers based on how well they do a job, not on what the job is.


Have you not ever experienced that in your career? That has been
the norm in my career, but I've never worked in a union shop where
the opposite prevails.

I think he's saying that the best Wallyworld greeter should be paid
the same as the best brain surgeon. "Everyone is equal", sort of
poppycock.

There are people who excel in their jobs, whether that be clerks,
engineers, physicians, or dogcatchers. All those jobs are
essential. Maybe the top performers should all be paid the same?

Don't understand why you just applied a contradictory principle.
Surely there will be differentiators - there always are. Stick with
your original thought.

You didn't catch his original thought. No contradiction at all.

Yeah, I know - it's a utopian fantasy :-).

No - it is the way that the commercial world works in many areas of
employment.

Read what he wrote again.

I'm not quite sure who "he" is here.

Larry B.

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same as
dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

Thanks!!

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Effort doesn't count. The only thing that count is *results*. Some
work hard as hell and accomplish nothing (or less), other create
wonders with apparently no effort. However, the real problem is third
parties deciding what others are "worth". It should be *entirely*
between the employer and the employee. It's none of anyone else's
damned business.

I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian, but
I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed better.
But that would have required even more stress and less family-life.

When you can show me how "earnest effort" adds to the bottom line, I'll
listen. Effort is meaningless. "Work" (think physics) makes money.

On 17 Aug 2012 16:52:04 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


I believe that earnest effort counts for something. Call it utopian,
but I think that with more effort or drive I could have performed
better. But that would have required even more stress and less
family-life.

Ok - fair enough on the surface. But... who determines that thing you
call "earnest effort"? You - who may be completely uniformed of the
requirements of the job or the industry - or the employer? I would be
afraid of the former (and not because it's you).

Obviously that is part of the direct supervisor's job. And nowadays
often (always?) part of job performance review. While I may dislike the
tree company's people lounging about instead of trimming that tree,
unless it is affecting me, I'm not complaining.

But it does affect you. Perhaps the affect isn't immediate, but it does
affect the cost of doing business.

Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

Whatsamatter, you don't like someone else arbitrarily deciding pay
rates and what's a "fair" wage? There is a reason the free market
works better than government control. It's the same reason the USA
at one time was the greatest country on earth and people fought to
get in, instead of out as in government controlled (socialist)
environments.

In this communist-controlled country there is no free market.
In this capitalist-monopolized country they make believe there is a
free market.
Take your pick.

So what are you really saying Han? It seems you don't like capitalism. I
don't like the alternatives. Differences of opinion.

--

-Mike-

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:14:29 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Han wrote:

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
as dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
possible.

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.

Amen brother!


The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.

Easy, get a quote from another company.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:17:04 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 8/17/2012 3:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Han wrote:

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
as dog catchers.
No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)
Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
possible.

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.
Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.
Amen brother!

The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.
Different kind of relationship.

But the principle is the same. Unequal bargaining power in hiring
situations leads to employment contracts for an amount different than
what a person's labors are actually worth.

No, it's exactly the same. Buy from another insurance company = Work for
another employer.

Han wrote:


Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm not
against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS you
guys know).

Sorry Han - what does that really mean, and how is it relevant? Your
either/or statement implies education and discussion is superior. You
should have been around in 1774 and you could have saved everybody a lot of
grief with that thought.

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:01:50 -0500, basilisk wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:14:29 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 8/17/2012 1:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:25 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Han wrote:

I don't think I have ever called for paying brain surgeons the same
as dog catchers.

No, Han, even you're not that far over the edge. ;-)

Yes, that would be Larry Blanchard, the guy that quotes GB Shaw, the
Fabian socialist prick that thought the solution to stupid,
unproductive people was to gas the suckers albeit as painlessly as
possible.

I think effort, ability and execution of the job are what count.

Yeah, that's a thought that seems out of sync with the times, if you
pay attention to the lame stream media, the educational system, the
democratic party, and at least a part of the repuglican party.

However, the real problem is third parties deciding what others
are "worth". It should be *entirely* between the employer and the
employee.
It's none of anyone else's damned business.

Amen brother!


The difficulty comes when two parties to a contract don't have equal
bargaining power. Just try bargaining with an insurance company over
the terms of your automobile liability policy and the premium you will
pay for coverage.

What your saying is true for a single insurance company, they don't
negotiate much. I once changed auto insurance companies five times in
2 months, ended back at the beginning company at significantly lower
rates.

It was a pain in the ass and I had a good deal of money tied up in
premiums until refunds were issued for canceled policies, but I
got what I wanted in the end.

All free market based, you have to be willing to walk with your
money if one party won't negotiate.

The same is true with employers.

On 17 Aug 2012 16:09:32 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 17 Aug 2012 12:24:36 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get an
education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they have a
thing called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a rich
Northern state like New Jersey to learn from the poor South.

This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has
taken some jurisdiction over some school districts.

With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because
they're PAYING TOO MUCH?

Paterson used to be quite rich, but now is trying to dig out from
being a failed ghetto. It is rather poor, and has a miserable
population.

That's a result, not a cause. Why did it go down so fast?

Northeast industrial city. Was called Silk City at some point. Water
power started it. There are still the Great Falls of Paterson (77 ft):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29

Yet with all those skilled employees, they couldn't attract any other
business. I wonder why?

In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did,
as I understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the
"academies" (maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the
fired teachers (I believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be
rehired and get which kind of kids for which subject. Of course all
in the same old building, with new signs, probably also more
administrators.

That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the
old school. If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!

Yes, it sounds silly to me too, but apparently it is working to a
surprising extent.

Or someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.



Changing nothing and having/expecting a different result is
wishful-thinking/insanity.

My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated
by the alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he
teaches math, manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of
guy who can wear a T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another service
we offer".

He probably has no business working in the public sector.

He was making much more money in the financial sector as chief of
email. Got out before the place went belly up spectacularly. While
his income is now a fraction, his pleasure in the work is much, much
greater. He loves teaching. Almost as much as playing bridge.

He could work somewhere he's appreciated.

He is apparently appreciated and he believes in giving back.

Aparently not enough.

On 17 Aug 2012 16:12:50 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
How about not, with fiscal restraint?

?? You mean - How about "not with fiscal restraint"?

How about leaving some context?

You said: "How about a mix of things? A little of this and a little of that.
With fiscal restraint."

I said: "How about not [mixing things - capitalism is just fine], with fiscal
restraint?" [comments added]

Politics without fiscal restraint is only irresponsible. That's my
philosophy. And mind you, if I really want something, I find the means to
get it, or I just pine for it. I don't get it on credit without paying it
off at the end of the cycle.

As long as "getting what you want" doesn't involve stealing, OK. But what you
want *does*.

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
snip
Must have been rough, down to only $60k/year for that time, eh? g

1976. We were probably down to 10 on a yearly basis. We (family of 4)
moved to NYC where I was to get ~15K/yr. Wife /had to/ get a job.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:04:09 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:




Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are driving
this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this claim.

AIM Mutual insurance is our workmen's comp carrier. They are strongly
suggesting new equipment be replaced with Saw Stop or equal. They are
not yet refusing to write a policy (that I'm aware of), but they are
certainly pushing for safety features like Saw Stop. It was indicated
that it may be mandatory, but that was during last year's inspection.
I'll try to remember to ask about it.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking
group, and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop
is. Some don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw
buyers to only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let
government mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well
let them mandate a the price of the saw.

Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals
too, why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO)
...

Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations
that would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a
constitutional lawyer).

So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine a
- The saw makers were stupid. Now they are on the hook.

According to lawyers, they could have been on the hook by accepting
the safety device, too. Moot point.

That only makes the lawyers stupid (my opinion).

- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.

Yes, damned greedy monopolist. He deserves compensation and could
have made millions without all the patents and nefarious doings.

Agreed

- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety,
let Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work
under dangerous conditions.

Aren't these two contradictory?

Indeed

Anyway, tablesaws have safety devices
installed on them now, by gov't mandate. SawStop isn't necessary but
could be considered an additional safety device. It should be a
person's own choice, not the government's. I'm with Darwin.

I would have been too, but the lawyers ...

As to the culpability of the initial case for SawStop, I'd have ruled
50% idiot's fault and 50% contractor's fault. ZERO fault of mfgr.
It's both a company's and a worker's responsibility to be safe on the
worksite, and neither was acting responsible in Osorio's case. Those
saws have looked/worked like that for 100 years and were not faulty as
the damned speaking weasels maintained. It sickens me.

I wonder whether the case is going to a court higher than the Apellate
....

If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
give thought to. I can probably afford it. If a guy/company goes for
the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey

People with the money have the choice of expensive saws, where the
SawStop is comparable in price. It's too expensive for most of us po
unwashed folks who have to save up for a $100 saw, or save for years
for a Grizzly 1023. Splitters and guards rule!

Lawyers may rule too ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:04:09 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:




Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are
driving this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this
claim.

AIM Mutual insurance is our workmen's comp carrier. They are strongly
suggesting new equipment be replaced with Saw Stop or equal. They are
not yet refusing to write a policy (that I'm aware of), but they are
certainly pushing for safety features like Saw Stop. It was indicated
that it may be mandatory, but that was during last year's inspection.
I'll try to remember to ask about it.

That is a good piece of information Edwin. Worth watching to see what does
develop within the insurance industry. But - in contrast to the current
claims about insurance companies, it remains something that is on the radar
scope, and not something that is in effect today. It stands to reason that
they would make this push. What remains to be seen is where that ultimately
goes. What happens if the CPSC does not for some reason, come down in favor
of SawStop... will that cause the insurance companies to back off these
"suggestions"? Worth watching to see.

--

-Mike-

On 08/18/2012 03:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:04:09 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:




Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are
driving this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this
claim.

AIM Mutual insurance is our workmen's comp carrier. They are strongly
suggesting new equipment be replaced with Saw Stop or equal. They are
not yet refusing to write a policy (that I'm aware of), but they are
certainly pushing for safety features like Saw Stop. It was indicated
that it may be mandatory, but that was during last year's inspection.
I'll try to remember to ask about it.

That is a good piece of information Edwin. Worth watching to see what does
develop within the insurance industry. But - in contrast to the current
claims about insurance companies, it remains something that is on the radar
scope, and not something that is in effect today. It stands to reason that
they would make this push. What remains to be seen is where that ultimately
goes. What happens if the CPSC does not for some reason, come down in favor
of SawStop... will that cause the insurance companies to back off these
"suggestions"? Worth watching to see.


My analysis is not substantially wrong, though there may be small errors
of detail. There are NOT enough technology grads to fill the jobs we
need filled. Most of the people going into so-called CS programs are
actually learning web programming and Java where there are way too many
people already. The jobs are in real hardcore engineering and true
computer science. Trade DOES materially lift all boats in the macro
picture. Trade DOES reduce the tendency of nations to go to war. These
are unremarkable observations. The only people that disagree with them
are not doing so on factual grounds but because they do not like the
outcomes.

It makes no difference whether my view of trade is right or your complaints
are valid. Here is REALITY: Jobs are- and will continue to globalize. You can
either embrace this change and learn to function in this new larger pool
of talent or sit in the corner whining about how things used to be. I am
well into my 50s and have had to completely reinvent my profession 3 times
(so far). I do not expect to be given a job, I do not think I am entitled
to anything (beyond fair treatment by my government), and I sure as heck don't
think I am magically granted the ownership of a job for all time. And, yes,
I do know what long term unemployment feels like. (And yes, I do know what
it's like to bust your butt to do a great job and to be rewarded by being
laid off.)

Adapt or die. This is the lesson of nature and the lesson of history.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

" wrote in
:

On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking
group, and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop
is. Some don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw
buyers to only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let
government mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well
let them mandate a the price of the saw.

Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals
too, why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO)
...

Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations
that would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a
constitutional lawyer).

So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine a
- The saw makers were stupid.

No, they weren't.

Now they are on the hook.

Not yet.

Whether they were stupid or not will wait until this whole thing has
played out. My feeling at this point is that they should have accepted
Gass's first offer in some form. But I do see the lawyer argument that
doing so would make them admit to having been selling dangerous toys.


- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.

He *only* deserves compensation to the extent that people are willing
to give him is pound of flesh. If *they* decide that his invention is
not worth the money, *they* should be free to pass on it.

Easy to say, not necessarily true. If Gass wins the Safety commission
endorsement, they'll have to accept his monopoly pricing. There is no
viable alternative (yet).

- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety,
let Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work
under dangerous conditions.

The government can't protect idiots. With your extension of the nanny
state, I guess we'd better outlaw hydrogen hydroxide, too.

Misspelling. It's dihydrogen oxide.
The stats say that it is the single man workshop who begets the injuries,
or at least those that are NOT under OSHA regulation. Those are safe.
So in actual fact, government can protect idiots, or at least educate
them via OSHA.

If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
give thought to. I can probably afford it.

Good for you. I can, too, but chose not to. You'd rather take that
choice away from me. How tyrannical of you.

It's not MY choice. I'd rather have competition and education do the
work. I'm against the Gass maneuvers to use the Safety Commission.

If a guy/company goes for
the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey

The worker can chose to work for the guy with the SawStop, too.

With unlimited work options in town, yes. Too many little contractors
with Ridgid saw who chose not to educate their workers sufficiently, but
too few real choice between them.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and
skyrocketing in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will
take the people, all of us, to bring about REAL change in our
country.


How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful
status quo vehicle.

But Han, you're one who doesn't care a fig about the Constitution,
particularly as a "status quo vehicle".

Keith, that is a non-sequitur to me. Maybe you can explain ...

Yes, the fact that there are amendments to the Constitution means it is
subject to revision (and re-revision, a la prohibition). Moreover, as I
understand the Constitution, it prescribes a division of powers, with (I
think) the SCOTUS as the last arbiter. AT least that is the current
interpretation. I think it was Scalia who in an interview re-iterated
what Roberts had said in slightly different words. We are loath to
overturn on ideology if the legal phraseology can be interpreted in favor
of a passed law.

What I meant as a status quo vehicle was that Congress has difficulty
making laws (certainly at the moment) that would re-interpret previous
laws. And with that I mean to say that once a law is on the books,
changing for instance dividends and capital gains into ordinary income
for tax purposes is difficult. Lobbyists and all.

Sorry, I may make less sense now than I first thought. Damned whooping
cough ...

Guys, do yourselves a favor and get the booster vaccination for
pertussis, I think it is call Tdap. I've been sick or sickish for months
now, and the coughing is terrible.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
Jack wrote in :

Whatsamatter, you don't like someone else arbitrarily deciding pay
rates and what's a "fair" wage? There is a reason the free market
works better than government control. It's the same reason the USA
at one time was the greatest country on earth and people fought to
get in, instead of out as in government controlled (socialist)
environments.

In this communist-controlled country there is no free market.
In this capitalist-monopolized country they make believe there is a
free market.
Take your pick.

So what are you really saying Han? It seems you don't like
capitalism. I don't like the alternatives. Differences of opinion.

I think capitalism could be the least objectionable system. Problem is
that some regulation is needed to avoid unbridled greed and selfishness.
Communism with its prescribed stalinist (non)economy is stupid. Stomping
down on the masses is equally self-destructive. I guess we just differ
on the exact form of the bread and circuses to keep Joe in place ...
That is self-deprecating humor or sarcasm ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm
not against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS
you guys know).

Sorry Han - what does that really mean, and how is it relevant? Your
either/or statement implies education and discussion is superior. You
should have been around in 1774 and you could have saved everybody a
lot of grief with that thought.

I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I grew up
in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know pretty well
that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am also eternally
grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave their lives for our
freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white supremacists and other
paramilitary groups, whether left or right.

Therefore, I would like to emphasize education and discussion rather then
arming ourselves. Here I try to stay polite, and most often I can indeed
put myself into the trains of thought that people who don't agree with me
are expressing. But there are many paths to the ultimate goal of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I like to express my views as how
to achieve that, respecting different views.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
news
When you can show me how "earnest effort" adds to the bottom line, I'll
listen. Effort is meaningless. "Work" (think physics) makes money.

There is more than the bottom line, in my opinion. Being charitable gets
at least brownie points. And I would as supervisor definitely discuss
work-related problems with the problem person. Sometimes my hands were
tied, though.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:45:18 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/18/2012 10:49 AM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and skyrocketing
in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will take the people,
all of us, to bring about REAL change in our country.


How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful status
quo vehicle.


Which is routinely avoided and ignored by the people it is supposed to rein
in. You cannot have durable republic when the President himself has
contempt for the document and wants to pack the courts with people
that similarly don't care about limited Federal power.

+1

--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will

Larry Jaques wrote:

You're misguided, Tim. Do some more research about starvation in the
USA today. It's rampant.

That's just plain silly.

Aside from an occasional insane parent withholding food from a child there
have been no deaths due to starvation in living memory.

There might be some odd sets of hunger, such as having a child go to bed
without supper, but starvation? Absolutely not.

I'll go even further: There has never been a famine in a democracy. There
HAVE been food shortages in some areas (of India for example) caused by
inept governments or transportation woes, but never a legitimate famine.

" wrote in
:

On 17 Aug 2012 16:09:32 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 17 Aug 2012 12:24:36 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 16 Aug 2012 19:48:34 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:jh7q28t2bif7j6tteahb84a9flt8vsd0gm@4ax. com:

So you're saying that *NONE* of the children in that school get
an education? I'd say it's time to close it down. Here they
have a thing called "charter schools". Perhaps it's time for a
rich Northern state like New Jersey to learn from the poor
South.

This is the poor North we are talking about. Where the state has
taken some jurisdiction over some school districts.

With your huge taxes, why is it so poor, Han. Could it be because
they're PAYING TOO MUCH?

Paterson used to be quite rich, but now is trying to dig out from
being a failed ghetto. It is rather poor, and has a miserable
population.

That's a result, not a cause. Why did it go down so fast?

Northeast industrial city. Was called Silk City at some point. Water
power started it. There are still the Great Falls of Paterson (77
ft): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Falls_%28Passaic_River%29

Yet with all those skilled employees, they couldn't attract any other
business. I wonder why?

It happened to the whole rustbelt recently, and to the textile industry
up in the northeast it happened twice: First it moved to the South, then
to Shri Lanka etc.

In Paterson they are called academies. This is what Paterson did,
as I understand it. They closed the school. Then they open the
"academies" (maybe next to a "regular" school) and select from the
fired teachers (I believe just about all were RIF'ed) who will be
rehired and get which kind of kids for which subject. Of course
all in the same old building, with new signs, probably also more
administrators.

That sounds like New Jersey. In with the new school - same as the
old school. If you find yourself getting in deeper, stop digging!

Yes, it sounds silly to me too, but apparently it is working to a
surprising extent.

Or someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.



Changing nothing and having/expecting a different result is
wishful-thinking/insanity.

No in this case they did change something. Hopefully it will work
sitting the kids down in more focused environments, with more "suited"
teachers. And I have a story from a guy who just missed the Nobel prize
about trying and trying again. Sometimes it works ...

My SIL did well, some other teachers not so. He seems appreciated
by the alumni who took his lessons to heart. I am confident he
teaches math, manners and demeanor equally well; he is the kind of
guy who can wear a T-shirt declaiming "Sarcasm, just another
service we offer".

He probably has no business working in the public sector.

He was making much more money in the financial sector as chief of
email. Got out before the place went belly up spectacularly. While
his income is now a fraction, his pleasure in the work is much, much
greater. He loves teaching. Almost as much as playing bridge.

He could work somewhere he's appreciated.

He is apparently appreciated and he believes in giving back.

Aparently not enough.

It is a "free" market system. He is satisfied with the job, when you
combine every aspect, and they keep him on. Everyone wins, according to
your economic views (and mine too). That does not mean that he wouldn't
like to be paid more, or that they wouldn't like to pay him less.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 18 Aug 2012 21:09:48 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking
group, and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop
is. Some don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw
buyers to only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let
government mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well
let them mandate a the price of the saw.

Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals
too, why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO)
...

Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations
that would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a
constitutional lawyer).

So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine a
- The saw makers were stupid.

No, they weren't.

Now they are on the hook.

Not yet.

Whether they were stupid or not will wait until this whole thing has
played out. My feeling at this point is that they should have accepted
Gass's first offer in some form. But I do see the lawyer argument that
doing so would make them admit to having been selling dangerous toys.

I believe Gass' first offer seemed like something Don Corleone might
have said...when he wasn't in a very good mood. Ryobi ended up with a
horse head in their bed, too, thanks to Don Gass.


- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.

He *only* deserves compensation to the extent that people are willing
to give him is pound of flesh. If *they* decide that his invention is
not worth the money, *they* should be free to pass on it.

Bingo!

Easy to say, not necessarily true. If Gass wins the Safety commission
endorsement, they'll have to accept his monopoly pricing. There is no
viable alternative (yet).

That's precisely why we love to hate the jerk.


- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety,
let Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work
under dangerous conditions.

The government can't protect idiots. With your extension of the nanny
state, I guess we'd better outlaw hydrogen hydroxide, too.

Misspelling. It's dihydrogen oxide.

DHMO - DiHydrogen Monoxide. See the website for ALL the scary facts:
http://www.dhmo.org/


--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will

Han wrote:

Which is partly why we need the Second Amendment.

Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm not
against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS you
guys know).

But you've never explained WHY you're against wanton violence.

Me? I'm in favor of a certain level of violence - it culls the herd.

[Metaphor alert]
Most of the drivers in New York City (or Mexico City for that matter) are
expert drivers. Why? Because the incompetent drivers didn't last very long.

Yesterday, there were 20 people shot in Chicago, a city officially without
guns
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2092902.story

All those shot were members of street gangs.

Just think how much safer the city would be if guns were freely available.
Admittedly, it might take a few months...

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

It wouldn't work even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it
is. The same First Amendment that gives you a constitutional right
to post to newsgroups gives others the right to political speech.
People have the constitutional right to support their favored
candidates. To abridge that right would require a constitutional
amendment (which ain't gonna happen), not a mere statute.

Here, here!

I think you meant "Hear, hear!"

Unless you want the money sent to you...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:



My analysis is not substantially wrong, though there may be small
errors of detail. There are NOT enough technology grads to fill the jobs
we
need filled. Most of the people going into so-called CS programs are
actually learning web programming and Java where there are way too
many people already. The jobs are in real hardcore engineering and true
computer science. Trade DOES materially lift all boats in the macro
picture. Trade DOES reduce the tendency of nations to go to war. These
are unremarkable observations. The only people that disagree with
them are not doing so on factual grounds but because they do not like the
outcomes.

Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps with a
little lag. You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here. As you say below -
technology has evolved past that - for good or for bad - that's the way it
is.


It makes no difference whether my view of trade is right or your
complaints are valid. Here is REALITY: Jobs are- and will continue
to globalize. You can either embrace this change and learn to
function in this new larger pool of talent or sit in the corner whining
about how things used to be. I am well into my 50s and have had to
completely reinvent my profession 3
times (so far). I do not expect to be given a job, I do not think I
am entitled to anything (beyond fair treatment by my government), and I
sure as
heck don't think I am magically granted the ownership of a job for
all time. And, yes, I do know what long term unemployment feels like.
(And yes, I do
know what it's like to bust your butt to do a great job and to be
rewarded by being laid off.)


All of what you say above I would say as well.

--

-Mike-

Adapt or die. This is the lesson of nature and the lesson of history.

Han wrote:

I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I grew
up in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know pretty
well that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am also
eternally grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave their
lives for our freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white
supremacists and other paramilitary groups, whether left or right.

Those guys though, are not the people who are protected by the 2nd
Ammendment. At least the ones who act out their "anxieties".


Therefore, I would like to emphasize education and discussion rather
then arming ourselves. Here I try to stay polite, and most often I
can indeed put myself into the trains of thought that people who
don't agree with me are expressing. But there are many paths to the
ultimate goal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I like
to express my views as how to achieve that, respecting different
views.

I respect your views, and I hold them to be nieve. But - I do respect them.
BTW - I have always found your postions to be respectful of others.

--

-Mike-

On 08/18/2012 05:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps with a
little lag.

Maybe. But have you tried to hire a high quality plumber or
electrician lately. There is a TON of opportunity in the trades
and these are jobs that cannot easily be offshored. Unfortunately
a generation of American parents were brainwashed by the 1960s
Smelliest Generation that runs the universities that no one
can succeed without a college degree. Speaking as someone who
HAS a graduate degree (and briefly taught grad school) this is
nonsense.

You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here.

I'm actually saying the opposite: Web programming and Java are
now commodity skills - the manual labor of the IT industry.
There are too many people that can do this work and not enough
job openings.

Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
is why jobs are leaving Dodge...




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Which is partly why we need the Second Amendment.

Either that and lots of shovels, or education and discussion. I'm
not against the second amendment, just against wanton violence. (AS
you guys know).

But you've never explained WHY you're against wanton violence.

wan·ton/?wäntn/
Adjective: (of a cruel or violent action) Deliberate and unprovoked.
Does that explain why I'm against it?

Me? I'm in favor of a certain level of violence - it culls the herd.

Ther is enough already

[Metaphor alert]
Most of the drivers in New York City (or Mexico City for that matter)
are expert drivers. Why? Because the incompetent drivers didn't last
very long.

Most are also the products of driving lessons, and want to keep their
vehicles. Traffic infractions in NYC are expensive.

Yesterday, there were 20 people shot in Chicago, a city officially
without guns
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...oting-gun-viol
ence-chicago-august-17-august-18-2012-south-side-west-side-20120817,0,2
092902.story

All those shot were members of street gangs.

Just think how much safer the city would be if guns were freely
available. Admittedly, it might take a few months...

And the guns would then magically disappear? Or would Susie think the
death of her lover should be avenged?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/18/2012 05:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps with
a little lag.

Maybe. But have you tried to hire a high quality plumber or
electrician lately. There is a TON of opportunity in the trades
and these are jobs that cannot easily be offshored. Unfortunately
a generation of American parents were brainwashed by the 1960s
Smelliest Generation that runs the universities that no one
can succeed without a college degree. Speaking as someone who
HAS a graduate degree (and briefly taught grad school) this is
nonsense.

Fully agree, but it seems some of that is coming back. Problem is that
a fully licensed (independent) plumber or electrician just about has to
get at least an associate degree to be able to read the regs and do the
accounting.

You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here.

I'm actually saying the opposite: Web programming and Java are
now commodity skills - the manual labor of the IT industry.
There are too many people that can do this work and not enough
job openings.

Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
is why jobs are leaving Dodge...

That would also be the kind of job to return ASAP when the
schools/students see the opportunity. Indeed, some of the lower level
off-shored jobs are coming back, I heard (don't ask, I don't remember
where I heard).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I grew
up in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know pretty
well that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am also
eternally grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave their
lives for our freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white
supremacists and other paramilitary groups, whether left or right.

Those guys though, are not the people who are protected by the 2nd
Ammendment. At least the ones who act out their "anxieties".

But the anxiety that the 2nd Amendment is getting compromised is played
out in front of those, and they (unfortunately) act on it.

Therefore, I would like to emphasize education and discussion rather
then arming ourselves. Here I try to stay polite, and most often I
can indeed put myself into the trains of thought that people who
don't agree with me are expressing. But there are many paths to the
ultimate goal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I like
to express my views as how to achieve that, respecting different
views.

I respect your views, and I hold them to be nieve. But - I do respect
them. BTW - I have always found your postions to be respectful of
others.

Thanks! I know that I am perhaps somewhat naive. I've lived a protected
life, despite or because I walked across midtown Manhattan twice a day
and worked in a VA Hospital ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I was born in the last year of WWII. Large parts of the town I grew
up in (Wageningen) were destroyed twice in that war. I know pretty
well that at times armed insurrection is necessary, and I am also
eternally grateful (that's not a sop) for the Allies who gave their
lives for our freedom. Still, I am rather fearful of white
supremacists and other paramilitary groups, whether left or right.

Those guys though, are not the people who are protected by the 2nd
Ammendment. At least the ones who act out their "anxieties".

But the anxiety that the 2nd Amendment is getting compromised is
played out in front of those, and they (unfortunately) act on it.

So - do you have some links showing these acts? I get the fear part, but I
don't get the part of you believing they are acting out threats to the
second ammendment.


--

-Mike-

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Hardcore engineering is exactly what we're missing and where
all the demand is. I could probably place between 5-20 people
right now with just 1 year's experience in Linux engineering
and infrastructure if they knew basic system administration,
networking, and troubleshooting, and had good people skills
and a high integrity work ethic. The jobs I'm thinking of
start at well north of $50K/yr with full benefits, vacation,
401K matching, and instant vesting of all the money the company
does contribute to the 401K. A great first job for a young,
smart engineer ... and the company can't find 'em. That, sir,
is why jobs are leaving Dodge...

Man Tim - you should start a recruiting business because you'd have a corner
on the market. I do see those openings here and there but I probably
haven't seen 20 since the beginning of the year. Maybe it's a reflection of
where you live.

--

-Mike-

On 18 Aug 2012 21:09:48 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 18 Aug 2012 15:47:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack wrote in :

I used the saw stop as an example because this is a woodworking
group, and most woodworkers, even the idiots, know what a saw stop
is. Some don't even have a problem with government forcing new saw
buyers to only buy saw stop, so, seems if you are going to let
government mandate wages, mandate what saws to buy, might as well
let them mandate a the price of the saw.

Yes a cow is a mammal, we get our milk from cows. Cats are mammals
too, why not get our milk from them? That's the above reasoning (IMO)
...

Actually the sawstop may be a good example of the multiple things that
are "wrong". Gass had good ideas, but when he tried to sell them,
nobody would buy. He is a good patent lawyer, so he definitely could
cover his invention to lock it up. Then he went 2-prong - he made his
own excellent (expensive) saw and he went lobbying for regulations
that would force people to buy his saw. (Something about petitioning
government for redress of grievances, perhaps - I'm not a
constitutional lawyer).

So what is wrong here? Please add your opinions. Mine a
- The saw makers were stupid.

No, they weren't.

Now they are on the hook.

Not yet.

Whether they were stupid or not will wait until this whole thing has
played out. My feeling at this point is that they should have accepted
Gass's first offer in some form.

Because they didn't even consider that the power of the US government would be
used to put them out of business? No, I expect they didn't expect this from
"hope and change".

But I do see the lawyer argument that
doing so would make them admit to having been selling dangerous toys.

Hindsight, without considering the consequences, is wonderful.

- Gass is a monopolist. He is a very capable lawyer and wants his
"due", to the max. - Gass deserves compensation for his inventions.

He *only* deserves compensation to the extent that people are willing
to give him is pound of flesh. If *they* decide that his invention is
not worth the money, *they* should be free to pass on it.

Easy to say, not necessarily true. If Gass wins the Safety commission
endorsement, they'll have to accept his monopoly pricing. There is no
viable alternative (yet).

If Gass wins, he will have been handed a legal monopoly on table saws, and who
knows what else. I suppose you would be in favor of that. "It's for the
children."

- If people are too stupid to follow simple directions about safety,
let Darwin rule. - People should be protected from having to work
under dangerous conditions.

The government can't protect idiots. With your extension of the nanny
state, I guess we'd better outlaw hydrogen hydroxide, too.

Misspelling. It's dihydrogen oxide.

Nope. It's (slightly) ionic. ;-)

The stats say that it is the single man workshop who begets the injuries,
or at least those that are NOT under OSHA regulation. Those are safe.
So in actual fact, government can protect idiots, or at least educate
them via OSHA.

How many die from drowning every year? Should be ban swimming, too?
How about five-gallon buckets?

If I have to, or want to buy a new saw, the sawstop is something I'd
give thought to. I can probably afford it.

Good for you. I can, too, but chose not to. You'd rather take that
choice away from me. How tyrannical of you.

It's not MY choice. I'd rather have competition and education do the
work. I'm against the Gass maneuvers to use the Safety Commission.

You seem to be just peachy with the whole idea.

If a guy/company goes for
the easiest profit he'd ignore worker safety unless forced to obey

The worker can chose to work for the guy with the SawStop, too.

With unlimited work options in town, yes. Too many little contractors
with Ridgid saw who chose not to educate their workers sufficiently, but
too few real choice between them.

They can choose to do something else for a living, or go to work for
themselves. Heck, they can even buy their own tools.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:48:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:04:09 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:




Agreed - despite the unfounded claims that insurance companies are driving
this, I've not yet seen one single piece of proof of this claim.

AIM Mutual insurance is our workmen's comp carrier. They are strongly
suggesting new equipment be replaced with Saw Stop or equal. They are
not yet refusing to write a policy (that I'm aware of), but they are
certainly pushing for safety features like Saw Stop. It was indicated
that it may be mandatory, but that was during last year's inspection.
I'll try to remember to ask about it.

I'm not so concerned what insurance carriers do. They, and their customers,
are free to enter into whatever contract floats their boat. When the law is
brought to bear, it changes everything.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:09:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:



My analysis is not substantially wrong, though there may be small
errors of detail. There are NOT enough technology grads to fill the jobs
we
need filled. Most of the people going into so-called CS programs are
actually learning web programming and Java where there are way too
many people already. The jobs are in real hardcore engineering and true
computer science. Trade DOES materially lift all boats in the macro
picture. Trade DOES reduce the tendency of nations to go to war. These
are unremarkable observations. The only people that disagree with
them are not doing so on factual grounds but because they do not like the
outcomes.

Colleges graduate students where the market is heading - perhaps with a
little lag. You are right about the web development stuff, but that's where
the market is. Hardcore engineering is dying here. As you say below -
technology has evolved past that - for good or for bad - that's the way it
is.

I'm actually on the benefit side of this. My boss looks for gray-hairs
because of what is being turned out by the universities. When I was a
graduate, large companies weren't hire a 60YO on a bet. It's an interesting
bit of reverse age-discrimination. ;-)

On 18 Aug 2012 21:23:12 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 18 Aug 2012 15:49:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

BINGO! Corruption encompasses all branches, beginning with some of
the lowly city gov't folks, worsening in state gov't, and
skyrocketing in the totally corrupt CONgress. That's why it will
take the people, all of us, to bring about REAL change in our
country.


How, Larry? We have a Constitution to work with. A very powerful
status quo vehicle.

But Han, you're one who doesn't care a fig about the Constitution,
particularly as a "status quo vehicle".

Keith, that is a non-sequitur to me. Maybe you can explain ...

You're constantly pushing an anti-Constitutional agenda, at least one that
gives even lip service to a durable Constitution.

Yes, the fact that there are amendments to the Constitution means it is
subject to revision (and re-revision, a la prohibition).

Fine. Then amend it, if you don't think the US doesn't stand up to your
Holland. The rules are enclosed inside. Good luck!

Moreover, as I
understand the Constitution, it prescribes a division of powers, with (I
think) the SCOTUS as the last arbiter. AT least that is the current
interpretation. I think it was Scalia who in an interview re-iterated
what Roberts had said in slightly different words. We are loath to
overturn on ideology if the legal phraseology can be interpreted in favor
of a passed law.

What I meant as a status quo vehicle was that Congress has difficulty
making laws (certainly at the moment) that would re-interpret previous
laws. And with that I mean to say that once a law is on the books,
changing for instance dividends and capital gains into ordinary income
for tax purposes is difficult. Lobbyists and all.

Um, that's *not* unintentional. The Constitution is all about "gridlock".
It's not a bad thing at all.

Sorry, I may make less sense now than I first thought. Damned whooping
cough ...

Blame it on the drugs. ;-)

Guys, do yourselves a favor and get the booster vaccination for
pertussis, I think it is call Tdap. I've been sick or sickish for months
now, and the coughing is terrible.

I had it as a teen. Wasn't fun.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:48:52 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Han wrote:


Being liberal does not mean I live in lala land.

I knew it Han! - You aren't really liberal!

Only on odd days. ;-)

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:59:24 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

It wouldn't work even if it was a good idea, which I don't think it
is. The same First Amendment that gives you a constitutional right
to post to newsgroups gives others the right to political speech.
People have the constitutional right to support their favored
candidates. To abridge that right would require a constitutional
amendment (which ain't gonna happen), not a mere statute.

Here, here!

I think you meant "Hear, hear!"

Actuall, I did and wrote it that way first. It looked odd so I changed it.
That's what I get for 13 hours sleep (after a week with no more than five).
....and no coffee yet.

Unless you want the money sent to you...

Please do!