Daily Herald:
Oh Joe, you great crusading action hero you.
Reality check, please. The median income per household in the USA as of the last census was a little over fifty thousand. In DuPage it's just over $75,000. Assuming an average of 1.5 wage-earners per household, that means that even if this proposal had passed, Joe and his buddies would still each have been getting the same money the rest of us get, plus very generous benefits like health care and pensions. But the rest of us have to work full time for our money; not so Joe. DuPage Forest Preserve Commissioners claim (in the Herald article linked above) to work 1000 hours a year; that's only half a full-time job, if true; the real amount of time they spend is probably quite a bit less. Most if not all of them have day jobs—Cantore is an industrial building remodeling contractor.
Then there's this:
This is a bloody silly argument for a number of reasons. Besides the obvious, that running the forest preserves might not be quite as much work as running the entire rest of the county, the fact of the matter is that DuPage County Board members are also grossly overpaid, getting full-time salary and benefits for work they do as a sideline to their regular jobs.
Joe and others, if you're really out to save the taxpayers some money, cut your salary and benefits to what a typical ten-hour-per-week position would offer. Give up your guaranteed government-provided health care and retirement income until such time as the rest of us are entitled to such things, which might happen if we get the Republicans out of state and federal government.
Alternately, keep the salary and benefits, but make the Commission work for them. Make it illegal for Forest Preserve Commissioners (and County Board members) to accept any outside paid position or own a significant interest in any business during their terms. Transfer to them some of the work currently being done by salaried managers and make them spend enough time on it to earn that money we're giving them.
DuPage Forest Preserve commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to reduce their own salaries from nearly $57,000 to $53,500, but they disagreed on whether the cuts were deep enough.
Commissioner Joe Cantore suggested reducing salaries in October and on Tuesday fought to keep the issue from being tabled to next week’s commission meeting.
He urged fellow commissioners to cut their salaries to $50,000, roughly equal to the annual compensation DuPage County Board members receive.
“It was just time for some action,” Cantore said. “We needed to get it done. But I don’t think we reduced it enough and I guess you could call it a compromise.”
Oh Joe, you great crusading action hero you.
Reality check, please. The median income per household in the USA as of the last census was a little over fifty thousand. In DuPage it's just over $75,000. Assuming an average of 1.5 wage-earners per household, that means that even if this proposal had passed, Joe and his buddies would still each have been getting the same money the rest of us get, plus very generous benefits like health care and pensions. But the rest of us have to work full time for our money; not so Joe. DuPage Forest Preserve Commissioners claim (in the Herald article linked above) to work 1000 hours a year; that's only half a full-time job, if true; the real amount of time they spend is probably quite a bit less. Most if not all of them have day jobs—Cantore is an industrial building remodeling contractor.
Then there's this:
[Outgoing commissioner Carl] Schultz said one forest commissioner represents the same number of people as three county board members per district. He added that county board members also have offices, while forest commissioners keep offices in their homes.
This is a bloody silly argument for a number of reasons. Besides the obvious, that running the forest preserves might not be quite as much work as running the entire rest of the county, the fact of the matter is that DuPage County Board members are also grossly overpaid, getting full-time salary and benefits for work they do as a sideline to their regular jobs.
Joe and others, if you're really out to save the taxpayers some money, cut your salary and benefits to what a typical ten-hour-per-week position would offer. Give up your guaranteed government-provided health care and retirement income until such time as the rest of us are entitled to such things, which might happen if we get the Republicans out of state and federal government.
Alternately, keep the salary and benefits, but make the Commission work for them. Make it illegal for Forest Preserve Commissioners (and County Board members) to accept any outside paid position or own a significant interest in any business during their terms. Transfer to them some of the work currently being done by salaried managers and make them spend enough time on it to earn that money we're giving them.
If Santorum is defined to refer to that certain mixture of bodily fluids, then Roskam really ought to refer to a falsehood so blatant that nobody with the remotest shred of decency would want to touch it. Sadly this class of human being includes few if any modern-day Republican politicians, and certainly not Mr. Roskam himself. Case in point, his latest tax-payer-funded campaign emailconstituent franking email:
High gas prices are the result of Obama administration policy in the world according to Pete. Here's a graph of those prices over the past thirty-plus years:
As you can see, gas prices were more or less stable until they took a major spike upwards around 2005 and another one in 2008. Gosh. Petey, who was President in 2005?
If you watch the video, you'll find the "solution" Petey is pushing is to build the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline is actually designed to allow Canadian oil producers to export oil overseas by providing a route to oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. Not only would this pipeline be disastrous for the health and well-being of those of us who drink water, but It might actually increase gas prices in the USA, and according to Cornell researchers might actually cost jobs in the USA.
But on the plus side, it would mean fat profits for Canadian oil companies, some of which would no doubt fall into Mr. Roskam's campaign coffers. Also, more work for doctors and other health professionals who will have to treat the resulting chronic health problems. This is good news for people like Pete and his staff whose health care is paid for by public money, a benefit he's worked hard to deny to the rest of us.
You and your families are surely affected by high and rising gas prices. The average price is already over $3.50 a gallon! Unfortunately, some experts say they could rise as high a $5-per-gallon.
This is a disappointing but unfortunately not surprising reality. High gas prices and rising electricity costs are just some of the results of the Administration's energy policy designed to benefit political allies at the expense of lower American energy costs.
But House Republicans are fighting back. Find out how in my interview with Martha MacCallum here.
High gas prices are the result of Obama administration policy in the world according to Pete. Here's a graph of those prices over the past thirty-plus years:
As you can see, gas prices were more or less stable until they took a major spike upwards around 2005 and another one in 2008. Gosh. Petey, who was President in 2005?
If you watch the video, you'll find the "solution" Petey is pushing is to build the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline is actually designed to allow Canadian oil producers to export oil overseas by providing a route to oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. Not only would this pipeline be disastrous for the health and well-being of those of us who drink water, but It might actually increase gas prices in the USA, and according to Cornell researchers might actually cost jobs in the USA.
But on the plus side, it would mean fat profits for Canadian oil companies, some of which would no doubt fall into Mr. Roskam's campaign coffers. Also, more work for doctors and other health professionals who will have to treat the resulting chronic health problems. This is good news for people like Pete and his staff whose health care is paid for by public money, a benefit he's worked hard to deny to the rest of us.
The Daily Herald reports:
For Krishnamoorthi's specific proposal, look here.
This morning, the Duckworth campaign sent out this:
Hey, Duckworth campaign: Your primary opponent has a name, you know. And unless I'm missing something, the above is just dishonest.
How is it dishonest? For one thing, it's true that using a Super PAC in a Democratic primary would be unprecedented. That's why it's probably not going to happen. Joe Walsh will almost surely benefit from SuperPACs in the general election against whichever Democrat wins in March (and the chance of him signing onto any agreement of this sort are basically nil). But talking about a SuperPAC attack in the primary as if it were a clear and present danger is disingenuous at best, and is an indication of a campaign that is less interested in taking the influence of money out of the election and more interested in using it as a publicity stunt.
But more importantly, Krishnamoorthi didn't fold, he raised the bet. He didn't refuse to sign on, he asked for a broader agreement that would have taken other kinds of money out as well, plus public debates that would've lessened the impact of paid media. Maybe the Duckworth campaign views these extra conditions as unacceptable. It would be reasonable to say that Krishnamoorthi didn't refuse an agreement but attached conditions to it that they viewed as unacceptable. Then maybe they could tell us why they feel that one kind of outside money is bad but other kinds (which are far more likely to actually show up in this particular race) are absolutely necessary. But just portraying Krishnamoorthi's response as a flat-out "no" is flat-out dishonest.
Tammy Duckworth, one of two Democratic Congressional candidates making a bid in the 8th District, challenged her opponent Monday to reject any contribution from Super PACs — political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.
Opponent Raja Krishnamoorthi said he’ll agree — but only if Duckworth also agrees not to accept contributions from international unions, lobbyists or other corporations.... He also proposed that the candidates get rid of “paid media (ads)” by holding one debate a week until the election.
For Krishnamoorthi's specific proposal, look here.
This morning, the Duckworth campaign sent out this:
Yesterday, I asked my opponents to join me in a pledge to keep Super PAC spending out of this race. An overwhelming number of you signed on to agree that unlimited, anonymous funding should have no role in our democracy. But unfortunately, my primary opponent refused to sign on to the same kind of pledge Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown agreed to.
As I said yesterday, this will only work if my opponent agrees. Over 7,000 of you have contributed to my campaign--often in spite of tough financial circumstances--and I'm not willing to let your contributions be overwhelmed by millions of dollars in negative attack ads.
We've already seen the corrosive effect of Super PAC support in the Republican presidential primary. And frankly, I'm not surprised to see Republicans embrace unlimited, anonymous corporate funds. But using a Super PAC in a Democratic primary would be unprecedented. It's just not who we are as a party and it's not what we should aspire to be.
Hey, Duckworth campaign: Your primary opponent has a name, you know. And unless I'm missing something, the above is just dishonest.
How is it dishonest? For one thing, it's true that using a Super PAC in a Democratic primary would be unprecedented. That's why it's probably not going to happen. Joe Walsh will almost surely benefit from SuperPACs in the general election against whichever Democrat wins in March (and the chance of him signing onto any agreement of this sort are basically nil). But talking about a SuperPAC attack in the primary as if it were a clear and present danger is disingenuous at best, and is an indication of a campaign that is less interested in taking the influence of money out of the election and more interested in using it as a publicity stunt.
But more importantly, Krishnamoorthi didn't fold, he raised the bet. He didn't refuse to sign on, he asked for a broader agreement that would have taken other kinds of money out as well, plus public debates that would've lessened the impact of paid media. Maybe the Duckworth campaign views these extra conditions as unacceptable. It would be reasonable to say that Krishnamoorthi didn't refuse an agreement but attached conditions to it that they viewed as unacceptable. Then maybe they could tell us why they feel that one kind of outside money is bad but other kinds (which are far more likely to actually show up in this particular race) are absolutely necessary. But just portraying Krishnamoorthi's response as a flat-out "no" is flat-out dishonest.
"I am the nominee, whether you like it or not."
This race is already shaping up as one of the more active state ones in the area, with three Democratic candidates and two on the other side. For what it's worth, I endorse Greg Brownfield over Kevin Allen and Thomas Cullerton.
Having worked as a legal aid attorney giving free advice to people who can't afford a lawyer, Greg Brownfield knows first-hand how the wrecked economy is affecting people. He talks about a compassion deficit, the obligation of government to the needy which is as important as its other debts; we must not balance the state's books on the backs of the most vulnerable. Brownfield is also highly skilled at bringing together large crowds of motivated volunteers, a skill that our nominee will surely need in order to take on someone with the resources of a Pankau or Ramey.
Each of the candidates in this primary has something valuable to offer. Kevin Allen is a friend, a smart guy who's been active for years in local politics against the Republican machine. Tom Cullerton is the best village president that Villa Park has seen for quite some time. Either of them would make a fine State Senator, and I'd be happy to support either of them after the primary. But until then, Brownfield is endorsed.
There's an email going around listing some ideas that will supposedly reform Congress. The email attributes its contents to gazillionaire investor Warren Buffet, but in actuality, Buffet only suggested the first idea in the email; the rest are by some anonymous author who evidently felt it necessary to appropriate Buffet's name.
The email, with my own arguments against what it proposes, is below. I should mention that I have no great regard for (the current) Congress, especially my current member who I regard as one of the biggest dirtbags on the planet.
The email, with my own arguments against what it proposes, is below. I should mention that I have no great regard for (the current) Congress, especially my current member who I regard as one of the biggest dirtbags on the planet.
Ran a torture camp for dogs, using her own money. Sentenced to thirty months in jail.
Ran a torture camp for human beings, using public money. Left free and given fat pensions.Moral: Never use your own money.
...it's a really, really good idea:
(Emphasis added, of course.)
This applies to people regardless of whether we like them, whether they like us, whether they like our country, or whether people of similar skin color and religious background once carried out an attack against our country.
It applies to everyone, because if it doesn't then it applies to no one.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(Emphasis added, of course.)
This applies to people regardless of whether we like them, whether they like us, whether they like our country, or whether people of similar skin color and religious background once carried out an attack against our country.
It applies to everyone, because if it doesn't then it applies to no one.
From Raw Story:Greg Mitchell's new book, Atomic Cover-Up: Two U.S. Soldiers, Hiroshima & Nagasaki and The Greatest Movie Never Made, is the first to be devoted to the historic full-color footage that was covered up by the U.S. government for decades.
Google's "ad word team" notified Mitchell Monday that an online ad for the book's video trailer was being suspended because it "promotes violence."
"At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain the promotion of violence," an email to Mitchell said. "As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, Google may refuse any ads or terminate any of your ad campaigns at any time, for any reason."
You can watch the video trailer at the Raw Story link above. At no point does it advocate violence against anyone. By exposing the harm that war can cause, it might in some small way help to deter violence.
A lot of people think of Google as a benign alternative to some of the more obviously scummy corporations like Microsoft. They aren't. When it comes to corporations of that size, there's no such thing as benign. Think about this before you decide to trust them with custody of your email or any other documents.
Via Forbes:In the 1980s, attorney Gary Reback was working at Sun Microsystems, then a young technology startup. A pack of IBM employees in blue suits showed up at Sun headquarters seeking royalties for 7 patents that IBM claimed Sun had infringed. The Sun employees, having examined the patents, patiently explained that six of the seven patents were likely invalid, and Sun clearly hadn’t infringed the seventh.... An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. “OK,” he said, “maybe you don’t infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back... and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?” After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.
Android has roughly 10 million lines of code. Auditing 10 million lines of code for compliance with 18,000 patents is an impossible task—especially because the meaning of a patent’s claims are often not clear until after they have been litigated. Most Silicon Valley companies don’t even try to avoid infringing patents. They just ignore them and hope they’ll be able to afford good lawyers when the inevitable lawsuits arrive.
So Android, like every large software product on the planet, infringes numerous Microsoft patents. And Microsoft is taking full advantage. They’re visiting Android licensees and giving the same sales pitch Reback remembers from a quarter century ago. “Do you really want us to go back to Redmond and find patents you infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us?” Once again, many of the targets are writing checks to make the problem go away.
In software development, in which I myself am gainfully employed, you often find that there's one clear best way of doing something. You may reinvent it without knowing or caring who did it before you. Should that entitle the first person to solve the problem — or the person who patented the solution, who probably wasn't actually the first — to free money from you? That's a bit like saying that I need to cut a check to Karl Fredric Gauss' decendants every time I solve for three unknowns in three linear equations.
Microsoft, of course, doesn't follow its own rules. The Win-D'Ohs operating system borrowed heavily from Mac OS and OS-2. The .NET platform is basically Java with some not-very-useful extra features thrown in. And so on. You'd be hard-pressed to find any product these guys put out that somebody else didn't do first, usually better, and almost always cheaper.
So to all the readers out there -- yes, both of you -- please don't buy any Microsoft products. If you need a PC, get Ubuntu instead. After all, Microsoft will get your money anyway.
For older posts, please use the "archive" link in the left sidebar.
