No, he is saying that 26 Republican States refused to build their website, so the federal government was stuck with building them. No correlation between State and Federal here, so don't try to make one.
Wrong. The federal government had to make one website for the federal exchange. The knew over three years ago that a federal exchange would be needed.
I've heard it argued that the only real way to find compromise is to do the deals in the back room.
Perhaps if *both* sides go into the back room. However when only one side goes into the back room with their lobbyists and special interests in tow you do not get compromise. You get partisanship, and guess how the other party responds, with more partisanship.
... the final law had a TON of compromise in it.
Compromise between liberal democrats and conservative democrats. That doesn't really count.
False. 26 Republican States refused to create their own website by the December 31st 2012 deadline, forcing the Federal government to create 26 websites in less than a year.
You are ill informed at multiple levels. (1) The federal government only needed a single website. There is only one federal exchange. (2) The federal government knew it needed this website as soon as the legislation was passed. They have had over three years to implement it.
False. 26 Republican States refused to create their own website by the December 31st 2012 deadline, forcing the Federal government to create 26 websites in less than a year.
So you are arguing that some big social programs are best handled at the state level, that they should not be done at the federal level? That they can not be done right at the federal level?
The one positive thing the Bin Laden raid, Obama was at the controls making the tough calls.
Even with only a 50/50 chance the person in the compound was Bin Laden, the American public would *never* have forgiven the President for not sending a team to the compound. The President made the *only* decision that politics allowed for.
If no raid had occurred then right before the election there would have been a leaked story about a compound that may have held Bin Laden and the President decided to do nothing about it. The President had no choice but to go if he wanted re-eelction.
Keep in mind that he barely won while getting credit for taking out Bin Laden. Yes, barely won, the margin of votes was small in key states that could have tipped the electoral college vote either way.
Who concedes decision-making power of the most important item on one's list? It's more than a conundrum, it's a full-blown mystery.
It baffles me, but the President surrendered leadership on his signature legislation at the beginning. One of his first moves was to let partisan Nancy Pelosi take the lead and also take the process into the back rooms with lobbyists in tow. He surrendered his promises of an open and transparent legislative process with seats at the table for all.
Actually Marines use different terminology because they are different than the Army, its not a chip on their shoulder. The Marine Corp has a unique level of integration of arms and a unique capability. For example a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) aboard a USN Amphibious Assault Ship is a highly mobile and self contained assault force, rifleman through jet close air support aircraft, helo and amphibious transport, logistics and supply and medical facilities. Even at the division level it is unique since the divisions are paired with air wings that even include fighter aircraft for battlefield air superiority. To indicate how different these Marine jet pilots are from their USN and USAF counterparts consider the first step in becoming a pilot in the USMC: becoming a rifle platoon commander. Not some familiarization course, but the *exact* same officer candidate program and school that infantry officers come out of. If you do not qualify as a rifle platoon commander you can not go to flight school.
Regarding using "rifleman" rather than "infantryman", the Marine Corp also has a unique emphasis on proficiency with the rifle, of everyone being responsible for force security in a very literal sense. A family member was a paratrooper at Bastogne. His unit was spread very thin on the line and they were reinforced with truck drivers who had volunteered to make last minute one way trips into Bastogne before the Germans fully surrounded the city. While the bravery of these truck drivers was not in question, their capability was. They literally had not fired their rifles since stateside basic training. The Marine Corps fixation on the rifle prevents this sort of thing.
Various relatives I grew up around served in the Army, Navy and Marine Corp. Bullets and shrapnel do the same thing to the soldier or Marine. The Army has its share of elite units, yet the Marines are unique. Not necessarily better, but unique. The Defense Department has wisely chosen to keep the Marines as part of the Department of the Navy.
A troop is a group of soldiers. An individual soldier is not a troop. An individual soldier is called a soldier.
The singular of "troops" is "trooper", not "soldier". Troops are not necessarily soldiers, they may be Marines for example. The word "troops" is often used to be service branch neutral.
Or - picture them in the hands of North Korea... Once they get deployed in one nation, no matter how well "behaved" that one nation will be, they will appear in other places - under less enlightened "leadership".
No. Once they are *possible* they will be deployed in nearly all nations, enlightened or not. Its not a western thing, its a universal thing. Its not like North Korea or nearly any other nation would pass on a non-WMD technology merely because the US or the west passed on it. Soon after cars were invented people mounted guns on them, soon after airplanes were invented people mounted guns on them, soon after drones were invented people mounted guns on them,...
When robots with fully autonomous land navigation are practical, people will mount guns on them. The only question is whether fire control will also be fully autonomous or remotely controlled, as it is today with drones.
The US blockade on Japanese shipping and imports had caused intolerable problems so something had to change.
There was *no* blockade. There was an embargo. The U.S. told Japan that as long as it invades/occupies China we would not sell oil, steel, etc to Japan. The change the U.S. *wanted* was for Japan to withdraw its troops from China.
South Korea was an unambiguous invasion. The people of the South supported and fought along side us. The fighting was authorized by the United Nations. The Korean War was not controversial like Vietnam, it is merely "forgotten".
Regarding the attitude of getting it done while wishing the enemy had left my country and its friends alone, that characterizes the WW2 vets I grew up around very well. Other than SS troops, which they view as political and part of the problem, the recognized the necessity of it but regretted the killing. Considered it a great waste for both sides.
Just imagine Japan doing a celebration of pilots raiding Pearl Harbor.
While the pilots themselves were not war criminals, merely military personnel following legitimate orders to attack a legitimate military target. Actual war criminals, including those who committed atrocities against civilians and prisoners or war, are explicitly included in annual commemorations of Japan's "heroic war dead".
This is one of the major sources of ill will between Japan and its Asian neighbors who were victimized by Imperial Japan. It suggests a lack of sincere remorse.
Or how about Germany holding annual celebrations for pilots of the Blitz?
What Japan does every year is more like including the SS camp guards in their memorial service.
Dead citizens in Tokyo were for certain not involved in massacring the Chinese.
The Doolittle Raid attacked a small number of specific military targets, they were not carpet bombing a city. The raid was largely symbolic for the US and psychological for the Japanese, it did very little damage.
If you are a civilian working at a war munitions factory in Imperial Japan you *are* involved in the massacre of the Chinese civilians.
Yes, those damn civilians who started a war by going about their daily business! It's great that they died painfully by being burned to death!
The Doolittle Raid was not like the fire bombings that would come in 1945. The attacking bombers were small in number, carrying rather small loads and attacking at a low altitude where they had decent accuracy for the day. They were conducting pinpoint attacks on specific military targets, they were not carpet bombing a city. The raid was largely symbolic for the US and psychological for the Japanese, it did very little damage.
If you are a civilian working on a military base or working at a war munitions factory you legitimately *are* part of the war.
1963 poverty rate: roughly 19%. 2013 rate: 15% Hooray. This is actually impressive given the tremendous increase in inequality between 1963 and today.
It was 15% in 1966, 1982, 1993, 2013. From 1966 to today it has been fluctuating between 12% and 15%. Nearly 50 years of massive government spending with no change.
BTW, Johnson introduced the "War on Poverty" legislation in 64 not 63. The programs that implemented this agenda took years more. Poverty had been on a very sharp decline many years before this. This decline essentially stopped as this legislation was implemented.
Even more telescopes in space. We're supposed to be commercializing space right? Rentable telescopes. You rent it for an hour, you point it in the direction you want, gimbals permitting.
Amateur astronomers actually make a *lot* of the discoveries and do a lot of the photography.
How many amateurs make discoveries while in NYC? Or are they driving to the Poconos or Catskills?
I recall a suburb of Los Angeles that installed some LEDs in traffic signals in the late 1980s. The was a visibility problem based on angle. At one light, maybe more but I only witnessed this once, when within about 10 feet of the limit line you could not see which light was illuminated. So the first car stopped at the light could not tell when it turned green.
This is a pretty terrible idea. It snows in NYC right? the LED's dont generate enough heat to melt the snow, so they will have to install heaters to keep the street lights from caking up with snow/ice and becoming useless.
Even if heaters need to be installed they only need to be turned on during cold weather so there is still a potential efficiency benefit.
I think you're confusing street lights and traffic signals. Places in the snow belt have had issues with LED traffic signals getting blocked with snow, but I can't see the same thing happening with a downward facing street light.
It will when temperatures fluctuate above and below freezing. When above the snow on top will melt and the water will cling to the downward facing cover where it will freeze when the temperature drops. Icicles may form, which could be a safety hazard.
Yes, there is a savings, but how much is it going to cost NY taxpayers up front ?
Would a better strategy be to replace the sodium lights with LED style lights, as they wear out?
Yes, there is a savings, but how much is it going to cost NY taxpayers up front ?
It looks like a 4 year program and the incandescents last about 7 years. So many of those bulbs will be due for replacement anyway.
The LEDs have a lifespan of 20 years, more than three times that of the current incandescent bulbs, and Bloomberg says it will save $6 million in energy and $8 million in maintenance every year.
When does the electrical workers union go on strike, the bulb changers belong to this one, followed by various other city worker union going on strike in support?
And after Perot happened, the parties took complete control of the debates so that they can exclude any third party. No third party will ever be allowed into the debates again.
No, 3rd party candidates are not excluded. Candidates polling less than 15% are excluded. A good 3rd party candidate with a good message in this day of social media could do that. The voters are in control. If the voters show interest the 3rd party is in.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he is saying that 26 Republican States refused to build their website, so the federal government was stuck with building them. No correlation between State and Federal here, so don't try to make one.
Wrong. The federal government had to make one website for the federal exchange. The knew over three years ago that a federal exchange would be needed.
I've heard it argued that the only real way to find compromise is to do the deals in the back room.
Perhaps if *both* sides go into the back room. However when only one side goes into the back room with their lobbyists and special interests in tow you do not get compromise. You get partisanship, and guess how the other party responds, with more partisanship.
... the final law had a TON of compromise in it.
Compromise between liberal democrats and conservative democrats. That doesn't really count.
False. 26 Republican States refused to create their own website by the December 31st 2012 deadline, forcing the Federal government to create 26 websites in less than a year.
You are ill informed at multiple levels. (1) The federal government only needed a single website. There is only one federal exchange. (2) The federal government knew it needed this website as soon as the legislation was passed. They have had over three years to implement it.
False. 26 Republican States refused to create their own website by the December 31st 2012 deadline, forcing the Federal government to create 26 websites in less than a year.
So you are arguing that some big social programs are best handled at the state level, that they should not be done at the federal level? That they can not be done right at the federal level?
The one positive thing the Bin Laden raid, Obama was at the controls making the tough calls.
Even with only a 50/50 chance the person in the compound was Bin Laden, the American public would *never* have forgiven the President for not sending a team to the compound. The President made the *only* decision that politics allowed for.
If no raid had occurred then right before the election there would have been a leaked story about a compound that may have held Bin Laden and the President decided to do nothing about it. The President had no choice but to go if he wanted re-eelction.
Keep in mind that he barely won while getting credit for taking out Bin Laden. Yes, barely won, the margin of votes was small in key states that could have tipped the electoral college vote either way.
Who concedes decision-making power of the most important item on one's list? It's more than a conundrum, it's a full-blown mystery.
It baffles me, but the President surrendered leadership on his signature legislation at the beginning. One of his first moves was to let partisan Nancy Pelosi take the lead and also take the process into the back rooms with lobbyists in tow. He surrendered his promises of an open and transparent legislative process with seats at the table for all.
Here's a thought, I ditched my cable provider and went with Netflix and sharing media on my computer with my tv to not have to be bombarded with ads.
Aren't you opening a huge security hole on your computer, doesn't Netflix on a PC/Mac require Microsoft Silverlight ?
Actually Marines use different terminology because they are different than the Army, its not a chip on their shoulder. The Marine Corp has a unique level of integration of arms and a unique capability. For example a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) aboard a USN Amphibious Assault Ship is a highly mobile and self contained assault force, rifleman through jet close air support aircraft, helo and amphibious transport, logistics and supply and medical facilities. Even at the division level it is unique since the divisions are paired with air wings that even include fighter aircraft for battlefield air superiority. To indicate how different these Marine jet pilots are from their USN and USAF counterparts consider the first step in becoming a pilot in the USMC: becoming a rifle platoon commander. Not some familiarization course, but the *exact* same officer candidate program and school that infantry officers come out of. If you do not qualify as a rifle platoon commander you can not go to flight school.
Regarding using "rifleman" rather than "infantryman", the Marine Corp also has a unique emphasis on proficiency with the rifle, of everyone being responsible for force security in a very literal sense. A family member was a paratrooper at Bastogne. His unit was spread very thin on the line and they were reinforced with truck drivers who had volunteered to make last minute one way trips into Bastogne before the Germans fully surrounded the city. While the bravery of these truck drivers was not in question, their capability was. They literally had not fired their rifles since stateside basic training. The Marine Corps fixation on the rifle prevents this sort of thing.
Various relatives I grew up around served in the Army, Navy and Marine Corp. Bullets and shrapnel do the same thing to the soldier or Marine. The Army has its share of elite units, yet the Marines are unique. Not necessarily better, but unique. The Defense Department has wisely chosen to keep the Marines as part of the Department of the Navy.
A troop is a group of soldiers. An individual soldier is not a troop. An individual soldier is called a soldier.
The singular of "troops" is "trooper", not "soldier". Troops are not necessarily soldiers, they may be Marines for example. The word "troops" is often used to be service branch neutral.
Or - picture them in the hands of North Korea... Once they get deployed in one nation, no matter how well "behaved" that one nation will be, they will appear in other places - under less enlightened "leadership".
No. Once they are *possible* they will be deployed in nearly all nations, enlightened or not. Its not a western thing, its a universal thing. Its not like North Korea or nearly any other nation would pass on a non-WMD technology merely because the US or the west passed on it. Soon after cars were invented people mounted guns on them, soon after airplanes were invented people mounted guns on them, soon after drones were invented people mounted guns on them, ...
When robots with fully autonomous land navigation are practical, people will mount guns on them. The only question is whether fire control will also be fully autonomous or remotely controlled, as it is today with drones.
The US blockade on Japanese shipping and imports had caused intolerable problems so something had to change.
There was *no* blockade. There was an embargo. The U.S. told Japan that as long as it invades/occupies China we would not sell oil, steel, etc to Japan. The change the U.S. *wanted* was for Japan to withdraw its troops from China.
South Korea was an unambiguous invasion. The people of the South supported and fought along side us. The fighting was authorized by the United Nations. The Korean War was not controversial like Vietnam, it is merely "forgotten".
Regarding the attitude of getting it done while wishing the enemy had left my country and its friends alone, that characterizes the WW2 vets I grew up around very well. Other than SS troops, which they view as political and part of the problem, the recognized the necessity of it but regretted the killing. Considered it a great waste for both sides.
Just imagine Japan doing a celebration of pilots raiding Pearl Harbor.
While the pilots themselves were not war criminals, merely military personnel following legitimate orders to attack a legitimate military target. Actual war criminals, including those who committed atrocities against civilians and prisoners or war, are explicitly included in annual commemorations of Japan's "heroic war dead".
This is one of the major sources of ill will between Japan and its Asian neighbors who were victimized by Imperial Japan. It suggests a lack of sincere remorse.
Or how about Germany holding annual celebrations for pilots of the Blitz?
What Japan does every year is more like including the SS camp guards in their memorial service.
Dead citizens in Tokyo were for certain not involved in massacring the Chinese.
The Doolittle Raid attacked a small number of specific military targets, they were not carpet bombing a city. The raid was largely symbolic for the US and psychological for the Japanese, it did very little damage. If you are a civilian working at a war munitions factory in Imperial Japan you *are* involved in the massacre of the Chinese civilians.
Yes, those damn civilians who started a war by going about their daily business! It's great that they died painfully by being burned to death!
The Doolittle Raid was not like the fire bombings that would come in 1945. The attacking bombers were small in number, carrying rather small loads and attacking at a low altitude where they had decent accuracy for the day. They were conducting pinpoint attacks on specific military targets, they were not carpet bombing a city. The raid was largely symbolic for the US and psychological for the Japanese, it did very little damage.
If you are a civilian working on a military base or working at a war munitions factory you legitimately *are* part of the war.
Shame on you, confusing a poor teabagger with facts!
What facts are those? The government stats show that poverty has been essentially flat for nearly 50 years, 1966 through 2013. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG
It seems you are the confused party in this discussion.
1963 poverty rate: roughly 19%. 2013 rate: 15% Hooray. This is actually impressive given the tremendous increase in inequality between 1963 and today.
It was 15% in 1966, 1982, 1993, 2013. From 1966 to today it has been fluctuating between 12% and 15%. Nearly 50 years of massive government spending with no change.
BTW, Johnson introduced the "War on Poverty" legislation in 64 not 63. The programs that implemented this agenda took years more. Poverty had been on a very sharp decline many years before this. This decline essentially stopped as this legislation was implemented.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG
What about amateur astronomers?
Even more telescopes in space. We're supposed to be commercializing space right? Rentable telescopes. You rent it for an hour, you point it in the direction you want, gimbals permitting.
Amateur astronomers actually make a *lot* of the discoveries and do a lot of the photography.
How many amateurs make discoveries while in NYC? Or are they driving to the Poconos or Catskills?
I recall a suburb of Los Angeles that installed some LEDs in traffic signals in the late 1980s. The was a visibility problem based on angle. At one light, maybe more but I only witnessed this once, when within about 10 feet of the limit line you could not see which light was illuminated. So the first car stopped at the light could not tell when it turned green.
Near observatories to cut down on light pollution. LEDs are too broadband.
In the digital era astronomers no longer need to be near their telescope. We can put the telescopes in more remote locations, or ideally in space.
This is a pretty terrible idea. It snows in NYC right? the LED's dont generate enough heat to melt the snow, so they will have to install heaters to keep the street lights from caking up with snow/ice and becoming useless.
Even if heaters need to be installed they only need to be turned on during cold weather so there is still a potential efficiency benefit.
I think you're confusing street lights and traffic signals. Places in the snow belt have had issues with LED traffic signals getting blocked with snow, but I can't see the same thing happening with a downward facing street light.
It will when temperatures fluctuate above and below freezing. When above the snow on top will melt and the water will cling to the downward facing cover where it will freeze when the temperature drops. Icicles may form, which could be a safety hazard.
Yes, there is a savings, but how much is it going to cost NY taxpayers up front ? Would a better strategy be to replace the sodium lights with LED style lights, as they wear out?
Yes, there is a savings, but how much is it going to cost NY taxpayers up front ?
It looks like a 4 year program and the incandescents last about 7 years. So many of those bulbs will be due for replacement anyway.
The LEDs have a lifespan of 20 years, more than three times that of the current incandescent bulbs, and Bloomberg says it will save $6 million in energy and $8 million in maintenance every year.
When does the electrical workers union go on strike, the bulb changers belong to this one, followed by various other city worker union going on strike in support?
And after Perot happened, the parties took complete control of the debates so that they can exclude any third party. No third party will ever be allowed into the debates again.
No, 3rd party candidates are not excluded. Candidates polling less than 15% are excluded. A good 3rd party candidate with a good message in this day of social media could do that. The voters are in control. If the voters show interest the 3rd party is in.