"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence." is starting not to cut it when I look at what our national leaders are doing these days.
Clearly there are some really unintelligent people in Congress, but there is so much corruption once you scratch the surface that I can't believe all this damage is not unintentional.
No, it's a big red flag meaning, "I don't like to type a lot and am using a commonly accepted nickname for the health care reform bill", as it seems did you.
So are you also quoting Tea Party propaganda with no capacity for original thought as well? Were you able write that post with a straight face? Or are you too busy being pedantic to not make yourself look silly?
In fact, all the bad bits of Obamacare have gone into effect, it's only the benefits that are delayed. That's how they were able to create the illusion of it not costing. 10 years of paying in vs. 6 years of benefits.
Upon re-reading, I hope the irony of your first sentence is not lost on you.
It's very simple. Obamacare promised us we could keep our insurance plans. Tell that to all the people who got dropped from their plans because companies couldn't afford to cover all the ridiculous mandates foisted upon them. Obamacare promised us more coverage and less cost (i.e. something for nothing, which is itself absurd). Well, since costs have gone up enormously while people are also being dropped, that counts as a broken promise to me. Need I go on? I don't have to wait for the insurance industry to collapse to correctly diagnose this plan as DOA.
And then there's this little thing called the Constitution.
What I can't stand is those people, and there are a lot of them it seems, who somehow think, against all common sense, that one party is all goodness and light and the other is nothing but evil and corrupt. It amazes me how often I see that attitude.
NCLB was indeed a broad bipartisan effort and it should be a reminder that when the idiots on the left and the idiots on the right agree on something, it might just be due to its overwhelming idiocy.
Or that the only way to compromise is that make sure the legislation doesn't actually do anything.
Without casting aspersions (even if deserved) and without speaking from my own point of view, the real problem is not so much that the parties are putting politics ahead of policy (they do), or that they will do anything to sabotage each other including sabotage the bills they write (they do), but that so many of the principles of the left and right are incompatible with each other.
You can't compromise on mutually exclusive ideas and too many of the principles guiding the right and the left have become mutually exclusive.
A friend of mine used to say (in a bit cruder language), "You can mix ice cream with poop, but you still get poop."
If my party makes a bill whose premise is that you get kicked in the nuts and your party gets in an amendment whereby you get paid $5, are you going to vote for it?
Does that mean you are interested in engaging, or that you cannot abide an unacceptable bill?
This was the same thing except the citizens are the one getting kicked.
No, it's the other way 'round. No one would bother to get health insurance until they got sick. Look what happened in Massachusetts. It was cheaper to pay the fine than pay for insurance. That's some real genius thinking there.
The whole "pre-existing condition" mandate only makes sense when you are already covered. They lamely patched that hole by going completely off the reservation and forcing citizens to purchase health care coverage which is so unconstitutional it makes my kidneys hurt. At least if you don't interpret the "welfare" clause and the "interstate commerce" clause to mean "Congress has the power to do any damn thing it wants", which is the current interpretation.
I honestly can't help but think destroying the health care insurance industry was a feature not a bug. It's the perfect excuse to come in and "rescue" us with a fully government-financed health care system.
It's the only explanation that makes sense, because despite constant assertions to the contrary (including from me), members of Congress are not _that_ stupid.
First off, no one has read and understood the whole bill... ever. Second, most of it is so complex that no one could possibly predict the effects it will have. Third, only a complete idiot would claim to so fully support something he couldn't possibly understand.
Also, the word "sociopath"... I don't not think it means what you think it means.
Ditto Social Security, although Bush seemed to have his heart in that one.
I'm still waiting for someone to acknowledge that elephant in the room.
By the way, the biggest increase in insurance premiums I ever saw where those that happened after Obamacare was passed.
Decoupling health insurance from employment, which only started as a tax loophole during and shortly after WW2, would be the first step in any sane plan. Opening up the market to more interstate competition would be the second. Tort reform would be the third.
I don't have a problem criticizing someone for sticking to his principles when his principles are wrong. That's not inconsistent at all.
Regarding Republican health care ideas, you may be right, but there is no promise made about "Obamacare" that was even remotely believable and the millions of people (including me) who have seen significant increases in insurance premiums comprise plenty of empirical evidence. Obamacare hasn't even properly started yet and already it's broken all its promises.
Yes, that's what the Democrat talking points say. There was plenty of input. It was ignored. And not just from Republicans but from thousands and millions of citizens.
No, he really isn't. Obama couldn't sell anything to anyone who doesn't already want it, or who is not being completely uncritical of what he has to say. I felt that way since I first heard of him and 3 years later, nothing's changed.
Yeah, Obama's been saying the same thing for two years, amidst all the contemptuous comments and outright attacks against the other party. He's as much a uniter as a grenade. Remember, "he won."
It may be a shame if the Republicans don't cooperate with him like they did in the late 90s with Clinton, but if they don't, you can't blame them alone for setting the tone.
Wow. And my response to anyone having to use Outlook is "at least you don't have to use Notes".
I can understand why Outlook is still around because Microsoft has an effective monopoly in the office software suite industry, but the mere existence of Notes is something I honestly can't explain. I guess the only explanation is that every single enterprise-level software application ever written is total garbage, but even so, Notes still excels at that.
I'd accuse you of exaggerating or having an extreme attitude, but in my experience you are spot on. Java is to programming what the Soviet government was to organization.
10+ years ago I used to use POV-Ray to generate all the rounded boxes and corners I needed, but in this day and age, knowing that CSS has this capability it would be ludicrous to have to do this just to appease Microsoft's arrogant indifference towards the thousands (millions?) of hard-working web developers in the world who must do twice as much of more work just because Microsoft can't be assed to put even a tiny fraction of their world-conquering, OEM-strong-arming, standards-exterminating, chair-throwing resources towards supporting the standards much smaller companies seem to have no problem with.
I think you meant to say you have to explicitly install it.
Yeah, it's hard to judge how IE9 will do when it's not even out yet, but I wouldn't expect it to do a whole lot to reverse the trends. MS has 15 years of inertia to overcome. They didn't earn their reputation in the browser market overnight.
Competition is a good thing. I only wish Office weren't an unbreakable monopoly and there were real competition for it. Competition got MS off their collective duffs to actually improve IE (even if it was too little, too late), maybe some pressure would spur them to make Office less aggressively awful.
Slashdot Mirror
But NPR will welcome your views because you're not talking about Muslims.
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence." is starting not to cut it when I look at what our national leaders are doing these days.
Clearly there are some really unintelligent people in Congress, but there is so much corruption once you scratch the surface that I can't believe all this damage is not unintentional.
Actually we have an entirely new plan with an entirely new company.
No, it's a big red flag meaning, "I don't like to type a lot and am using a commonly accepted nickname for the health care reform bill", as it seems did you.
So are you also quoting Tea Party propaganda with no capacity for original thought as well? Were you able write that post with a straight face? Or are you too busy being pedantic to not make yourself look silly?
In fact, all the bad bits of Obamacare have gone into effect, it's only the benefits that are delayed. That's how they were able to create the illusion of it not costing. 10 years of paying in vs. 6 years of benefits.
Upon re-reading, I hope the irony of your first sentence is not lost on you.
It's very simple. Obamacare promised us we could keep our insurance plans. Tell that to all the people who got dropped from their plans because companies couldn't afford to cover all the ridiculous mandates foisted upon them. Obamacare promised us more coverage and less cost (i.e. something for nothing, which is itself absurd). Well, since costs have gone up enormously while people are also being dropped, that counts as a broken promise to me. Need I go on? I don't have to wait for the insurance industry to collapse to correctly diagnose this plan as DOA.
And then there's this little thing called the Constitution.
That's a good way to put it.
What I can't stand is those people, and there are a lot of them it seems, who somehow think, against all common sense, that one party is all goodness and light and the other is nothing but evil and corrupt. It amazes me how often I see that attitude.
NCLB was indeed a broad bipartisan effort and it should be a reminder that when the idiots on the left and the idiots on the right agree on something, it might just be due to its overwhelming idiocy.
Or that the only way to compromise is that make sure the legislation doesn't actually do anything.
Without casting aspersions (even if deserved) and without speaking from my own point of view, the real problem is not so much that the parties are putting politics ahead of policy (they do), or that they will do anything to sabotage each other including sabotage the bills they write (they do), but that so many of the principles of the left and right are incompatible with each other.
You can't compromise on mutually exclusive ideas and too many of the principles guiding the right and the left have become mutually exclusive.
A friend of mine used to say (in a bit cruder language), "You can mix ice cream with poop, but you still get poop."
If my party makes a bill whose premise is that you get kicked in the nuts and your party gets in an amendment whereby you get paid $5, are you going to vote for it?
Does that mean you are interested in engaging, or that you cannot abide an unacceptable bill?
This was the same thing except the citizens are the one getting kicked.
No, everyone was for it when it was described as "You get everything you could possibly want for free with no compromise."
No, it's the other way 'round. No one would bother to get health insurance until they got sick. Look what happened in Massachusetts. It was cheaper to pay the fine than pay for insurance. That's some real genius thinking there.
The whole "pre-existing condition" mandate only makes sense when you are already covered. They lamely patched that hole by going completely off the reservation and forcing citizens to purchase health care coverage which is so unconstitutional it makes my kidneys hurt. At least if you don't interpret the "welfare" clause and the "interstate commerce" clause to mean "Congress has the power to do any damn thing it wants", which is the current interpretation.
I honestly can't help but think destroying the health care insurance industry was a feature not a bug. It's the perfect excuse to come in and "rescue" us with a fully government-financed health care system.
It's the only explanation that makes sense, because despite constant assertions to the contrary (including from me), members of Congress are not _that_ stupid.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, gasp, ha ha ha ha ha!
First off, no one has read and understood the whole bill... ever. Second, most of it is so complex that no one could possibly predict the effects it will have. Third, only a complete idiot would claim to so fully support something he couldn't possibly understand.
Also, the word "sociopath"... I don't not think it means what you think it means.
Well, for one thing, Romneycare sucked. I don't care if he was a Republican or not. It's not the party but the principles that define good ideas.
Ditto Social Security, although Bush seemed to have his heart in that one.
I'm still waiting for someone to acknowledge that elephant in the room.
By the way, the biggest increase in insurance premiums I ever saw where those that happened after Obamacare was passed.
Decoupling health insurance from employment, which only started as a tax loophole during and shortly after WW2, would be the first step in any sane plan. Opening up the market to more interstate competition would be the second. Tort reform would be the third.
I don't have a problem criticizing someone for sticking to his principles when his principles are wrong. That's not inconsistent at all.
Regarding Republican health care ideas, you may be right, but there is no promise made about "Obamacare" that was even remotely believable and the millions of people (including me) who have seen significant increases in insurance premiums comprise plenty of empirical evidence. Obamacare hasn't even properly started yet and already it's broken all its promises.
Yes, that's what the Democrat talking points say. There was plenty of input. It was ignored. And not just from Republicans but from thousands and millions of citizens.
No, he really isn't. Obama couldn't sell anything to anyone who doesn't already want it, or who is not being completely uncritical of what he has to say. I felt that way since I first heard of him and 3 years later, nothing's changed.
Yeah, Obama's been saying the same thing for two years, amidst all the contemptuous comments and outright attacks against the other party. He's as much a uniter as a grenade. Remember, "he won."
It may be a shame if the Republicans don't cooperate with him like they did in the late 90s with Clinton, but if they don't, you can't blame them alone for setting the tone.
Wow. And my response to anyone having to use Outlook is "at least you don't have to use Notes".
I can understand why Outlook is still around because Microsoft has an effective monopoly in the office software suite industry, but the mere existence of Notes is something I honestly can't explain. I guess the only explanation is that every single enterprise-level software application ever written is total garbage, but even so, Notes still excels at that.
Yes, and they still take 5 minutes to load because the only way to reliably distribute a non-trivial Java app is to bundle a JRE.
I'd accuse you of exaggerating or having an extreme attitude, but in my experience you are spot on. Java is to programming what the Soviet government was to organization.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were.
Write once/run everywhere... as long as you distribute the JRE with the program...
10+ years ago I used to use POV-Ray to generate all the rounded boxes and corners I needed, but in this day and age, knowing that CSS has this capability it would be ludicrous to have to do this just to appease Microsoft's arrogant indifference towards the thousands (millions?) of hard-working web developers in the world who must do twice as much of more work just because Microsoft can't be assed to put even a tiny fraction of their world-conquering, OEM-strong-arming, standards-exterminating, chair-throwing resources towards supporting the standards much smaller companies seem to have no problem with.
I think you meant to say you have to explicitly install it.
Yeah, it's hard to judge how IE9 will do when it's not even out yet, but I wouldn't expect it to do a whole lot to reverse the trends. MS has 15 years of inertia to overcome. They didn't earn their reputation in the browser market overnight.
Competition is a good thing. I only wish Office weren't an unbreakable monopoly and there were real competition for it. Competition got MS off their collective duffs to actually improve IE (even if it was too little, too late), maybe some pressure would spur them to make Office less aggressively awful.
Plus they never went down in price for like 15 years.