@bowel_and_the_obstructors: it's more a symbol of excess. Kate couldn't stop with twin girls and she can't have one hairdo--she must have many hair agendas, you see. And now it looks like one husband isn't going to cut it either.
I can see Denton, metaphorically over your shoulder, saying "Hmm, making a mess out of people's lives, nah, still tame. Marty Singer about to f up some children. Hmm, OK, that will get his name on the lawsuit but he's not famous enough on his own, no-one gives an s. Get Kate Gosselin too. "Sleazy", "awful"? Foster, what are you, a pussy? "child-exploiting Kate Gosselin". OK, now we're cooking. Go with that."
@BaldwinPeriphetes: Unfortunately, this is the kind of shit Nick hates (anything even mildly self-referential and I actually feel him cringe from SoHo).
@Jsmoke: Oh, no props needed. It's fairly stupid. I'm always waiting for the hammer to come down whenever I'm doing it the way I think I'm supposed to be doing it, so there's that, too. I'm lucky enough to have a boss who can occasionally roll with this kind of thing without canning me. See this tag for further reference:
@Foster Kamer: More like a replication, saying the thing Masbry would have said. Either that or maybe they have some video of him so he can testify from the grave.
Debt alone is simply a datapoint, largely meaningless. Debt to GNP provides some context. For instance, Krugman points out:
"It’s bad, but it’s not horrific either by historical or international standards. [Federal] debt hit 109% of GDP at the end of World War II...and a number of European countries have hit substantially higher debt levels without crisis."
Not to make light of it, but considering the smoking corpse that the Free Market Fundamentalists left us with at the end of 2008, not unreasonable.
Slash a couple Pentagon programs, get us out of Iraq and return to Reagan's second term taxes on the uber-rich, and we're back on track.
The only reason we outlasted the Soviet Union is that we were able to out-spend them. This lesson was not lost on the Islamists in Afghanistan (which was fighting the USSR-backed government until the USSR's implosion).
So it comes as no surprise to me that when the Taliban and Al Qaeda create mischief, they know we'll respond with a borderline, and very costly, overreaction — throwing money at the problem to make it go away. If they can keep up the pressure long enough, we'll spend ourselves into ruin (just like the USSR). (Before I get blasted for not supporting the troops — I am a huge supporter of our military, but I think they've been ill-used in this fight.)
They set off a $20 IED. We counter-punch with a $400,000 smart bomb.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are approaching a Trillion dollars on their own — a figure which does not include our involvement in other hotspots around the world and "foreign aid" to keep the quiet in other troublesome countries.
There's no conclusion or snark here (sorry), except to say that the headline of the NY Times on 9-11 was about how to spend the Social Security surplus left by the Clinton administration. I've saved that copy — if only just to remember that a balanced budget was real, once upon a time. I need a drink.
That's really interesting that the New York Times says that because Ted Martinez was laid off he couldn't get his dental insurance to cover implants. It interesting because I've never seen a dental plan that covers implants in the first place! Implants are considered "cosmetic" and in the 12 or so dental plans I've had in my career, not one of them covered implants.
@Pope John Peeps II: As far as I can tell it has to be deemed "medically necessary", which is very difficult.
I assume (though am not sure) there are plans that cover "cosmetic" but I bet most people couldn't afford the premiums for those plans.
Health plans probably cover cosmetic skin grafts if you are burned or something, but implants and crowns? I've never heard of a dental plan that covers that. I had to save up $4,000 (after some crackhead near NYU knocked out my tooth trying to steal my bike) because my first dental plan said "it's cosmetic, we don't cover that" and my second one said "it's a pre existing condition AND it's cosmetic, and we cover neither of those."
What many plans cover is bridges. But bridges, as you know, file down healthy teeth in order to set the bridge. You'd have to be friggin' nuts to get a bridge -- that's like dental care from the 1920s.
It's worth pointing out, though, that in this age where we reject the black and white and accept nuance, that the debt as a percentage of the GDP will still be less, even at $9 trillion, than it was at the end of WWII. And we worked our way out of that. All it takes is a little Amuhrican "can-do" spirit and some good ol' fashioned elbow grease!
@Niko Bellic: As I understand it, we're getting the money from China and the Saudis. They're giving it to us so that we can send it back to them when we buy their cheap plastic shit and oil, respectively.
There's something really wrong with that in a way that my feeble non-economic brain can't quite put its finger on. It's kind of the same feeling I had a couple of years ago when I went to my bank for a loan, and they didn't ask me a thing about my job or income. Oh well, I'm sure everyone's learned their lesson, right?
@badasscat: Actually the government,, meaning congress was supposed to be the only institution able to print our money. That right was however for some batshit crazy reason given solely to the Federal Reserve. Which is in fact not a government institution contrary to what about 99.9% of people apparently think. It is a private corporation owned by private companies,, in fact many being the banks that it regulates. So we gave the Fed and only the Fed the right to print our money. Which they are then kind enough to loan back to us at interest. The Fed has never been audited in it's entire existence and congress has no real over sight at this point or has ever, over this private corporation which loans us our own money.
@TruthBeTold: "congress was supposed to be the only institution able to print our money. That right was however for some batshit crazy reason given solely to the Federal Reserve"
Um, considering Congress has previously been known for any number of cravenly political decisions (Terry Schaivo, anyone?) the Federal Reserve - made up of recognized, vetted experts - SHOULD be the ones making sober, critical descisions regarding a rather critical sector of our society. You don't have to agree with them, and you can make a reasoned counter-argument, or reform, but you shouldn't just hand it over to a body of 438 people with limited terms or myopic ideology.
@Niko Bellic: A solid 1/3rd of it comes from domestic investors. (i.e. If you own a government bond, you own part of the national debt). A great deal more than a 1/3rd of it comes from the government itself, or intragovernmental debt. And finally, a less than a 1/3 comes from other countries, of which Japan was the leader until recently.
That's why when you hear people say "China owns all our debt!" they're idiots who just repeat what they hear on the news. China owns less than 1/10th of our debt. Same for Japan, but Japan's not as scary. Brits come in 3rd, in case you're curious.
But, yeah, it's mostly Americans and our own government. Kind of like when you tell yourself, "Okay, I can spend this $200 now, but I need to put in some overtime next week to make up for it." Except next week is 10 years from now and someone else is in office.
To add to the mix is the dreaded .esq in back of your name. Some claim you can use it without being admitted, some say you can't.
Ignorant lawyers put it in back of their OWN name. This should never be done. It's done BY OTHERS in communication to a lawyer so that others know this is a (possibly) privileged communication.
My understanding was that I could not say I was a lawyer or an attorney until I was sworn in. If you don't pass the bar or you don't pass the character examination, you are never going to be an attorney. So don't say you are before you do those things and get sworn in.
In NY they ask you questions THE DAY OF your swearing in and could possibly bounce you then. So until you raise that hand, you're not an attorney.
Now what about attorneys who put their licenses in inactive status? Harvey Levin's closing on TMZ is "I'm a lawyer." But his license is inactive and though he could activate it at any time, is he still considered a lawyer when not practicing law? I suppose. But other lawyers like Geraldo Rivera and Jerry Springer don't waive their credentials around.
My understanding is that you have to have an active license to say you are a lawyer or an attorney. However, I think that if you can activate your license with one call (like Harvey probably could), then that's okay.
I took Gillers' class in law school - am having strange flashbacks of it now, thank you very much. I'd venture to say that he'd think the Elle magazine comment was irresponsible, but in overall innocuous. Her intent wasn't to solicit clients or represent herself as a practicing attorney in a legal manner.
Her comment about "lawyer" vs. "attorney" is just plain wrong. You're a law clerk / JD until you've 1) passed the bar and 2) been admitted (pass the character and fitness portion, which in NY comes after you pass the bar).
Honestly, I think this whole discussion is ridiculous. In New York, people pass the character and fitness exam after serving time for felonies. A guy I knew was arrested for disorderly conduct while in law school and he was admitted.
Good luck to those going into the Javits Hall of Death!
Well, actually now that I know a Harvard professor can be arrested for disorderly conduct for breaking into his own home and after showing ID, I guess New York is sensible.
Extreme case, but debt can bar you from being admitted:
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/05/09
10/04/09
I can see Denton, metaphorically over your shoulder, saying "Hmm, making a mess out of people's lives, nah, still tame. Marty Singer about to f up some children. Hmm, OK, that will get his name on the lawsuit but he's not famous enough on his own, no-one gives an s. Get Kate Gosselin too. "Sleazy", "awful"? Foster, what are you, a pussy? "child-exploiting Kate Gosselin". OK, now we're cooking. Go with that."
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
[gawker.com]
10/05/09
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/26/09
For instance, Krugman points out:
"It’s bad, but it’s not horrific either by historical or international standards. [Federal] debt hit 109% of GDP at the end of World War II...and a number of European countries have hit substantially higher debt levels without crisis."
Not to make light of it, but considering the smoking corpse that the Free Market Fundamentalists left us with at the end of 2008, not unreasonable.
Slash a couple Pentagon programs, get us out of Iraq and return to Reagan's second term taxes on the uber-rich, and we're back on track.
08/26/09
So it comes as no surprise to me that when the Taliban and Al Qaeda create mischief, they know we'll respond with a borderline, and very costly, overreaction — throwing money at the problem to make it go away. If they can keep up the pressure long enough, we'll spend ourselves into ruin (just like the USSR). (Before I get blasted for not supporting the troops — I am a huge supporter of our military, but I think they've been ill-used in this fight.)
They set off a $20 IED. We counter-punch with a $400,000 smart bomb.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are approaching a Trillion dollars on their own — a figure which does not include our involvement in other hotspots around the world and "foreign aid" to keep the quiet in other troublesome countries.
There's no conclusion or snark here (sorry), except to say that the headline of the NY Times on 9-11 was about how to spend the Social Security surplus left by the Clinton administration. I've saved that copy — if only just to remember that a balanced budget was real, once upon a time. I need a drink.
08/26/09
hm. theres not a building on Earth that is even taller than a third of a mile, so I'm guessing that would be feet? :[] ..
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
I assume (though am not sure) there are plans that cover "cosmetic" but I bet most people couldn't afford the premiums for those plans.
Health plans probably cover cosmetic skin grafts if you are burned or something, but implants and crowns? I've never heard of a dental plan that covers that. I had to save up $4,000 (after some crackhead near NYU knocked out my tooth trying to steal my bike) because my first dental plan said "it's cosmetic, we don't cover that" and my second one said "it's a pre existing condition AND it's cosmetic, and we cover neither of those."
What many plans cover is bridges. But bridges, as you know, file down healthy teeth in order to set the bridge. You'd have to be friggin' nuts to get a bridge -- that's like dental care from the 1920s.
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
There's something really wrong with that in a way that my feeble non-economic brain can't quite put its finger on. It's kind of the same feeling I had a couple of years ago when I went to my bank for a loan, and they didn't ask me a thing about my job or income. Oh well, I'm sure everyone's learned their lesson, right?
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
Predominately? Domestic investors.
[en.wikipedia.org]
The largest supply of foreign investment in the US comes from China, and they have some 776 billion.
[www.treas.gov]
08/26/09
Um, considering Congress has previously been known for any number of cravenly political decisions (Terry Schaivo, anyone?) the Federal Reserve - made up of recognized, vetted experts - SHOULD be the ones making sober, critical descisions regarding a rather critical sector of our society. You don't have to agree with them, and you can make a reasoned counter-argument, or reform, but you shouldn't just hand it over to a body of 438 people with limited terms or myopic ideology.
08/26/09
That's why when you hear people say "China owns all our debt!" they're idiots who just repeat what they hear on the news. China owns less than 1/10th of our debt. Same for Japan, but Japan's not as scary. Brits come in 3rd, in case you're curious.
But, yeah, it's mostly Americans and our own government. Kind of like when you tell yourself, "Okay, I can spend this $200 now, but I need to put in some overtime next week to make up for it." Except next week is 10 years from now and someone else is in office.
08/26/09
08/26/09
-that's high!
08/26/09
07/28/09
Ignorant lawyers put it in back of their OWN name. This should never be done. It's done BY OTHERS in communication to a lawyer so that others know this is a (possibly) privileged communication.
My understanding was that I could not say I was a lawyer or an attorney until I was sworn in. If you don't pass the bar or you don't pass the character examination, you are never going to be an attorney. So don't say you are before you do those things and get sworn in.
In NY they ask you questions THE DAY OF your swearing in and could possibly bounce you then. So until you raise that hand, you're not an attorney.
Now what about attorneys who put their licenses in inactive status? Harvey Levin's closing on TMZ is "I'm a lawyer." But his license is inactive and though he could activate it at any time, is he still considered a lawyer when not practicing law? I suppose. But other lawyers like Geraldo Rivera and Jerry Springer don't waive their credentials around.
My understanding is that you have to have an active license to say you are a lawyer or an attorney. However, I think that if you can activate your license with one call (like Harvey probably could), then that's okay.
Pre-bar exam? Not okay.
07/28/09
Her comment about "lawyer" vs. "attorney" is just plain wrong. You're a law clerk / JD until you've 1) passed the bar and 2) been admitted (pass the character and fitness portion, which in NY comes after you pass the bar).
Honestly, I think this whole discussion is ridiculous. In New York, people pass the character and fitness exam after serving time for felonies. A guy I knew was arrested for disorderly conduct while in law school and he was admitted.
Good luck to those going into the Javits Hall of Death!
07/28/09
Well, actually now that I know a Harvard professor can be arrested for disorderly conduct for breaking into his own home and after showing ID, I guess New York is sensible.
Extreme case, but debt can bar you from being admitted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/business/02lawyer.html?scp=1&sq=lawyer%20debt&st=cse