My GOD, Lieberman is a fricking TOOL.
Here's how the Joe Lieberman of 2010 responded when asked, point-blank, how he could consider supporting the CEO of WWE after his history of decrying immoral pop culture products: "I'm not gonna hold her accountable for anything she did in the past. I want to hear what her ideas are on foreign policy, domestic policy."
Yeah! Why would you ever want to hold anyone accountable for anything they've done in the past! O.o /boggle
Joe Lieberman still flirting with endorsing Linda McMahon
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Lieberman Still an Incompetent Douchebag
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/05/06/lieberman_tea_act/index.html
Lieberman's sponsoring a bill called the TEA act (seriously), that will strip Americans of their citizenship if they're *accused* of a terroist act. Not if they're convicted; if they're accused.
What's most annoying to me about this whole citizenship-stripping idea is this: why are the courts not sufficient?! We have an existing justice system. If we start stripping people of rights *before* a trial, that is very distinctly anti-rule-of-law. It's a clear violation of the concept of due process, which to me seems inherently un-American ... See Moreand a complete renunciation of our core values.
If we're ok with the Federal Gov't stripping rights based solely on *accusation*, then what the hell is our distinction from autocratic regimes elsewhere in the world? Lieberman's inability to understand this clear conceptual contradiction is a clear sign that he's seriously too stupid and demagogue-y to keep his job.
Lieberman's sponsoring a bill called the TEA act (seriously), that will strip Americans of their citizenship if they're *accused* of a terroist act. Not if they're convicted; if they're accused.
What's most annoying to me about this whole citizenship-stripping idea is this: why are the courts not sufficient?! We have an existing justice system. If we start stripping people of rights *before* a trial, that is very distinctly anti-rule-of-law. It's a clear violation of the concept of due process, which to me seems inherently un-American ... See Moreand a complete renunciation of our core values.
If we're ok with the Federal Gov't stripping rights based solely on *accusation*, then what the hell is our distinction from autocratic regimes elsewhere in the world? Lieberman's inability to understand this clear conceptual contradiction is a clear sign that he's seriously too stupid and demagogue-y to keep his job.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Accenture Hiring Blitz in SF?
My friend Kelly tells me that Accenture was conducting some sort of a hiring blitz in downtown SF yesterday. That immediately made me think, "oh good! that means the economy is turning around!"
Accenture started scaling back hiring in early/mid 2008. It started major lay-offs (VERY unusual for ACN to lay people off) at the end of 2008. By mid-2009 it had dumped a ton of people (myself included, though I got a phat severance package and I'm finishing up my MBA at Presidio, so I welcomed it). Accenture's hiring practices have to me always seemed to be an early indicator of where the economy is going.
The reason for this is that Accenture is a professional services company, contracting with nearly all of the planet's major companies. When those companies start feeling the pinch, they scale back or even cancel their consulting projects, well before they start any layoffs. If that happens across the economy, Accenture can't re-distribute its workforce to new projects, because there aren't enough projects available, so it freezes hiring. Accenture's attrition is naturally ~20% annually, so a hiring freeze can often be enough to re-adjust its size to match a downturn. But if the downturn is severe enough, it has to lay people off (which, if I remember correctly, has only happened twice in its history in the US (including its 50-plus-year history as Andersen Consulting and Arthur Andersen): 2001 when the tech bubble burst, and 2008/9).
Conversely, when companies find themselves with cash again, it is often much faster to hire an Accenture (or Deloitte or whomever) to staff new projects because Accenture can mobilize a workforce within days of being asked (by pulling available staff from all over the country, even all over the planet if needed). Since Accenture had cut its staff so dramatically in the last 2 years, the fact that Accenture is out on the streets pounding the pavement for new blood suggests that demand has risen so quickly and so dramatically that the traditional pool of new college hires and displaced Bay Area tech workers isn't sufficient to meet their demand. I have *NEVER* heard of Accenture hiring through people on the street or a truck driving around. You'd need to verify the truth of it (I know some recruiters in SF if you need their contact info), but if that's the case it suggests that demand is rising insanely fast, and Accenture is desperate for new blood to staff at its client projects.
Yet another economic leading indicator like the Baltic Dry shipping index thing, but this one's a bit closer to home for both the Bay Area, and the US. =)
Accenture started scaling back hiring in early/mid 2008. It started major lay-offs (VERY unusual for ACN to lay people off) at the end of 2008. By mid-2009 it had dumped a ton of people (myself included, though I got a phat severance package and I'm finishing up my MBA at Presidio, so I welcomed it). Accenture's hiring practices have to me always seemed to be an early indicator of where the economy is going.
The reason for this is that Accenture is a professional services company, contracting with nearly all of the planet's major companies. When those companies start feeling the pinch, they scale back or even cancel their consulting projects, well before they start any layoffs. If that happens across the economy, Accenture can't re-distribute its workforce to new projects, because there aren't enough projects available, so it freezes hiring. Accenture's attrition is naturally ~20% annually, so a hiring freeze can often be enough to re-adjust its size to match a downturn. But if the downturn is severe enough, it has to lay people off (which, if I remember correctly, has only happened twice in its history in the US (including its 50-plus-year history as Andersen Consulting and Arthur Andersen): 2001 when the tech bubble burst, and 2008/9).
Conversely, when companies find themselves with cash again, it is often much faster to hire an Accenture (or Deloitte or whomever) to staff new projects because Accenture can mobilize a workforce within days of being asked (by pulling available staff from all over the country, even all over the planet if needed). Since Accenture had cut its staff so dramatically in the last 2 years, the fact that Accenture is out on the streets pounding the pavement for new blood suggests that demand has risen so quickly and so dramatically that the traditional pool of new college hires and displaced Bay Area tech workers isn't sufficient to meet their demand. I have *NEVER* heard of Accenture hiring through people on the street or a truck driving around. You'd need to verify the truth of it (I know some recruiters in SF if you need their contact info), but if that's the case it suggests that demand is rising insanely fast, and Accenture is desperate for new blood to staff at its client projects.
Yet another economic leading indicator like the Baltic Dry shipping index thing, but this one's a bit closer to home for both the Bay Area, and the US. =)
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Surprised Kitty
I know I'm late to this one, since it's got a good 3.5 million views already, but still. Super freaking cute. =D
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Senators Side with Halliburton instead of Rape Victims
This will likely infuriate you. But yeah, a whole bunch of senators sided with gang-rape and Halliburton. If the Rapture's incoming, Jesus is gonna fuckin bitch-slap these assholes so hard!!
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The current financial crisis: explained
If you don't really understand why we're in a recession and exactly how it happend, this podcast of NPR's This American Life will explain it. It is absolutely worth listening to; very entertaining and easy to understand.
Basically there are a lot of fucking stupid and greedy idiots out there. Matt, I don't see how your thesis that pay=value could possibly stand up to this counter-evidence.
Basically there are a lot of fucking stupid and greedy idiots out there. Matt, I don't see how your thesis that pay=value could possibly stand up to this counter-evidence.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Frank Schaeffer on Rachel Maddow
Hmmm. I definitely agree with this guy, but I'm a little concerned his message is lost amidst the "they're crazy" language. Though really, many of them are. And I can sympathize with his virulence; when you grow up amidst all that there's always a part of you that still believes it's right (or rather, fears that you're wrong that it's wrong), and the virulence against it helps to drown out that voice... =/
Friday, September 25, 2009
Over 9000 licks
This is so totally random.... a reference to an apparently obscure anime meme... but hey, it folds in early 80s Tootsie Pop animation, so it won me over. =P
Kyl: I Don't Need Maternity Care In My Health Insurance - Stabenow: Your Mom Probably Did!
Oh no she di'int!!! Senator Stabenow drops a "your mom" joke on Senator Kyl.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
World of Warcraft Paladin Caramelldansen
. . . Umm. This just makes me happy. In case you're wondering, that's an anime Blood Elf Paladin in full T2. >.>
Monday, September 07, 2009
Thoughts on the Current Healthcare Debacle
So I'm super annoyed by the current total failure that is Obama's healthcare reform. And I say it's a failure because it's unclear what he specifically wants, and because he's let the Repubs control the conversation with idiocy like death panels and other BS. The country is losing faith in Obama, and is moving towards rejecting reform. Which is bat-shit crazy because our system is broken and costs are ballooning out of control. Of course, Repubs have no solution; they just want to make Obama look bad. For me, healthcare is one of those topics that can't be fucked around with (like the environment) because of the potential consequences to our way of life here in the good ol' US of A. Ballooning costs make our industry non-competive, and more and more people die or suffer needlessly because their healthcare is rationed (nah, you don't REALLY need that MRI, even though your doctor says you do!) or sub-par.
On this topic, Repubs are totally off the deep end. I dunno how you fight that kind of crazy, either. There's something about being on tv that lends them some level of legitimacy... why would they be allowed to say these things (death panels, Obama is a commie/socialist/nazi/etc) if they weren't true? But of course, there's nothing stopping them. It's so maddening. In my mind, the only thing that can stop them is a well-loved and charismatic leader calling them out. But Obama doesn't do that, and so he's weakened over time by the barrage of lies and the crazy machine continues.
Industry should be 100% behind reform. We're the only industrialized nation that makes our businesses cover their employees' health. Which is awful, because a company like Google whose workforce is young and fit will have low costs, while a company like GM whose workforce is older and less fit, will have huuuuge costs. And so GM is non-competitive with its foreign counterparts (for other reasons beyond healthcare obviously, but healthcare's a big part of it) because it has to bake so many more costs into its pricing. And in the US, there's a ton of overhead in administering insurance plans through employers, which makes hiring and firing people even harder to do, and thus makes us less nimble in response to economic trends. So industry would be WAY better off on the whole if the gov't took the burden of healthcare away from them. Industry would be more competitive, more nimble, and workers would be much more mobile and able to switch jobs without fear of losing coverage. It's win-win here... why isn't industry backing reform whole hog?
I've had friends argue that they don't want to pay for other peoples' healthcare through a public option; it already costs us too much. But the problem is that we *already* pay for people without healthcare. Emergency rooms are essentially publicly funded, and are used as primary healthcare by 10s of millions of Americans. And they don't go there until the tumor is so big they can't walk straight. And of course by then it costs 10-100x more to treat them than if we'd caught it right away. This is the argument that Obama needs to make: mandatory socialized medicine is CHEAPER for everyone than our current system. It's the fiscally conservative approach! And amazingly it's also the socially just one. It's win-win, again!
And there are all these idiotic arguments out there about how inefficient and costly a gov't option would be. (Note that those arguments are made by the same people that say that private insurers would be unable to compete against a gov't plan. Ummm, which is it? Is the gov't a bureaucratic mess? Or is it a killer competitor? It can't be both, assholes!) Except that the overhead on gov't-run healthcare (Medicare) is like 4%. The overhead on private insurance is like 30%. Medicare is literally some 7x more efficient than private insurance (something like that; I sense a mathfail on my part there). All that extra overhead that we pay private insurers just lines their pockets with gold. So you're wasting a ton of money now on unnecessary salaries and bonuses that in a gov't system DO NOT exist. And we know they don't exist because there is ALREADY a huge gov't-run public option!! Except, you know, get your god-damn gov't hands off my Medicare. O.o
I actually don't understand why Obama doesn't just make his healthcare proposal this: we're expanding Medicare to cover anyone who wants it. There, done. Then the discussion becomes one of cost and implementation, rather than whether Medicare is good or not. Because Repubs can't touch Medicare or they'll alienate half of their allies. Medicare is popular, successful, and cheap. So Obama, just expand it to any American who wants it, and mandate that every American be covered, and let's move the fuck on.
On this topic, Repubs are totally off the deep end. I dunno how you fight that kind of crazy, either. There's something about being on tv that lends them some level of legitimacy... why would they be allowed to say these things (death panels, Obama is a commie/socialist/nazi/etc) if they weren't true? But of course, there's nothing stopping them. It's so maddening. In my mind, the only thing that can stop them is a well-loved and charismatic leader calling them out. But Obama doesn't do that, and so he's weakened over time by the barrage of lies and the crazy machine continues.
Industry should be 100% behind reform. We're the only industrialized nation that makes our businesses cover their employees' health. Which is awful, because a company like Google whose workforce is young and fit will have low costs, while a company like GM whose workforce is older and less fit, will have huuuuge costs. And so GM is non-competitive with its foreign counterparts (for other reasons beyond healthcare obviously, but healthcare's a big part of it) because it has to bake so many more costs into its pricing. And in the US, there's a ton of overhead in administering insurance plans through employers, which makes hiring and firing people even harder to do, and thus makes us less nimble in response to economic trends. So industry would be WAY better off on the whole if the gov't took the burden of healthcare away from them. Industry would be more competitive, more nimble, and workers would be much more mobile and able to switch jobs without fear of losing coverage. It's win-win here... why isn't industry backing reform whole hog?
I've had friends argue that they don't want to pay for other peoples' healthcare through a public option; it already costs us too much. But the problem is that we *already* pay for people without healthcare. Emergency rooms are essentially publicly funded, and are used as primary healthcare by 10s of millions of Americans. And they don't go there until the tumor is so big they can't walk straight. And of course by then it costs 10-100x more to treat them than if we'd caught it right away. This is the argument that Obama needs to make: mandatory socialized medicine is CHEAPER for everyone than our current system. It's the fiscally conservative approach! And amazingly it's also the socially just one. It's win-win, again!
And there are all these idiotic arguments out there about how inefficient and costly a gov't option would be. (Note that those arguments are made by the same people that say that private insurers would be unable to compete against a gov't plan. Ummm, which is it? Is the gov't a bureaucratic mess? Or is it a killer competitor? It can't be both, assholes!) Except that the overhead on gov't-run healthcare (Medicare) is like 4%. The overhead on private insurance is like 30%. Medicare is literally some 7x more efficient than private insurance (something like that; I sense a mathfail on my part there). All that extra overhead that we pay private insurers just lines their pockets with gold. So you're wasting a ton of money now on unnecessary salaries and bonuses that in a gov't system DO NOT exist. And we know they don't exist because there is ALREADY a huge gov't-run public option!! Except, you know, get your god-damn gov't hands off my Medicare. O.o
I actually don't understand why Obama doesn't just make his healthcare proposal this: we're expanding Medicare to cover anyone who wants it. There, done. Then the discussion becomes one of cost and implementation, rather than whether Medicare is good or not. Because Repubs can't touch Medicare or they'll alienate half of their allies. Medicare is popular, successful, and cheap. So Obama, just expand it to any American who wants it, and mandate that every American be covered, and let's move the fuck on.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Little hamster falling asleep
Holy shit! Check out the size of its balls!!! It uses them as a pillow!!!!
My dogs reaction to a fart
omg, i'm hysterical with laughter.... the dog looks so disgusted...... just minding its own business when all of a sudden BAM...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
