Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Maybe those people have other priorities. And pursuing those priorities instead of cash does not make that decision less intelligent.

TM

Maybe. As a sop to the gray zone, I'll except those working in the public interest, who may maintained their ideals and belief as the constitution as living breathing document. I can respect that.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I love Jesus.

He loves you too, notwithstanding the h8. He told me.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

thurgreed cant go left. i know the difference between you two.

How about we play one on one for $1,000 and I'll only use my left. You in?

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

He loves you too, notwithstanding the h8. He told me.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Maybe those people have other priorities. And pursuing those priorities instead of cash does not make that decision less intelligent.

TM

I don't normally respond to the same post twice, but in this case I will make an exception....

My point was directed, in a veiled way, although I think you are smart enough to have inferred it, to lawyers whom I know, a subset of whom reside here.

I know scores of people in the following industries:

-tech/software/dotcoms;

-health care;

-graphic design/marketing/branding;

-law;

-non-profits/NGOs/public policy/advocacy;

-stay at home parents;

-education; and

-finance.

Of those industries, the only group where I see a materially measurable amount of professional angst/regret/unhappiness is the lawyers. Maybe this is anecdotal and thus we should discount my observations; although I have read articles about this phenomenon/psychological afflication many times over my 17 years in the profession, including but not limited to the ABA Journal, National Law Journal, WSBA Magazine, CBA Magazine, AHLA Monthly, et al.

Maybe you are right, and the lawyers I know have a different priority than the non-lawyers, i.e. seek out a profession with a higher degree of measurable professional dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Makes sense, although if I was going to be that unhappy on a long term basis I would want more cash to attempt to offset it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I don't normally respond to the same post twice, but in this case I will make an exception....

My point was directed, in a veiled way, although I think you are smart enough to have inferred it, to lawyers whom I know, a subset of whom reside here.

I know scores of people in the following industries:

-tech/software/dotcoms;

-health care;

-graphic design/marketing/branding;

-law;

-non-profits/NGOs/public policy/advocacy;

-stay at home parents;

-education; and

-finance.

Of those industries, the only group where I see a materially measurable amount of professional angst/regret/unhappiness is the lawyers. Maybe this is anecdotal and thus we should discount my observations; although I have read articles about this phenomenon/psychological afflication many times over my 17 years in the profession, including but not limited to the ABA Journal, National Law Journal, WSBA Magazine, CBA Magazine, AHLA Monthly, et al.

Maybe you are right, and the lawyers I know have a different priority than the non-lawyers, i.e. seek out a profession with a higher degree of measurable professional dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Makes sense, although if I was going to be that unhappy on a long term basis I would want more cash to attempt to offset it.

Yes. We almost went 3 posts without you telling us all about all your wonderful experiences, depth of business, political (left and right) experience and brilliant, wealthy, happy friends.

Yeah, I know. Lawyers are stupid because we hate our lives and don't get paid like I-bankers. We could all be making much more money doing something we found endlessly more rewarding. Just look at you! You managed to escape to something so much more rewarding in every conceivable way.

Whatever. There are thousands of different reasons why lawyers stick with this crap (feel free to call me to discuss mine). The funny thing is, you know this. So your not-so-subtle point (and I think it is hilarious you felt you needed to mention again) is really just garbage. The fact that you're trying to characterize the decisions we make as being based on stupidity really just makes me want to ignore you.

TM

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think it was stupid, and will now place NPR, something I listen to everyday, in the crosshairs of the right wing smear machine. NPR has been a little left over the years, but in an interesting, good way, and now they're going to be embroiled in a stupid controversy that's going to cause the station to edit out any hint of opinion. They'll become CNN. Start doing dumb pieces on Toby Keith to show their "fair and balanced" bona fides.

Oh, and the guy didn't deserve to be fired. It was a horrible overreaction to an absolutely harmless admission by a talking head trying to be as open as possible with his audience. Good for him that Fox turned around and handed him a $2mil contract.

I tend to agree with pretty much everything that Ezra Klein said about the matter.

BTW, a few years ago, I saw a list of the salaries of the top five NPR on air staff, in a required disclosure on the public 990. In the 2008 return, Renee Montagne, host of Morning Edition, is number one at $360,826. Her co-host, Steve Inskeep, comes in as number two at $353,390, and Robert Siegel, host of ATC comes in at number three at $319,300. Juan Williams' jump to Fox at $2M for three years eclipses what he's been making over at NPR by a massive, massive amount. The guy is crying all the way to the bank.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I tend to agree with pretty much everything that Ezra Klein said about the matter.

BTW, a few years ago, I saw a list of the salaries of the top five NPR on air staff, in a required disclosure on the public 990. In the 2008 return, Renee Montagne, host of Morning Edition, is number one at $360,826. Her co-host, Steve Inskeep, comes in as number two at $353,390, and Robert Siegel, host of ATC comes in at number three at $319,300. Juan Williams' jump to Fox at $2M for three years eclipses what he's been making over at NPR by a massive, massive amount. The guy is crying all the way to the bank.

Had to sit in the waiting room at the shop while my car was getting fixed and was subjected to about 2 hours of FOX on the topic. Karl Rove thinks it's shameful, and I guess he should know. Lots of eager young blondes and grumpy old hairpieces were speculating on the prospects of Congress yanking the 1% of public funding that National Public Radio actually gets from taxpayers. (is it really that little? I may need to make a pledge soon). Juan Williams looked the opposite of really, really upset, even though it was mentioned several times that this no less than McCarthyism reborn.

The last part confused me - when has McCarthy ever been out of favor at FOX?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Had to sit in the waiting room at the shop while my car was getting fixed and was subjected to about 2 hours of FOX on the topic. Karl Rove thinks it's shameful, and I guess he should know. Lots of eager young blondes and grumpy old hairpieces were speculating on the prospects of Congress yanking the 1% of public funding that National Public Radio actually gets from taxpayers. (is it really that little? I may need to make a pledge soon). Juan Williams looked the opposite of really, really upset, even though it was mentioned several times that this no less than McCarthyism reborn.

The last part confused me - when has McCarthy ever been out of favor at FOX?

My affiliate started the biannual pledge drive yesterday. I'm curiuos how much this will impact donations. So far they're at $208,532, looking for $1.1 million by the end of next week.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by ironweed

The last part confused me - when has McCarthy ever been out of favor at FOX?

Of all the headlines I had to write at my college newsmagazine in the early '90s, the one of which I am most proud is "Political Correctness Backlash: Is It the New McCarthyism, Or the Old McCarthyism?" It is an enduring question that still rings true today.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I don't normally respond to the same post twice, but in this case I will make an exception....

My point was directed, in a veiled way, although I think you are smart enough to have inferred it, to lawyers whom I know, a subset of whom reside here.

I know scores of people in the following industries:

-tech/software/dotcoms;

-health care;

-graphic design/marketing/branding;

-law;

-non-profits/NGOs/public policy/advocacy;

-stay at home parents;

-education; and

-finance.

Of those industries, the only group where I see a materially measurable amount of professional angst/regret/unhappiness is the lawyers. Maybe this is anecdotal and thus we should discount my observations; although I have read articles about this phenomenon/psychological afflication many times over my 17 years in the profession, including but not limited to the ABA Journal, National Law Journal, WSBA Magazine, CBA Magazine, AHLA Monthly, et al.

Maybe you are right, and the lawyers I know have a different priority than the non-lawyers, i.e. seek out a profession with a higher degree of measurable professional dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Makes sense, although if I was going to be that unhappy on a long term basis I would want more cash to attempt to offset it.

Almost everyone I know in medicine hates it. Not the work, but the patients (want everything, don't want to pay), the insurers, the scumbag trial lawyers forcing them to document the shit out of every little thing, the administration people who drive them nuts, etc...

My wife's in a high pay/low insurance area of health care and even she hates it.

Being a professional is a shit life. You're always doing shit for somebody else and the work's never done. The only thing that makes law worse is it attracts dickheads, backstabbers and chickenshits more than some of the other professions. Makes the politics of a law firm that much more intolerable than they already are in any business.

I personally don't think I should have to tolerate men of insignificant stature involving me an any of their reindeer games. Fuck you. I don't want to play your politics, hear your stories or have to report jack shit to you. You're a gnat. Fuck off... Go masturbate in your office or something and stop annoying me.

I have found that all the stress of dealing with litigation is removed when you work for yourself. It's really amazing. Fifteen years of hating the field and I realize - yeah, the work's godawful, but the real ugliness of law is the people. And more specifically, the pathetically insecure male egos drawn to it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ironweed

The last part confused me - when has McCarthy ever been out of favor at FOX?

The whole act is a rerun.

Radio Theater
An all-star gallery of Republican politicians say they want to defund National Public Radio. We've heard that line before.

Jesse Walker | October 22, 2010

Get ready to suspend your disbelief. One of the most resilient acts in theatrical history is returning to the D.C. stage: the We're Going To Defund Public Broadcasting show.

Every time this play gets revived, the director alters the story slightly to reflect recent events. This time the performers are riffing on National Public Radio's decision to fire Juan Williams after he said he gets nervous when he sees people in Muslim garb on a plane. John Boehner, who might be the country's next speaker of the House, has told National Review "it's reasonable to ask why Congress is spending taxpayers' money to support a left-wing radio network—and in the wake of Juan Williams' firing, it's clearer than ever that's what NPR is." Newt Gingrich, who's having one of his periodic flirtations with a presidential run, announced on Fox that "Congress should investigate NPR and consider cutting off its money." The conservative direct-mail king Richard Viguerie has launched a petition to defund the network, accusing the suits who dismissed Williams of "censorship of ideas not in conformity with the ruling class elites."

It's a snappier setup than the one Richard Nixon used in 1971, when he was upset about the political programming on public TV and proposed a "return to localism" that would have kneecapped the crowd in charge of the system. On the other hand, it doesn't have the cloak-and-dagger spirit that the State Department flunky Otto Reich brought to the play in 1981, right after Ronald Reagan's election, when he met with NPR staffers in a smoky little room and warned them that the White House thought they were "Moscow on the Potomac." Nor is it as colorful as the 1993 spectacle starring Bob Dole and David Horowitz, who attacked the radical Pacifica network rather than NPR, allowing them to quote a much weirder series of statements than anything in the Juan Williams kerfuffle. ("We didn't have Satan before the white man. So the white man is Satan himself.") And the specific focus on NPR means the stakes don't feel as high as they did in 1995 when then-Speaker Gingrich started skylarking that he might "zero out" the entire public broadcasting budget, let alone that moment 10 years later when a House subcommittee actually voted to eliminate federal support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That element of danger was a nice suspenseful touch. You could almost forget it was all an act.

Because an act is precisely what this is. The Williams story will be stale by the time the new Congress is in a position to do anything about it, making it less likely that there will be a big push to add anti-NPR conditions to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's next check. Now, if Republican leaders want to keep the issue alive between now and then, I'm sure it won't be hard to keep finding stuff on public radio that offends rank-and-file conservatives. But even then, there's a difference between wanting to keep the issue alive and actually intending to end the network's subsidies. These standoffs never end with public broadcasting getting defunded. The point of the exercise isn't to cut NPR loose; it's to use the threat of cutting NPR loose to whip the network into line.

After Nixon made his threats, the system was still standing but all but one of the programs he found objectionable left the air. After the Gingrich-era battle ended, Fred Barnes, Peggy Noonan, and Ben Wattenberg all found themselves with new gigs at PBS—and following an initial cut, the CPB's budget crept back upward. The funding fight five years ago took place against the backdrop of a conservative appointee atop the CPB crusading for a more right-friendly PBS and NPR. Now the Republicans are getting ready to retake the House and possibly the Senate. With the Juan Williams spat, the party has found a familiar way to flex its muscles.

Every time this happens, I fantasize that this time, just maybe, the broadcasters won't blink. NPR can certainly survive without the subsidies. It gets very little direct money from the CPB—less than 2 percent of its budget. In practice, to be sure, it depends on the government far more than that: About 40 percent of its money comes from its member stations, which usually receive their own federal subsidies and are frequently affiliated with publicly funded universities. Still, the network has been picking up other sources of support, just this month receiving a $1.8 million grant from George Soros' Open Society Foundations—already more than half the amount it got directly this year from the feds. As for the affiliates, nothing quite boosts a public radio station's pledge week like the possibility that those Republican meanies might pump CS gas into the Morning Edition compound and set the place on fire.

More importantly, a number of plans have been floating around since the 1990s that would transmute the CPB from a de facto arm of the government into an independent trust with a private endowment. One effect of this would be to prevent anyone offended by NPR's personnel decisions from being required to give the place any more support. Another would be to shield public broadcasters from any politician attempting to stick his snout into their editorial choices. The idea has thus attracted support from both sides of the conventional political spectrum, with free-market economists endorsing the concept and with left-wing documentarians boosting it via groups such as Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting. And so I imagine a new ending for this recurring show, one where public broadcasters and their critics decide to call each other's bluff and the whole rotten system comes tumbling down.

But that's a pipe dream, not a prediction. Way back in 1995, one press report in the aftermath of the broadcasters' budget battle declared that "all the groups agreed on the need to establish an independent trust fund that eventually could replace federal funding," citing a CPB spokesman as its source. Fat chance: Fifteen years later, that independence is still little more than a fantasy. The voters may elect some Tea Party backbenchers next month who really are serious about cutting off Nina Totenberg's allowance, but those legislators will have a hard enough time persuading their own party to pull the plug, let along the Democrats running the White House and possibly the Senate. The establishment Republicans know how this script ends, and it doesn't wrap up with a great big cut. As Ben Wattenberg is alleged to have said when he heard the Gingrich Congress was thinking of defunding PBS: "What! Just when we've taken it over?"

Reason (which has lots of links)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Whatever. There are thousands of different reasons why lawyers stick with this crap (feel free to call me to discuss mine).

Too dumb for finance, too ugly for sales. That's what keeps 70% of the field where it is.

Me? Well, let's just say, Doing what you love pays nice up front, but there's no profession out there more stingy than entertainment.

If I could do it again I'd have learned a lot more math as a kid. Writing and arguing are useless skills. Any ass can string coherent words and arguments together.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I could do it again I'd have learned a lot more math as a kid. Writing and arguing are useless skills. Any ass can string coherent words and arguments together.

Disagree. Some people are built for math and putting together complex _____. Some are built to write. Rarely is someone blessed with great skill in both. I have clients whose brains work the hell out of mathematical analysis, make a mint, but can't construct a sentence to save their lives (and no, it's not laziness). I know brilliant lawyers who write wonderfully who can't take a percentage if need be.

Some people are born to be business people, love risk and can do serious math damage. Those guys go one way. Those of us who can write and think about problems analytically, have a more structured thought process and who don't necessarily like risk tend to go another.

I'm not built for either, really. But what can you do?

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

How about we play one on one for $1,000 and I'll only use my left. You in?

TM

Just the left hand and foot?