The Goat Pen

What? No comment about Obama insisting that Israel commit suicide in order to save Arabs the inconvenience of extirminating them?

^ example #1 of why Meth is bad for you.

Professor Tiger wrote:What? No comment about Obama insisting that Israel commit suicide in order to save Arabs the inconvenience of extirminating them?

I still can't even believe our fearless leader made the comments he did about Israel returning to 1967 borders. Not that it matters, 90% of American Jews are still going to vote for the guy with the (D) next to his/her name in every election anyway. As Topol said in Fiddler on the Roof, "Tradition!"

What cracks me up is how so many conservatives think that the #1 primary issue for all American Jews is Israel. A lot of American Jews don't give two flips about Israel because, hey, guess what, it's not their country. It's mainly conservatives of the religious variety who want the country treated like it's the 51st state.

That said the 1967 borders ain't happening and Obama did NOT demand their unequivical return. He included the option of land swaps which is actually pretty wishy-washy

Where's eCat when you need him?

Israel is just a very rich country that we give multi billions of dollars to for some reason and give ultimate protection to in the UN. The world's view is that it goes back to the 1967 borders in return for security guarantees. Both sides' leadership have unrealistic view of what they can make the other side end up.

Heh. Tonight one network will drumbeat ad nauseum the fact that every administration since Nixon has essentially said the same thing oprama said about returning those occupied territories, and another network will ignore that fact completely while claiming the speech was 'groundbreaking and extremely dangerous.'

From the bolsheviks at Money.

http://money.msn.com/investment-advice/ ... brush.aspx

Owlman wrote:Where's eCat when you need him?

Israel is just a very rich country that we give multi billions of dollars to for some reason

Guilt mostly.

Here is the secular side of me. AIPAC (the American Israeli Political Action Committee) gives millions and millions of dollars each year to Congressional candidates (mostly Democrats, a couple GOP) to try and convince them that Israel is our greatest ally in the world. In return, those Congressmen and women make sure that Israel gets over $10,000,000,000 of our US tax dollars in free money (we call it AID) to prop up Israel militarily and keep it alive. But that is not the root of the "guilt."

The "guilt" stems from World War II. The most liberal (and even the most conservative) members of Congress (who are up there in age) tend to irrationally believe that the murder of 6,000,000 Polish, German, and Russian Jews, was somehow partially the fault of the United States. They feel this way because deep down, they know that ONLY the United States had industry, technology, and population, sufficient to defeat Germany and Adolph Hitler in the second world war. We dilly dallied (declared war on Germany 27 months after England did) so some people in this country feel our nation is partially to blame for all those deaths. So, we cut them that guilt check each year (even though I personally don't think we have anything to feel guilty about....)

The Christian side of me says that Judaism (as it stands) is "entitled" to that tiny piece of land. Yes, they are ENTITLED to it. We aren't talking about much land here. Israel is about half the size of New Jersey. What is that, 2 or 3 Rhode Islands? What ever it is, it isn't much. And that land was not developed prior to 1947. All that was there were Islamic gypsies and horse thieves, wandering it aimlessly, producing nothing of value. The Jews that survived the Hollocaust "took it over" in 1949, and started growing oranges the size of basketballs. Now, we all of a sudden have Palestinians and they want the land back? No I don't think do.

The pro-Republic side of me sees Israel (and to a lesser extent, Iraq) as the only true Republics in the Middle East. That alone makes me think we should do just a little bit, to enable Israel.

But much of the billions in aid money, that is guilt money really.

I mean, so what if those CEOs had raises of 24% last year? The employees got a 3% boost themselves...and they got to keep their jobs. (Okay, except for the hundred of thousands who didn't - but that downsizing added to the bottom line profit, thereby boosting those CEOs bonuses...so it's all good).

And the part about CEO salaries leaping again from 287x the earnings of their average employees to 344x (CEO salaries were 40x greater than employees back in the 80's), well, all that needs to be kept in context. For instance, you could buy a Krystal or a White Castle burger for a nickel back in the 60's, and now they're 60 cents. Those are far more staggering numbers than those CEO stats, but people keep eating those square bun burgers and NEVER complain about any of that, do they?

Just quit bitching about what the head man makes. You got to keep your job, and the extra work piled on you to make up for all of the missing bodies will probably do you good in the end.

AIPAC gives more to the Democratic party overall, but they give a significant amount to the Republican party (much more than just a few Republican congresspeople).

bluetick wrote:

I mean, so what if those CEOs had raises of 24% last year? The employees got a 3% boost themselves...and they got to keep their jobs. (Okay, except for the hundred of thousands who didn't - but that downsizing added to the bottom line profit, thereby boosting those CEOs bonuses...so it's all good).

And the part about CEO salaries leaping again from 287x the earnings of their average employees to 344x (CEO salaries were 40x greater than employees back in the 80's), well, all that needs to be kept in context. For instance, you could buy a Krystal or a White Castle burger for a nickel back in the 60's, and now they're 60 cents. Those are far more staggering numbers than those CEO stats, but people keep eating those square bun burgers and NEVER complain about any of that, do they?

Just quit bitching about what the head man makes. You got to keep your job, and the extra work piled on you to make up for all of the missing bodies will probably do you good in the end.

Ben & Jerry's (when it was privately owned) had a very strict policy that no one in the company was ever allowed to earn more than ten times the lowest paid employee. As a result of that well meaning policy, a myriad of unqualified, shitty, CEO's were hired and fired by the owners when they got to the point of hiring a CEO. Bottom line, the company simply couldn't find a qualified leader for pay that was limited to a mere $120,000/year (or whatever it was.) When they sold the company, that policy went bye-bye.

Ten times the lowest paid employee probably harkens back to pre-Industrialized America. But God bless ol' Ben and Jerrys anyway.

And this time it's not just another annual rant about CEOs making umpteen times more than their workers - it's the fact that they made out like bandits during a killer recession, while putting a ton of people out of work, and making those left behind pick up the slack. The game is rigged. They win when they win, and they win when they lose.

Hell, their Japanese counterparts would go in a back room and carve out their own guts for crissakes.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

GBJs wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Oh suddenly you think assembly line work requires good people and smart skilled workers? Funny, you think the union workers who assemble the same cars are stupid as shit and lazy as hell.

And check out BMW's reviews in Consumer Reports...all the German cars, actually. Well below the Japanese, Koreans, and even Ford.

Tell ya what... YOU go grab a drill motor and start making holes in aircraft aluminum and castings without skill and competency in the field. Those holes are measured center to center and with tolerences of .001 for a reason. Just because you can change a tire on your car doesn't mean you can on an aircraft without certification.

LOL...I'm not the one that's ever suggested that the guys in South Carolina making significantly less money will produce a product just as good. Or that the workers in Seattle are overpaid, union slobs.

I'd forgotten the PNN wisdom though. CEO's and executives need to be paid as much as possible because money buys talent. But the average worker is most likely overpaid (especially if he's union) and money just makes him soft and lazy

CEO's and Execs??? I dunno. What do many of them bring to the table? Some are worth a pot full to the company. Some are, I'm sure, given the job by their "daddy".

But I'll say it... the ones in Washington are overpaid. They are paid, and yes this on on average, more than 80% of the aircraft maintenance industry. Yet production is stopped at the Washington facilities at least once every 3-4 years for a strike. In my opinion, the union doesn't give a tinner's damn about the worker, just the worker's union dues.

Now I'm all about an honest day's work for the wage, and a competitive wage for the work performed. I'm not GIVEN a damn thing in my pay check, I promise you I've earned it. But if my job performance wasn't making money for the owners, (there are no stockholders) do you think I'd still be there?

Hell, everyone of us in the industry are in the wrong end of the business... Procurement and selling of aircraft PARTS is where the money is.

bluetick wrote:Ten times the lowest paid employee probably harkens back to pre-Industrialized America. But God bless ol' Ben and Jerrys anyway.

And this time it's not just another annual rant about CEOs making umpteen times more than their workers - it's the fact that they made out like bandits during a killer recession while putting a ton of people out of work.

Unfortunately, the CEO's job is to make as much money for the company as he or she can. Part of doing that sometimes means firing employees (to make the company more profitable.) As technology advances with capital investment, labor loses ground/power.

Let me know when you need a surgical PA BOJ/ make you a lot of money in your practice slicing and dicing lumps/bumps/abscesses plus the wife wants to move one of these days to that part of the country.

Be a couple of years before you can afford me though---on second thought since your still below 12/hr maybe I should interview and hire you for my practice!

innocentbystander wrote:

bluetick wrote:Ten times the lowest paid employee probably harkens back to pre-Industrialized America. But God bless ol' Ben and Jerrys anyway.

And this time it's not just another annual rant about CEOs making umpteen times more than their workers - it's the fact that they made out like bandits during a killer recession while putting a ton of people out of work.

Unfortunately, the CEO's job is to make as much money for the company as he or she can. Part of doing that sometimes means firing employees (to make the company more profitable.) As technology advances with capital investment, labor loses ground/power.

This is the difference between the modern-day CEO and the Founder of a corporation. Guys like Henry Ford, and Bill Gates, and J Paul Getty actually cared about the long-term health of the companies they created. 90% of all CEO's don't give a shit about long-term health. They are there for 5-7 years tops, want to make the stock increase as much as possible, and quickly get out before any problems caused by their get-rich-quick reforms bubble to the surface.

Also RIP Macho Man Randy Savage. I would be remiss if I didn't pay tribute to his passing

If the feds would like to set a national speed limit, it can as it is within one of it's powers and the state would have to follow it. (Remember, Carter did this). Just because the feds haven't done something doesn't mean that they can't do something.[/quote]


Didn't states have the ability to have higher limits but lose highway funding if they did?

Or am I confusing that with drinking age laws?

Professor Tiger wrote:The latest outrageous federal power grab is the NRLB telling Boeing they can't move a plant and jobs to another state. The founding fathers would be outraged by this, but I fully expect a court will approve it, and SCOTUS will ratify it.

They aren't moving a plant. They are building a plant. The number of jobs in Washington has increased. Not decreased. Makes it even worse.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:The question isn't whether Boeing has the right to move the plant (they do) it's over whether they can unilaterally move the plant without bargaining with the union with whom they currently have a contract. The NLRB in the recent past has generally not raised objections when a plant closure or relocation isn't primarily motivated by cutting labor costs. This decision marks an attempted shift in that policy.

Of course, I'm sure it's debatable whether Boeing's primary motivation is the search for cheaper labor. It's doubtful they are moving from Seattle to South Carolina because the workforce is more educated there.

The NLRB has lost its fucking mind and you know it. It didn't cross a line. It leaped over a chasm to reach this ruling.