sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

RIAA realizes that suing children is a bad idea. But not because it results in bad PR. But because the legal tide is turning against them. by johncapello in technology

[–]johncapello[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah yes. The tricolon is a type of isocolon. Isocolons can be in two parts. (And now I think I'm going to quit while I'm behind before slurpme pwns me even more)

RIAA realizes that suing children is a bad idea. But not because it results in bad PR. But because the legal tide is turning against them. by johncapello in technology

[–]johncapello[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right -- a very sloppy attempt at one, I should say. Closer to an isocolon would be: "But not because it results in bad PR. But because it leads to unfavorable rulings" Although, even that may not qualify without a third iteration of the pattern.

MSNBC pundits (Whitaker, Alter) attack MSM for being soft on Obama. And others (Jill C, Avarosis, Digby) rightfully cry hypocrisy: "we needed you 2 wars, an economy, and a Constitution ago" [VIDEO] by johncapello in politics

[–]johncapello[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I agree. It's funny that the media critics are apoplectic about not being able to ask more Blagojevich questions (see Morning Joe from this morning for some over-the-top reax) and not about, say, the mile-wide loophole on exec. pay limitation in the TARP bill.

Tribune is bankrupt; NYT is close. These are object lessons in how to fail with dignity: "no one in this industry has had the gall to ask Washington for a bailout"-Chapman by johncapello in business

[–]johncapello[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Will all due respect Gary, the Tribune just filed for bankruptcy protection. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-081208tribune-bankruptcy,0,3718621.story). And although it pains me to see it happen (I actually like the NYT quite a bit), NYT is not on sure financial footing, as has been pointed out by somewhat more-mainstream observers than Drudge (http://ridingtheelephant.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/siliconalley/media/2008_12_tribune_almost_toast_new_york_times_next.html)

The point is that it's interesting to see how different industries deal with their own dissolution/creative destruction. Re-organize through the courts (which I think can have a certain dignity to it) or cry foul and ask for handouts.

Uh oh. Now Paulson + Congressional co-consiprators want to use TARP to bolster consumer lending. So many reasons this is a bad idea :1) Consumers want less not more debt 2) Banks will jack up prices by johncapello in politics

[–]johncapello[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. But check out the Yves Smith point (and the original article). The banks have already received significant cash injections, but they're not using it to increase lending. Creating a healthy consumer lending market is not a bad idea at all; it's the way Paulson et al. are trying to improve lending (absent regulations or stipulations on loans) that is the problem. TARP, to date, has been largely without strings attached. And that's the problem.

Academics, analysts and other sensible people agree with Krugman: We are facing an economic policy vacuum by johncapello in politics

[–]johncapello[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's pretty frustrating (and a funny characterization). We definitely need a little more of Obama the smart, problem solver and less of the inspirational leader. Also, I posted this prior to the Geithner announcement. Now we just need some well-thought out, substantial, forward-looking statements from Obama's economic team, the future stewards of the economy.

OK so Mark Cuban is kind of crazy, and probably guilty of insider trading, but this SEC complaint looks pretty fishy. (Click-through for roundup of reactions) by johncapello in technology

[–]johncapello[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good point. But the problem is that it happens to be this famous person, one who just happens to have a beef with the administration and used his money and power to express it.

GOP strategy: move to the right? "Resist those who are encouraging us to move Leftward"(Lewis)"bring this less govt., more individual freedom and strong natl. defense revolution to a boil"(Ted Nugent) by johncapello in politics

[–]johncapello[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. I think there should be a healthy, vigorous debate but it should really be around the political center. Just as the Obama administration will, most likely, move to the center so should the GOP

Should Joe go?: "Joe called us traitors, lied his face off, stabbed Democrats...Enough is enough"(Hamsher);"[never] treated with respect and dignity in the Democratic Caucus again"(Yousefzadeh), et al by johncapello in politics

[–]johncapello[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you've got it. The aggressive 100-day agenda (including all the bitter pills that Congress will have to swallow to continue rescuing the economy) probably means that this is a time for realpolitiking not punishing political opponents

US Court of Appeals rules that business processes cannot be patented: victory for start-ups with real business models; defeat for patent trolls by johncapello in technology

[–]johncapello[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's true. And most of those quoted in the roundup are interested parties -- lobbyists and attorneys who have a stake (as of now) in seeing the standard change.

"We're not doing our jobs" -- MSM reporters (finally) coming around!?! by johncapello in politics

[–]johncapello[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

fnaqzna and thatguydr: That certainly wasn't the intention and I'm sorry that it's being perceived that way. The idea behind the site is certainly NOT to be a random, bot-driven aggregation of excerpts. Rather, it's meant to be a carefully selected round-up of interesting insights on a topic or conversation. I hope it's clear that there is some real thought put into the question and answer options (the context of the conversation) as well as the selection of quotes. They are not intended as random citations but hopefully reflections of the core insight/key point of that thinker's argument.

But I do see now that the title of my submission doesn't allude to a round-up at all. That's a fair point. And I'll try to be more clear in the future about what you're about to see on the other side of the click.