text:
PLEDGE TO AMERICA Comments:Criticize public figures regarding their public work only when you have backings in the form of solid citations, quotes or proofs from authority sources. Don't attack a private citizen by name. Refrain from criticizing an identifiable person repeatedly. Refrain from making false statements about any one. If someone has broken these rules, call it to our attention immediately.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Kennedy--a Pelosi-Obama Clone
59 comments:
- Jack said...
How would you reduce the federal deficit?
--Extending the tax cuts will actually increase the deficit.
What about legalizing illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.?
--Immigration policy reform needs a drastic reform. Legal immigrant workers would provide a huge bump to our economy. A wall and xenophobia are not solutions.
competitiveness of the U.S. in the global economy?
--I agree with Foxx's stance on corporate taxes. The "buy American" notion is harmful, but I also agree with Kennedy's stance on removing tax incentives.
I can elaborate on the economic principles if interested.
PS: I don't know enough about Social Security or education policy to comment...I agree with both on the terrorism subject...And health care is another discussion for another time.
- October 17, 2010 at 8:21 PM
- Honest Debate said...
"Extending the tax cuts will actually increase the deficit." -Jack
You seem like a reasonable fellow so please explain to me how not raising taxes cost money and increases the deficit. The moral component says, "It's not the governments money". The practical aspect dictates it's a terrible time to raise taxes. Either works for me.
- October 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM
- Honest Debate said...
"A wall and xenophobia are not solutions." -Jack
What about a wall without the xenophobia?
Also on terrorism, Kennedy seems to imply, by his suggestion to address the "root causes", that it's our fault. I don't think it is. I blame murderous terrorist not the victims. I freely admit I may be inferring something that is not implied but I'm sensitive that way. What did you infer?
- October 17, 2010 at 9:34 PM
- Jack said...
Full extension of the tax cuts will increase the deficit due to lost revenue. If you cut revenues and increase spending, money will be lost. Spending would need to be drastically cut in order to balance the budget with the tax cuts in place. Foxx stating this would be her method of reducing the deficit isn't feasible. Even with a pay freeze for federal employees, it wouldn't come close. I wish I could attach a picture, I have an amazing chart that illustrates spending vs revenue and the growing deficit.
Economic research has shown that in a recession, extra money (i.e.: tax cuts) to the middle and upper tax brackets goes towards savings and investments. The lower tax brackets, however, spend the extra money and inject it back into the economy. Therefore, individual tax cuts to the upper brackets would not stimulate the economy or create jobs. Tax cuts to the lower brackets would.
- October 17, 2010 at 10:19 PM
- Jack said...
Xenophobia seems to be the driving force behind the "wall" idea. A 1,950 mile wall seems like a bad idea. People are creative and will get around it. But I don't have any good ideas for physically securing the border. I think, however, immigration reform and a legal crackdown on those who readily employee illegal immigrants would do a much better job than building another fence. We have a lot to gain from legal immigration. Instead of me taking up space here, I wrote a quick blog if you want to read about possible benefits of legal immigration. http://bit.ly/9LhTLQ
On the terrorism question, I read it differently. Foxx seemed to say "we need to listen to our generals". I agree, that's what they've trained for. That's what they went to school for. If I were to be elected to office, I wouldn't have the slightest clue how to invade Kabul. We train these people for a reason, don't ignore them. Kennedy's response seemed to build on Foxx's. It read to me as if he was calling for cooperation between allies; We can't do this alone. And the "root cause" sounds more like a "go after the financiers" or "go after the recruiters", instead of focusing solely on the foot soldiers. It's easy to read into it, because it's such a personal and visceral subject. But I doubt Kennedy meant anything so callous. I liked both of their answers.
- October 17, 2010 at 10:37 PM
- Jack said...
Here's a URL for that revenue vs spending chart. It's long but a copy/paste will work. The space between the blue and red lines is our budget deficit.
- October 17, 2010 at 10:47 PM
- Honest Debate said...
Jack you wrote: "Full extension of the tax cuts will increase the deficit due to lost revenue."
I have to conclude you subscribe to the theory that it's the governments money. All one needs to ask is "How is my money considered United States revenue"? It's a theory, but it flunks the moral test. Cutting spending is not enough, true. The fallacy is that raising taxes increases revenue but even if you think raising taxes means more revenue, it's still not enough. The only way out of this mess is to grow our way out. The best way to grow the economy is through tax policy. More taxpayers paying less taxes creates more revenue than fewer taxpayers paying more taxes. It's simple math but it doesn't end there. Fewer taxpayers paying more taxes stifles jobs and strangles innovation. It can't work. More taxpayers paying less taxes grows the pie. More jobs. More risk-taking. More innovation.
We have a track record to look at. Kennedy, Reagan and GWB all dramatically increased revenue by cutting taxes. It's not arguable. The problem in each case was spending. It like if you got a huge raise, bought a fleet of Lamborghinis, went broke and then blamed the raise for your financial woes.
When a retail store is in trouble do they raise prices hoping to make more profit off of fewer customers? Or do the cut prices hoping to make less profit off of more customers. It's a no-brainer. More customers grows the business. Same thing.
- October 17, 2010 at 10:56 PM
- Honest Debate said...
On the immigration issue, I support a comprehensive approach. Unfortunately, due to Reagan, any such suggestion is labeled "amnesty" and therefor poison. It's like any suggestion of giving people the option to invest a small percentage of their income is called "privatizing Social Security". I would favor amnesty for those who are here if we stopped ALL illegal immigration FIRST. The only way to do that is with a wall. If that didn't work then build another wall 20 parallel with the border patrol continuously driving between them. The wall worked in Israel, it would work here.
I just disagree with your reading of Kennedy's stance on terrorism.
"And the 'root cause' sounds more like a 'go after the financiers' or 'go after the recruiters', instead of focusing solely on the foot soldiers."
That is precisely what we have been doing since day one. I can't see any basis in fact to claim that we were merely going after the "foot soldiers".
- October 17, 2010 at 11:16 PM
- Honest Debate said...
Your link suggest short term solutions and that will not help at this point. It will make things worse in the long run.
- October 17, 2010 at 11:31 PM
- Jack said...
I guess I do think it's "government's money"....to a point. It is the government of the people, chosen by the people, to serve the people. So we have a responsibility to fund its activities.
Job creation, risk-taking, and innovation comes (primarily) from businesses. Corporate taxes, small business credits, etc are not in question. Personal income is the subject. Your business analogy works in the business world, but federal government and the nation does not function anything like a business.
I don't know much about Kennedy's tax cuts, but I will comment on Reagan's. His economic policies fall in line with Keynesian theory. Economic expansion was due to cyclical growth cycles. There was no evident structural growth during that time period. During his administration, the following occurred....
--He signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
--If we compare two recession-recovery periods (1971-1980 and 1983-1990), under Reagan, growth of GDP per capita was higher (2.77% vs 2.50%) but unemployment was also higher (6.75% vs 6.35%). Also, average productivity growth, private investment, and wages all decreased under Reagan.
--The average annual growth rate of real income tax revenue per person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990. In contrast, it was 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.
--On the surface, income tax revenues increased, but if we calculate the revenues in constant dollars, they decreased then leveled off. Revenues were $1.25 trillion in 1981, they fell immediately, only returning to $1.25 trillion in 1985. Revenues finally reached $1.5 trillion in 1990.
--He signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This had a huge impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Act expanded the AMT and the middle class was the hardest hit. It shifted the overall tax burden to poorer Americans.
--The AMT has not been reformed since (it brings in more revenue than the regular tax, so it's a bit bulletproof). The IRS has spotlighted the AMT as "the single most serious problem with the tax code."
--The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that "history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts."
- October 18, 2010 at 12:05 AM
- Jack said...
"Your link suggest short term solutions and that will not help at this point. It will make things worse in the long run."
Regarding immigration or taxation?
- October 18, 2010 at 12:11 AM
The wall... a shovel ready project.
- October 18, 2010 at 1:05 AM
This might help to explain, HD. Then again, might not.
- October 18, 2010 at 7:48 AM
The government does not produce anything. All it possesses is what the citizens either give it freely or what it steals from them. When the government passes things such as Obamacare against the will of the people, it is stealing from the people. If the people want lesser taxes so they can afford to invest in their businesses, create more jobs, and improve the economy (creating an upward spiral), and the government stands in their way, the government is not only stealing the peoples money, it is stealing their future.
Immigration is another issue. Illegal immigrants cost this country billions in goods and services, They fill our jails, use our social services without paying into them, hurt our education by costing us money and filling our schools with children that cannot even speak the language, and steal out jobs (driving the living wage for legal residents, both citizens and legal immigrants down).
We are a nation of laws. These laws should be upheld. Until such time as the citizens decide to change the laws, illegal aliens should be deported. The parents of "anchor babies" should be given a choice. They can take their children with them back to their country of origin or put them up for adoption. If it is the former, the child can return when he or she is old enough to get a job and care fore himself or herself.
Please do not give me the bull crap about splitting up families. If the parents rob a bank, we do not send the kids to jail with them. They are split up just the same.
Back to the subject of the thread. If People like Obama and his policies, they will support Kennedy. If they actually have some sense and oppose them, they will support Foxx. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
- October 18, 2010 at 8:46 AM
- Honest Debate said...
"I guess I do think it's 'government's money'....to a point. It is the government of the people, chosen by the people, to serve the people. So we have a responsibility to fund its activities." -Jack
Only those activities enumerated in the Constitution, even then it's still not the government's money.
The business analogy works because business is individuals and many small businesses file taxes as individuals. Nearly half (48%) of those earning $250,000 or more are small businesses filing as individuals.
Reagan's tax cut brought in more revenue as tax cuts usually do. That's my only point. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. I would argue Reagan's tax policies were still taking hold after he left office just as Carter's policies were still affecting Reagan. Your numbers actually buttress my point
about growing our way out. When GDP was high so was revenue. In the 90's we had the incredible dot com run, that created many more taxpayers and revenue as the GDP soared. Unfortunately, it was a bubble that popped and left GWB a recession. There are many forces at play, way beyond the scope of this thread. My argument is tax cuts do not increase the deficit, they grow the economy. Tax cuts do not cost money, to me that idea is completely backwards and illogical unless you consider it the governments money. So you're consistent.
Check out Reader's link for the nitty gritty.
I've never heard anyone describe Reagan as a Keynesian, he just had a big spending Democrat Congress off setting much of his gains.
The link I was referring to was the one on revenue vs. spending. Think about it. Is the theory we should encourage the middle class to buy flat screen TV's instead of saving or investing? That's a short term solution, better to have households on strong financial foundations for the long haul.
- October 18, 2010 at 8:50 AM
- Honest Debate said...
"Back to the subject of the thread."
As Blogger's post was a wide ranging interview with Foxx and Kennedy, and immigration was discussed, it is completely on-topic. Thank you for bottom lining the issue so clearly.
Jack provided a link on the benefits of legal immigration. I did not look at it because I don't know anyone who would disagree with the premise or who opposes legal immigration. I really don't see that it's an issue at all... if legal.
- October 18, 2010 at 9:01 AM
THANK YOU JACK, HD, GUY, and READER for showing us all how adults debate issues.
It's nice to see people disagreeing without being disagreeable.
- October 18, 2010 at 10:14 AM
- Honest Debate said...
New Guy,
Screw you!
- October 18, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Was already done......November 2008!
- October 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM
- Honest Debate said...
Sorry New Guy, I just couldn't help myself. I just had to hit "Publish".
Seriously, I appreciate the kind words because that's what we try to do here at AWC. I've got to put some thoughts together and start a new thread on the subject. You and a "Tweedle Dee, tweedle dum" comment by Anonymous have got me thinking. I think I could make a case for genuine passion being the most important aspect (behind truth) of blogging. There is a place for personal attacks and disagreeable discourse, I'm not arguing your point though. It is nice and, even though I try my best to always be open minded, my mind is more open when civility rules. The goal is to expand and if I'm wrong about something I want to be corrected or I cannot grow.
- October 18, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Totally agree!
(and screw you too) ;)
- October 18, 2010 at 12:04 PM
- Jack said...
The business analogy doesn't fit. Government works differently than that. If you drop retail prices, you can attract new customers and grow your base. If you drop income taxes, you don't attract new residents. Workers from France or Sweden will not move to the U.S. because it's "cheaper" to live here. The only way to grow a tax base is to create jobs. To create jobs, we need to incentivize business and promote consumer activity. Consumer activity is promoted by tax credits to the lower brackets, as I outlined earlier, and business activity is increased by the current tax credits and proposed incentives. Businesses will invest in themselves if they have incentives and predictable consumer spending.
Tax cuts cost money because of simple arithmetic. If, in your personal budget, you increase your spending and take a pay cut at the same time, your personal deficit will increase. Again, tax cuts to personal income do not create jobs. The current cuts have not stimulated job growth over the past two years, and they will not in the future. Tax cuts to businesses do promote job growth. If a business is incentivized to invest in growth (and there's some level of consumer activity), jobs are created, the tax base grows, and the deficit decreases because of more income-tax revenue and less spending on welfare programs. It seems backwards that personal income tax cuts would cost money, but it's true.
Reagan's cuts decreased revenues, returning to baseline four years later (after the end of the recession). The minimal growth from 1985 to 1990 was due to cyclical economic cycles; natural growth out of a recession. It was not due to economic genius.
Perhaps we should promote spending. That would grow our economy and reduce our overall debt. Economics is a silly beast, but it is a game of "short term" solutions. If economic policy was a long-term game, we wouldn't need a constant change in strategy. We could simply pick the best policy and stick with it. The revenue/spending chart simply illustrates that the deficit has grown so large because of a drastic decrease in revenue, not due to a spike in federal spending.
I think we agree entirely on the immigration front. A comprehensive approach to the issue is vital to long-term stability.
- October 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Jack, again, I must disagree. Tax cuts to personal income certainly increase jobs and the economy.If the government does not steal my money in taxes for discretionary things it wants, then I can save my money, invest my money, or spend it on discretionary things I want.
If I save my money, sooner or later I will use it for one of the other purposes. If I invest it, I am directly creating jobs buy using business goods and services. If I spend it on personal items I want, it creates need for more such items and services that have to be produced. The other people spending their money does the same for the goods and services I produce. This comprises a cycle that is not what occurs when the government spends my tax money. The government does not produce anything, so there is no cycle to turn the money over again. Many if not most government expenditures are one time wastes of money.
When you cut taxes, you do promote spending. That is the entire point.
- October 18, 2010 at 1:22 PM
We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
Capital always flows to where it can be most efficiently utilized. And people DO move for tax reasons. Look at the number of people who have left NYC, or California and moved to lower tax (or no tax) states. EBAY is just the latest of many California companies who are leaving because of California's high tax anti-business environment.
Cities who imposed income taxes - such as Philadelphia and New York - have learned that the higher earners move (with their income) OUT of the city limits and away from the city taxing authorities.
The lower income people - which include all of those on welfare, subsidized housing, etc. - remain in the city. The result is a smaller group of contributors are subsidizing an increasing number of the beneficiaries of subsidies.
Raising taxes will reduce the deficit ONLY if taxpayers don't adjust their behavior as a matter of self interest.
- October 18, 2010 at 1:33 PM
- Blogger said...
Democrats all over the country are running from the Pelosi-Obama agenda as fast as possible. You have to wonder about a candidate who is running on the Pelosi-Obama agenda in one of the most conservative districts in America.
Makes one wonder.
- October 18, 2010 at 2:03 PM
- Honest Debate said...
"Tax cuts cost money because of simple arithmetic. If, in your personal budget, you increase your spending and take a pay cut at the same time, your personal deficit will increase." Jack
Are you equating a pay cut to a tax cut? I don't get it. A tax cut would be more like your rent being lowered. Your needs haven't changed, your pay is the same but your burden is lighter. Your landlord (government) may not make as much but he did not spend a dime more than he ever has. It cost him nothing. In fact by lowering the rent on all the houses he owns he was able to rent some of the empty ones and maybe makes more money. It would be wise of him to lower rent in this market. On top of that he quit smoking crack (reckless spending) and is leaner and more fit. It's all good.
I would also endorse Guy Faulkes' comments.
- October 18, 2010 at 2:59 PM
- Honest Debate said...
Jack, you wrote: "To create jobs, we need to incentivize business and promote consumer activity."
The best way to do both is for government to get out of the way. Demand already exist and should not be artificially influenced by government. All that is needed is to identify the demand and supply it.
I don't know where you got the numbers to suggest there wasn't much revenue gain from Reagan's tax cuts and to the extent there were it was cyclical. I didn't say he was (or wasn't) a genius. It doesn't take a genius to know a 70% tax rate strangles an economy. I will research and revisit the numbers with a skeptical eye but I don't think I'm wrong. I'll get back.
- October 18, 2010 at 3:12 PM
- Honest Debate said...
I don't think it's working for him.
- October 18, 2010 at 3:14 PM
- Honest Debate said...
"Raising taxes will reduce the deficit ONLY if taxpayers don't adjust their behavior as a matter of self interest." -New Guy
And if a frog had wings...
Good point.
- October 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Guy and misinformed Conservative
"The government does not produce anything"
Except TVA, Interstate Hwy System, Space Program, to name a few.
- October 18, 2010 at 5:27 PM
- Sarkazein said...
"The government does not produce anything"
Except TVA, Interstate Hwy System, Space Program, to name a few.-POV
The NEW meaning of produce.
- October 18, 2010 at 6:01 PM
"The business analogy doesn't fit. Government works differently than that. If you drop retail prices, you can attract new customers and grow your base. If you drop income taxes, you don't attract new residents."
This doesn't quite work. Dropping taxes often leads to economic growth, moving the unemployed (who do not pay taxes and normally receive benefits) into the job market, where they will become tax payers no longer receiving benefits. The revenue stream is reversed, leading to greater revenues for the government. There is no need for workers to move here from other countries -- we just need to move the 10% unemployed into jobs. The major problem with using tax credits (read, give aways) to boost consumer spending to boost the economy is that eventually, as we are now seeing, the gov't spending becomes a concern, gov't cuts back and the source of the consumer demand dries up. This is what happened in the recession of 1937-9, when FDR tried to curtail deficits and triggered a recession many people felt was as severe or worse than 1929-1932. Bottom line, higher taxes crowd out private investment, crowding out private sector job growth. It is private sector job growth that must be focused on, since government is dependent on taxes taken from the private sector to pay the wages of government employees.
- October 18, 2010 at 8:21 PM
"Raising taxes will reduce the deficit ONLY if taxpayers don't adjust their behavior as a matter of self interest."
And I agree with HD -- good point. When I was in econ many moons ago, the professor made the point that people will act in their own self-interest and WILL respond to incentives and disincentives. Taxes do affect peoples' behaviors.
- October 18, 2010 at 8:25 PM
The trickle down Republican theroy is a huge failure.
Full 40% of Americans have 0 wealth or negitive wealth. The current income in America is in the top 20% most in the top 1%. Most of the Americans with jobs don't make a wage high enough to buy lifes basics, housing, food, Utilities, transportion, Health care, education for children much less pay federal income tax but they do pay Social Security, Medicare, sales Tax, car tags, property tax and gasoline tax.
One of you do a budget for a working family of four with two parents working at 8.50 per hour far above what Republican want as a minium wage. Then do one for a single parennt home.
Reality is not something Republicans are good at.
- October 19, 2010 at 11:16 AM
- Jack said...
"If I save my money, sooner or later I will use it for one of the other purposes."
--That's exactly the problem. Spending "sooner or later" does not stimulate the economy now. Business needs some level of consumer activity before they start taking expansion risks. That's exactly my point about the tax cuts, the upper brackets do not spend.
"If I invest it, I am directly creating jobs buy using business goods and services."
--Not really. Let's say you invest by buying stock in GM. GM gets that money, and sits on it, waiting for a more opportune time to spend it. Because there is no consumer activity, businesses will not take expansion risks. That's exactly my point about the tax cuts, the upper brackets do not spend.
"EBAY is just the latest of many California companies who are leaving because of California's high tax anti-business environment."
--Alright, I don't want to say this again....we are not discussing corporate taxes. We are discussing personal income taxes. Please do not confuse the two. They are two VERY different issues with two VERY different effects.
"Are you equating a pay cut to a tax cut? I don't get it."
--I was comparing the federal budget to a personal budget. Taxes are the government's "paycheck". If you think about it on a smaller scale, if you had a smaller paycheck, but your expenses kept growing, the difference between the two (spending and income, i.e.: a deficit) would grow larger. Tax cuts create a smaller "paycheck" for government. That's how it increases the deficit.
"I don't know where you got the numbers to suggest there wasn't much revenue gain from Reagan's tax cuts and to the extent there were it was cyclical."
--The numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Internal Revenue Service, and a couple of articles (not editorials) from the New York Times. On the surface, there was a revenue gain. But if you adjust for inflation, gains did not occur until 1986. I can't explain it as concisely as I would like, so I will just quote Dr. Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize-winning Economist, 2008). "Reagan's economic policy was not a refutation but rather a confirmation of Keynesian economics: the expansion was primarily a recovery from the 1982 recession, which was created by the textbook Keynesian monetary policy of Volcker, not the tax policy of Reagan. At the start of the Reagan administration, inflation was high. The textbook Keynesian prescription for high inflation is high interest rates (contractionary monetary policy), designed to create a sustained period of high unemployment to break the price/wage spiral. Volcker did precisely this, creating the 1982 recession, then lowered interest rates once inflation was under control, resulting in economic growth and the unemployment rate coming down gradually. There is nothing unusual about the economy under Reagan – because unemployment was reducing from a high peak, it is entirely consistent with Keynesian economics for the economy to grow as employment increases while inflation remains low – the expansion was a cyclical recovery, but did not feature an increase in the structural rate of growth as its supply-side proponents argued."
"When I was in econ many moons ago, the professor made the point that people will act in their own self-interest and WILL respond to incentives and disincentives. Taxes do affect peoples' behaviors."
--The theory of rational choice does apply on the microeconomic level. However, it loses traction on a macro level. The argument is pertinent if we were discussing city or county taxes. But it doesn't apply to federal taxes and national consumer behavior.
"Tax cuts to personal income certainly increase jobs and the economy."
--How? I have been kind enough to provide research, facts and numbers, and economic analysis from industry experts. I expect the same if one is to posit an opposing opinion. I will no longer respond to personal thoughts, feelings, and rantings overheard from Auntie Deb at the last family dinner.
- October 19, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Jack said : "--The theory of rational choice does apply on the microeconomic level. However, it loses traction on a macro level. The argument is pertinent if we were discussing city or county taxes. But it doesn't apply to federal taxes and national consumer behavior.
Jack, if that were true, then we should tax at the 100% level. If people continue to work and earn and invest at the same level as before, then your point would be proven.
It isn't always a matter of relocating to avoid taxes. Although their are certainly some who will do that. It is more a question of what one does with ones money. If my income is taxed at confiscatory levels, I have less incentive to earn that income and certainly less incentive to invest it.
Money invested in corporate bonds, savings accounts, etc provide a source of funds for businesses to borrow in order to expand. Yes, of course you are right in that a demand for their services must also exist for the business to grow....
With reference to your GM example. For the most part, investors are buying stock from each other because they think the value of their stock will grow. The money invested does not go to (in your example) GM unless it is a new offering by GM which would not occur unless GM was raising money for a specific purpose....expansion or capital investment being the most common.
It's a little like hunting crows. You may see 100 crows in the cornfield and think you can shoot all 100 of them. Of course you probably could if they would stand still.
My bet is that you will find MOST of them will leave when the shooting starts.
- October 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM
- Honest Debate said...
Here are the OMB numbers. It looks to me that revenues began to increase at the end of 1982 and leveled off around 1989 before climbing again about 1992. That tells me tax cuts did not cost the government. I maintain they are responsible for the increased revenue but I can't prove it. The chart does not go back far enough to analyze the effects of Kennedy's tax cuts but the Bush tax cuts show a stark increase. It's very easy to see the bursting of the dot com bubble in 2000, one year before Bush took office and nearly 2 years before the tax cuts. Before that, the effects of the dot com run are also plain to see and I believe the increased revenue coupled with the fiscal responsibility provided by the "Contract with America", which was supported by a very savvy President Clinton, created the perfect storm for the fabulous economy of the 90's. It's too bad the dot com part of the equation was just a bubble.
I'll throw you this bone: At the time, I predicted Clinton raising the top rate from 30% to 39% would be a disaster and it wasn't. I am still reluctant to credit that over the dramatically increased tax base for the success. The difference between then and now is the economy was stable and not in free fall as it is now.
Bush's first tax cuts were made law 3 months before the annihilation of the financial universe on 9/11. A year later the dramatic fall turned around. As the effects of the first tax cuts were kicking in a second round was passed in 2003 and just look at the spike. The tax cuts DID NOT cost the government they saved it.
Thanks for clearing up the pay cut thing, I interpreted you wrong. I still don't like the analogy and concur with the other commenters who say people adjust. And it's not just corporations. Many, many, many people have fled New York for Florida or Texas to escape taxes. The Millionaire tax was a complete failure in NY.
Speaking of complete failures, Obama has added $3 trillion to the debt in just 2 years, the economy is still in the dumps (worse even) and some like Paul Krugman are suggesting we spend more.
Finally, and this may get dicey, I honestly mean no disrespect but I have to address Paul Krugman.
The man is a blinded partisan. I have no respect at all for him. I can give you example after example where he has directly contradicted himself depending on which party is in charge. As for his Nobel prize, I have even less regard for that organization. They gave the prize to Jimmy Carter purely to spite Bush and admitted so. They gave the prize to Algore whose movie was a complete fraud and cannot be shown in England in public schools without the disclaimer that the information is false. That's by court order. He purposely misrepresented the C02 data in his hideous graph. Obama won the Nobel for... uh... er... who the hell knows, maybe expanding the war in Afghanistan? The Nobel means nothing. Paul Krugman's opinion means nothing, I'll stick with Art Laffer, Milton Freedman, Walter Williams and scores of other more qualified economist. Here's the dicey part. It's my opinion, if you are looking to Krugman for advise or the Nobel Committee for validation then you really should look elsewhere or risk loosing what credibility you have. You seem smart and fair minded, don't be influenced by partisan fools.
- October 19, 2010 at 4:27 PM
So, Jack, you are against saving money to invest or purchase goods without incurring debt. You perceive this to be bad for the economy. An interesting position. Are you connected with the lending industry that was bailed out?
- October 19, 2010 at 5:54 PM
- Honest Debate said...
That's exactly the point I was trying to make to Jack when I said his link addressed short term solutions but hurt in the long run. To be fair, Jack isn't the only one making that point and indeed there may be some validity in the short term fix but what a terrible idea it is. If you had to give one broad summary of the trouble we're in it's the lack of fiscal responsibility. Living within our means, whether it's an individual, family, business or country is only a start. Spend less than you make, the bigger the gap between the two the better. Saving and investing wisely is a good thing. We're being told spend, don't save... for the good of the country. It's immoral.
- October 19, 2010 at 9:05 PM
"If you had to give one broad summary of the trouble we're in it's the lack of fiscal responsibility. " You do mean the wealthest Americans don't you?
You have two wars the conservatives wanted but the wealthiest Americans who have the only money there is in America don't want to pay for or send their children to these wars fought by low income Democrats for the most part.
- October 19, 2010 at 10:33 PM
- Honest Debate said...
"You do mean the wealthest Americans don't you?" -LiberalPOV
No, everybody.
- October 19, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Make me a budget for the working poor who have no Art Pope Family to fund the NC political process in their favor, No lobbyist, no attorneys.
The working poor do pay sales tax, Social Security, Medicare, Gasoline tax and property tax.
The working poor pay a higher percent of their total income in taxes than the wealthest Americans.
The working poor supports the American economy with very low wages which increases profit for the top 2%.
Who lacks of fiscal responsibility?
- October 20, 2010 at 8:03 AM
Liberalproverbs18:2, how about posting your budget? Maybe we can help you determine how to live within it. We cannot do this until we know the amount of welfare and food stamps you receive and what items such as I Pods you own that you do not HAVE to have. I know this does not relate to the WORKING poor that share our disdain for those of you needlessly taking advantage of the safety net that should be used just for those that deserve it, but you fraudulent entitlement babies should live withing a budget also.
- October 20, 2010 at 8:18 AM
"Who lacks of fiscal responsibility?"
The left. $3 Trillion of debt in 19 months, 10% unemployment, a devalued dollar on verge of collapse and attacks on American families.
"The working poor pay a higher percent of their total income in taxes than the wealthest Americans."
Percentages do not tell who pays the most in taxes, NUMBERS do....
Top 1% of wage earners, you know, people who WORK, pay 39% of all income taxes.
The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of all income taxes.
50% of US wage earners, the lowest income workers, PAY NO INCOME TAX.
Someone making 80K a year pays more in income tax alone than the "poor" pay in all other taxes.
AND they ALSO pay the other taxes you listed.
Grow up and learn math Cracker lpov. Class warfare is for Marxists and Morons.
- October 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM
And by the way, who CONSUMES those taxes in benefits? The "poor".
How much does the 50% of wage earners get in income distribution from the Marxist gov't? Practically NOTHING.
From a cost/benefit analysis the "poor" are making out like bandits at the expense of working families.
And the "rich"? They have the "joy" of funding their own destruction by the left.
So who are the Parasite Class now?
- October 20, 2010 at 8:36 AM
Wolf and Misinformed Conservatives
"From a cost/benefit analysis the "poor" are making out like bandits at the expense of working families. "
Most of America's adult poor work but the fact is most of Americas poor are children.
What you think you know just ain't so.
"50% of US wage earners, the lowest income workers, PAY NO INCOME TAX."
Think about the above.. That's problem we need to fix and its because on the Reagan era and trickle down economic is a failure.
All adult Americans of working age need jobs that pay a living wage to rasie their families and pay taxes after life' basic are met.
- October 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Misinformed Conservatives and Tea Party Revolutionaries on Medicare Scooters
I see no budgets for the working poor or were the Tea Party would cut spending enough to make a 3% difference in the total US budget?
Silly misinformed people have taken power and turned back civilization before, look at Iran the religous nuts got control of the government there.
What time is the beck history lesson today?
The Tea Party has no plans, No vision, and no understanding of the world.
- October 20, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Where is your rebuttal, Liberalproverbs18:2? Your La La La La La chants are boring.
- October 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM
- Jack said...
"So, Jack, you are against saving money to invest or purchase goods without incurring debt."
--We need consumer activity to stimulate the economy. I'm not saying that you should cash in your 401(k) and buy 37 TVs, 2 convertibles, and mint-condition collector beanie baby. I'm just making a point that businesses will not make any significant moves until consumer activity increases.
--There's also the idea of federal deficit spending as a positive move. It's a contentious idea and I'm not sure I'm completely onboard, although I see the main point. Basically, the federal government can borrow money at a ridiculously low rate (~1%). Right now, materials and labor costs for infrastructure are also very low. We could build a new bridge right now for a very low price. Or, we could leave the old bridge there. That old bridge will need to be replaced in, say, 10yrs. The costs will be much higher in 10yrs, so will the financing rates. So that bridge will cost two or three times more. The argument is delaying needed infrastructure improvement is the same as incurring monetary debt. Again, I'm still on the fence on this one, but thought I'd throw it out there.
Paul Krugman is liberal. Alright, really liberal. But he makes some good points here and there, and backs them up with research....and really colorful graphs (joke). I still respect the Nobel Prize although I understand your trepidations. I don't agree with Obama's Peace Prize.....he didn't really do anything, and still hasn't for global peace. The Al Gore discussion is for another post, so I'll let that slide.
But, if you get to quote the Heritage Foundation, I get to quote Paul Krugman.
PS: Do I get points for pulling-off a successful beanie baby reference?
- October 22, 2010 at 5:52 AM
- Jack said...
I jest, but I have to point this out......
You called Krugman a "partisan fool", then listed two economists who have been irrelevant since the Reagan administration (one of whom has been dead for 5 years). And listed Walter Williams, a highly partisan Libertarian who has some VERY interesting views.
No malice, just fighting partisan with partisan.
- October 22, 2010 at 6:29 AM
- Honest Debate said...
Don't worry about the malice thing and be as partisan as you like.
I think partisanism (is that a word?) is fine. My only problem is when it trumps truth. That's my point about Krugman. I don't trust what he says because I know from experience (I've followed him closely) that his partisanism trumps his truth. He's obviously got some smarts but I believe it's foolish to let ones ideology play too big a role in analysis.
The numbers on the Heritage Foundation link are from the OMB. Look at the bottom of the graph. Are you accusing Heritage of: a) claiming the numbers are from OMB when they're not, b) fudging the numbers, or c) both? Do you think Heritage puts ideology over truth? I don't but I'm not just saying that, I've seen no evidence of it. If you have some, I'm open.
Here's the OMB page with the historical tables. If you want to cipher through them. You said your numbers were in part from the OMB, which table did you look at? Do you want to discuss the difference between the OMB and the CBO and the partisan influences of each? We can do all of that but the numbers are the numbers and this is how we've always measured them.
I would argue that Art Laffer and Milton Freedman are as relevent today as ever. Walter Williams is indeed very partisan but, as you said, towards Libertarian views which do not agree at all with Republican views. Again, that's fine if ideology doesn't trump the truth. I cannot point to anything Williams has said that makes me think that's true. He's very consistent, Krugman is not.
How about CATO, do you trust them?
- October 22, 2010 at 8:11 AM
- Jack said...
Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2005) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2015
- October 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM
- Jack said...
I don't like the Heritage Foundation, I find them too partisan, but pretending they're not. I do like the CATO Institute, but only when their papers are backed-up by more non-partisan sources. I recently cited a CATO paper, but the position was also backed by the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. Anyone can lie with statistics, it's insanely easy.
As for economists, they're like lawyers. You could ask 10 economists the same question and get 10 different answers. It's (relatively) easy to analyze past economic experiments, but impossible to predict future reactions. There are too many variables for which to account. If there was one economic concept or one methodology that worked in every situation, we'd all be billionaires and Lib would be calling us oppressed.
- October 23, 2010 at 4:31 AM
- Honest Debate said...
Look at the spreadsheet in Table 1.3 from OMB. It looks to me that the column "Receipts" in "In Constant (FY2005) Dollars" corresponds with the graph (Total Revenue line) from Heritage if you convert the thousands of billions to trillions. The Heritage graph is what it says it is, the OMB numbers. Heritage is partisan and that's fine as long as they don't let it trump truth.
The numbers support my premise that tax cuts bring more revenue. Being generous, I'll give you the fact there could be some other reason to explain the correlation my evidence (from the accurate Heritage representation of OMB numbers) supports but I don't know of one.
The numbers do not support the idea that tax cuts "cost" money. That's your premise. You have not given evidence (or even a correlation) to support your premise... unless you consider Paul Krugman's opinion as evidence.
I'll get to him next.
- October 24, 2010 at 4:13 PM
- Honest Debate said...
Here's Paul Krugman fretting about Bush's deficit in 2003 when it was $377 billion and 3.4%of GDP:
"... I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits."
"If you take into account -- as the C.B.O. cannot -- the effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion."
Here he is not fretting about Obama in February after a 2009 $1.4 trillion deficit (It's now $3 trillion over the first 2 years) that was 9.9% of GDP:
"These days it's hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we're told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren't stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they're reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.
Yet they aren't facts."
Need I elaborate? Find anything comparable from Heritage and I'll eat my hat.
- October 25, 2010 at 8:44 AM
- Honest Debate said...
Just look at the headlines Jack. In 2003 it's a "Fiscal Train Wreck" and in 2010 with the the deficit QUADRUPLED he calls any worry "Fiscal Scare Tactics".
Which is it? Depends on the party in charge according to Krugman.
- October 25, 2010 at 8:49 AM
- Jack said...
I'll concede the point on Krugman. And I'll refrain from citing him unless backed by other, less biased sources. I agree with the 2003 Krugman, a large deficit is a bad thing. My problem is with the reason behind the deficit. Certain sides try to blame it on outrageously extravagant spending by the federal government, but that hasn't happened. Revenues are to blame.
I'm not sure what numbers on the OMB table you're looking at. Here are the ones I see: Receipts in Constant Dollars:
1981 - $1.25 Trillion
That's a decrease during the recession (late 1981-early 1983).
As for the Heritage Foundation, here are some critiques:
Critique of Education Policy
Criticism from the United Nations, US Liaison Office
Critique of Heritage's Economic Analysis
- October 25, 2010 at 12:15 PM
- Honest Debate said...
I must be missing something. Yes, we are looking at the same column and it corresponds with the Heritage graph. The graph line goes up and down every time the OMB numbers do. 1981 looks like $1.25 trillion to me on the graph.
I wrote earlier: "It looks to me that revenues began to increase at the end of 1982 and leveled off around 1989 before climbing again about 1992".
Isn't that what the numbers say? I said "end of 82" OMB say's "83" is the low point. The Reagan tax cuts were in 1981 and 1986. Revenue increased the whole time and then some. I don't know how the rate changes were phased in or even if they were but revenue increased. How could it be said the tax cut's cost money?
It's even more dramatic with the Bush tax cuts.
I can't readily find the quote but you wrote something to the effect of the debt is not because of excessive spending but a result of loss of revenue due to a shrinking GDP. Did I get you right? I am saying the spending is the reason the GDP is shrinking. I am also saying the reverse is true. Revenue increases as the GDP grows. Further, taxation does not let the GDP to grow. Tax cuts do. More taxpayers paying less taxes.
I glanced at the Heritage critiques. I get peoples problem with their sophisticated delivery system especially when it's opinions of the implications of their research emailed to a million computers. I don't want to get into all that.
By rejecting the OMB numbers just because Heritage cited them (with no opinion just a graph), you made an entirely different accusation. You implied the numbers were purposely misrepresented in a dastardly manner. Didn't you? If not, why wasn't "Source: White House Office of Management and Budget" good enough for you?
That's more than a difference of opinion.
- October 26, 2010 at 4:21 PM
- Jack said...
I'm not rejecting Heritage's graph, just their analysis. The increases in revenue after 1985 (or so) were due to cyclical economic growth coming out of recession. The tax cuts DURING the recession decreased revenue.
My problem with Heritage is their analysis, as they often times overlook opposing arguments/findings when presenting their "research".
- October 27, 2010 at 4:50 PM


text: When should you hire taxation lawyers? Tax attorneys can assist individuals and businesses in a number of situations. Start-up businesses should talk to a tax lawyer to understand the tax implication of various business structures. Companies should also seek legal counsel on issues related to payroll taxes, sales taxes, use taxes and international tax issues. Individuals and couples can benefit from a tax lawyer's advice when engaged in estate planning, if you may have committed tax fraud, or if you're facing an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or state tax audit.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The National Football League has lost one of its legends. Hall of Fame defensive end David "Deacon" Jones has died at the age of 74.
Washington Redskins General Manager Bruce Allen relayed the news via the team's official website. Jones died of natural causes at his home in Southern California.
"Deacon Jones was one of the greatest players in NFL history. Off the field, he was a true giant. His passion and spirit will continue to inspire those who knew him," said Allen. "He was cherished member of the Allen family and I will always consider him my big brother."
Jones, nicknamed the "Secretary of Defense," was one of the most dominant players of his era. He was a two-time NFL Defensive Player of the Year and five-time first-team All-Pro selection. Jones was named to eight Pro Bowls during his 14-year NFL career, and to the NFL's 75th Anniversary team.
Jones spent his first 11 seasons with the Los Angeles Rams before playing two years for the San Diego Chargers and his final season with the Washington Redskins, in 1974.
Bruce Allen's father, George, was Jones' head coach for five season with the Rams and again during his final season in Washington.
Jones was a member of the "Fearsome Foursome" with the Rams that consisted of Lamar Lundy, Rosey Grier, and Merlin Olsen. It was among the most imposing defensive lines ever constructed. Famous for using a head slap to gain an advantage on offensive linemen, Jones was a nightmare for quarterbacks as a pass rusher.
Although sacks didn't become an official statistic until 1982, Jones would be among the best all-time in the category. He unofficially recorded 22 sacks twice during his tenure with the Rams and posted three 20-plus sack seasons. Jones is even credited with first coining the term "sack." His 173.5 career sacks would rank third on the all-time list behind Bruce Smith (200) and Reggie White (198).
Jones was named to the Hall of Fame in 1980 during his first year of eligibility.


text:
Last 24 Hours Hot Topics
Click on a phrase (or tag) to review other recent messages that contain that tag. Larger tags have been used more frequently in messages. Use the radio buttons below to change the date range.
Archive of alert messages
Containing the tag : "deeply scratched" (1 result)
Alerts sent Friday 03 May 2019
Alert title
Neighbourhood Watch in Nottinghamshire
Crimes reported over the past seven days. Burglary Dwelling None Reported ...
Sent by : John Duke (NHWN, Local Communications Administrator, Ashfield South)
|No news items to display
|Joint County and City Neighbourhood Watch Conference 2013
|NottsWatch and CNNWC agree to amalgamate


text:
The Case of Jackson vs. GawkerDecember 17, 2003
Not that I don't have enough of my own rip-off problems to contend with, given the handful of new sites based on Garden designs each day…
The downside that hasn't yet been explored, with regards to standards-based design, is that separation of content and presentation makes it entirely too easy to steal one and not the other.
When it comes down to it, structural elements don't change a whole heck of a lot from site to site. A few headers, some paragraphs, and extraneous container
divs. The design is neatly packaged up and ready to go in another file that doesn't bring along pesky things like, you know, identifying text (which is easily discovered on Google) or links back to the original content creator, or the like. Sure, a few images and
ids need to be changed, but that's a trifle.
Now, why would someone rip off another? That is a question to ask each individual offender, but the common reason nets to lack of knowledge and/or talent. There are very few deviations from this general rule.
Which is why it's so damn confusing when you see something like what Nick Denton's publishing empire has allegedly done. A well respected company doing great things in the on-line publishing space, run by a dot-com millionaire, appears to have ripped off a college kid.
Prude alert: some links on the referenced pages point toward sites featuring adult-themed material. Proceed with discretion.
Others have covered it in far more detail than I will, but the basic summary appears to be that Noel Jackson and Joe Clark approached Gawker Media shortly after the launch of its latest offering, Fleshbot. They had built a nicely-compliant XHTML/CSS version of the site, and were offering Jackson's services in compensation. Gawker politely told them no, then used it anyway. And then took the code base and applied it to their other holdings as well — Gawker itself and Gizmodo.
Yes, Jackson provided free work without a contract in place, in hopes of landing more. This is called spec work, and regardless of my own personal views on the practice, it happens frequently in the design/advertising world. And Gawker had every right to say no thanks, and not pay for the work. But that wouldn't allow them to turn around and use it free of charge. It's still Jackson's work. It would appear in this case Jackson did offer the code free for use on Fleshbot. But that's only one site, of the three it ended up on.
It's just a collection of code, right? You can't copyright CSS? Photographs are just a collection of pixels. Novels are just a collection of letters. Music is just a collection of sound waves. The work is what matters here, and the work is unquestionably Jackson's.
Denton has posted transcripts of IM conversations with Jackson on Jackson's site. It appears that he has trouble differentiating between one site and three, and in the process shows that Jackson had tried to resolve the issue before taking it to the public space.
It's a shame that an otherwise savvy company has seemingly made such a public blunder. Let's hope this can be quickly resolved in a manner satisfactory to both parties.
Reader Comments
You make a very good point about design theft. Stealing a CSS file is very easy to do, and as more sites move to web standards and seperated form/content, there are going to be a lot more good, clean stylesheets out there to steal.
I'd bet there haven't been many lawsuits about this yet, and once they start happening at least we'll have the precedents set by music sampling and remixing to go off. It'll be tricky to define exactly in what sense one owns a design and its code. After all, there are lots of 2-column, main content + sidebar pages out there, but each designer should be able to say that they own their particular implementation.
I think the issue is more complicated than you make it seem though. There's certainly clearcut cases of people ripping off websites, program GUIs, etc and this case seems to fit that.
But what exactly constitutes ripping off a web design? IMHO, if it's purely layout, then its pretty hard to say that one is a ripoff of another, unless it's some really unique layout.
Look at all of the centered, fixed-width 2 column websites out there. Are they all ripoffs of each other? If one site copies the 'look and feel' of another, that's more clear cut. But a quick look at the Gawker site doesn't show anything terribly original. It's a left adjusted, fixed-width layout with 2 thin right columns. I imagine there's a fair number out there like this. My own firm's site is similar, but centered. Not that I'm defending these guys, if they stole the CSS/XHTML code that is clearly wrong.
But what if someone comes to you, shows you a layout and says 'pay me', and you simply recreate the layout on your own? Or if you see some sort of funky 4 column layout and like how it looks and recreate it? Is that a ripoff?
It sounds like what people are saying is that copying and pasting the code is stealing which I agree with. I'm not so sure that copying a layout is, especially when it's not something terribly unique.
Anyone know if newspapers have ever sued each other over this kind of stuff?
I don't think that a PDF would have had the impact that code does. It wasn't a re-design, it was a re-coding.
The issue is pretty clear-cut here - it doesn't seem like anyone is denying that Gawker did, in fact, copy and paste the code. Read the linked transcripts and further comments on Jackson's site. The confusion is over whether or not Gawker had permission to do so.
As for the extent of similarity of layout, well, Adobe successfully sued Macromedia over something as simple as tabbed palettes. Make of that what you will. http://news.com.com/2100-1040-898061.html?tag=fd_top
I don't think that a layout should be able to be "owned" by any one person. The parts that are copyrightable are the contents like images and text. A layout has no visible parts. It's just how you use the space in the window. If I make a layout with a two-column header and a three-column content area and a two-column footer then there's no way for me to tell someone else that they can't do the same thing. Now when I start adding content like images and text. I can tell someone not to use those. For example, don't put my article on your site and say you wrote it. Or don't take the image of a tiger that I drew and use it on your page. But the layout you can use. When a layout starts to include unique visual elements like background images, it is no longer a layout it is a template. And the only way you can use someone else's template is if they say you can. And by unique visual elements I don't include things like background colors or borders which are generic CSS that anyone can use.
So in this case what's the problem? The only thing I see from looking at the sites is that they have the same layout. Which is a header and a three-column layout with the content in the left column. The content is different for each. And the content was theirs to begin with. I really don't like stealing but I don't see using a layout as stealing.
I must admit though that I'm criss-crossing the fine line between right and wrong here in my mind because while what they did is not illegal, I do find it inpolite.
It's not even the layout that was the same (although it was identical), it was the code, pure and simple. My stylesheet was taken, edited and used on multiple sites. Do a diff (in BBEdit or another Text Editor) and you will see that the stylesheets aren't very different, right down to class and id names.
Nick, I believe, finally sees *just*what*was*wrong* with what happened. It was bad communication, not on my part.
I will keep everyone updated on what happens.
as i wrote over at http://www.builtforthefuture.com/index.php?view=message&mid=20&showcomment=1&vmid=20 last month on a similar issue:
"in the old days of oldskool html (with all their convoluted triple-nested table layouts, spacer graphics, etc), it was a fairly difficult act to rip a site without making it look horribly broken. the rip actually required a good deal of html knowledge to work your way through the convoluted mess of tagsoup. but now, with table-less designs and ultra-clean xhtml+css, it's almost a no brainer. grab the stylesheet, grab the xhtml, insert your content. no mess, no fuss.
of course this is an oversimplification, but it does strike a chord i think…"
Its pretty easy to find oneself in error when random IMs are combined with free offers to make business plans. I find it hard to believe that Nick could not give some small compensation for reusing the code on the other sites.
With as amazing as MT is I am surprised that nobody (that I know of) has yet to make a CSS archive collection or a CSS generator for it.
While they would probably not be able to make a ton of money off of each sale, the front runner could obviously work well with MT to become somewhat "official."
I think it would be good marketing for leaves rustle
to use their current popularity to design this. They could either make a decent amount off of ads (the same business model of Gawker), or leverage their popularity and positioning to charge for custom hand crafted blog code.
If I knew anything about coding I would already be doing this - all I have been doing is sticking my nose in marketing books though :)
Looking around further I just ran into your CSS Zen Garden website…cool site… this is somewhat similar to the idea I was talking about. Its pretty hard to create any original ideas these days (at least for me)!
I think it is mostly a misunderstanding. Pointy Haired Guy assumed that the template was his to use and wouldn't use it on one site without intending on using it on all his cookie-cutter sites. Desperate Web Guy thought he could give them one free and copy+paste a few paying projects after that. There is a good reason why a lot of companies don't accept "free" submissions, it's not free if you have to call in a lawyer to write up a contract before you can look at the "gift".
One must understand that your CSS *is* copyrighted, just like the source code of a software application. No, the general layout isn't necessarily copyrighted (though I could see a problem if someone used their own code to recreate your layout, color scheme and everything, right down to the pixel).
Writing good CSS that all browsers will munch down isn't (usually) easy. There's no justifying the theft of CSS, even if it *was* a recreation of another original layout.
Say you have a guy who makes cars. He's made a very nice-looking car, but the innards are all jacked up. Then some brilliant engineer comes along and redesigns the inside of the vehicle, upping the fuel efficiency and reliability. He shows his ideas to the car maker, but the car maker turns his offer down. Two weeks later, the car is released looking the same, but with the new mechanical design. Does the engineer have good reason to be angry? Absolutely.
Not the best parallel in the world, but it serves my purposes.
We could always help out by giving it the "Fair & Balanced" treatment (with the original author's permission of course) and replicate that design around the world by making MT etc. templates readily available to whoever wants them.
Seriously though, the visual presentation should have made with a pdf. If a functional presentation was absolutely neccessary a signed agreement could have prevented this or at least presented a clear path to legal recourse. I'm gla I'm out of corporate but I did bring back some valuable lessons with me.
Why though? It doesn't sound like he was asking for much in return, one extra staff isn't going to hurt a huge media company, and there's no point in putting yourself in the public eye like this for no reason.
I guess this is what they pay PR guys for…
The fact that the two layouts are the same is NOT the issue. Yes, it is quite possible for two people to separately come up with the same design with exactly the same margins, widths etc. The issue here is that someone wrote some code, therefore had copyright for that code, and someone else used it without permission. Originality is not the issue - copyright law is.
Problem 1:
There are a finite number of ways to achieve a particular layout.
Problem 2:
CSS advocates (the usual suspects) publish solutions to commonly encountered problems that are eagerly copied by us, the teeming millions.
Problem 3:
Anyone can view anyone else's CSS.
Problem 4:
Copy a stylesheet, change the ID and class names, nudge a margin 1 or 2 pixels here and there and who can possibly prove that you copied the source?
So… everyone copies CSS. Its too easy to do, and its most prominent advocates actively encourage this by revealing their techniques. Net result: a thousand sites using similar layouts and similar CSS code to achieve similar effects. Is anyone out there fighting for the rights of the inventor of the javascript drop-down list?
Sure, the company acted in bad faith towards Noel, but that is as much a result of the technology itself than the particularly venal nature of the company involved. Let's face it - a CSS file is an hour or two and a text-editor. The real skill is in graphic design and interaction design.
Microsoft patent technology and create closed systems and we all cry foul. A company leverages the open-source nature of CSS and we all cry foul. Go figure…
In no way does ease of copying justify what this company did. The fact that CSS is as open and copyable as it is means that copying of CSS design without permission may be easy but is no less Illegal under copyright law.
Could I please try to clarify Wertheimer's comment above?
Jackson tried to resolve the issue "privately" with Denton. It didn't work. Jackson and others wrote about Denton's actions, which nobody but Denton seems to think are remotely OK, but it's *Jackson* whose reputation might be tarnished? Especially among people who side with Nick?
How does that work again?
Is someone unclear as to who is the aggrieved party here? Hint: It's Noel Jackson.
Inevitably, I am going to disagree with the premise of the photograph analogy. And then I'm going to bed.
A photograph is a piece of art that you made using someone elses's technology. This does not give you copyright over the method of making that piece of art - it gives you copyright of the finished piece.
Would you seriously try to copyright someone using, say, the same shutter speed, exposure time, film, paper, lens, chemicals and make of camera as you did for that particular photograph?
Bottom line: In practical terms, what people are arguing for here is unenforcable. Unless someone is stupid to simply copy an entire stylesheet, comments, classnames and all, there is no way to detect the thievery.
But if you genuinely want people to copyright CSS code - which is a concrete legal reality, not just a philosophical debating point - then we can say goodbye to people sharing their neat ideas. I'll be at the Patent Office monday morning with my 45 degree tilting text technique in my hand.
Final thought: If I build a replica Ferrari without permission, who do you think will come after me? The engineers? Or the designers…
To use the photograph analogy, do the people who process your films have an equal share in any claim you make under copyright?
Just because most of us here currently code *and* design our pages doesn't mean that's the way it has to be, or will be in the future.
If you think your CSS solution is original enough to warrant a patent, then fair enough. Claiming that any old CSS file is copyrightable because it doesn't exactly match any other CSS file seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum that leads us nowhere in terms of practical reality.
Using WYSIWYG editors, having to implement someone else's design, or just using a different technology (such as Flash) to the same end, all muddy the waters that we're trying to so hard to pretend are crystal clear.
Can you really copyright:
h1 (font-family:arial;color:blue)?
How about:
div#menu {float:right;width:140px;padding:12px;)?
How about a stylesheet with both of those things in - could you copyright that?
I'm not here to defend Gawker - they acted in bad faith, and should have acknowledged the work done for them in some way or another.
But copyright law protects originality of expression and identity. It is patent law that protects ideas and methods.
It's an analogy that's been used before, but CSS is nothing more than the 'grammar' of web design.
You can copyright a slogan, but not the sentence structure or the words that go to make it up.
Everyone a sentence like Yoda can write. But he isn't hopping around on the spot, fuming because his style copied has been.
"It�s an analogy that�s been used before, but CSS is nothing more than the �grammar� of web design."
i beg to differ. i site's css is an *implementation* of the grammar…much in the same way that you can't say that source code of a copyrighted piece of software (with all it's IP and other implications) is the grammar of computer programming. the grammar is the CSS spec (or the C/C++/whatever spec), not its implementation.
"But copyright law protects originality of expression and identity. It is patent law that protects ideas and methods."
well, in that case i think it might apply to cases in which CSS is used in unusual, innovative, original ways (those weird "oh god, this is so simple, why didn't i think of it…genius" type moments you get when looking at some visually stunning, css-driven layouts). sure, you can't copyright the basic h1 { font-size: 150%; } or similar - there's too much prior art, and heck, it's not original.
Joe Clark said, "OK, but it�s *Jackson* whose reputation might be tarnished?"
I don't have a horse in this race and as unpopular stance as it may be, I can see Dentons side. However, in terms of tarnishment (is that even a word?) I'll be associating this fiasco with Denton forever.
Mr. Jackson is clearly a competent and capable designer, but considering I'm not in the market for a designer but *am* a consumer of Dentons content the later has a much greater impact on me. It's a shame. I'll never look at those sites, all of which I quite enjoyed, the same way again.
In the end, the Denton brand took a bigger hit than the stylesheet and karma comes around quick hereabout.
What I have gleaned from this whole debate:
If you are a designer;
* Never do spec work. It is a total waste of time. That ten hours it took Noel to build the CSS could have been used to launch his own personal media empire ala Gawker.
* Never do work for a company that steals pics of porn from around the web as a business.
* If you don't land that big job you were hoping for, do yourself a favor and keep it to yourself. Whining only destroys your rep.
If you are a business owner;
* Never allow a designer who thinks your website sucks to redesign it for you for at "no charge". There is no such thing as free in business. Everything costs you money.
* Never use IM to discuss confidential business matters. Always meet face-to-face or discuss matters via phone.
* Use contracts or confidentiality aggreements. They will protect you from headaches.
* Stealing from others and pissing people off will only hurt your business.
Of course you can't copyright one h1 selector, or 1 p selector…in music, I can't really copyright a g or an a, or even a c major chord… (though John Cage's estate insists that all silence is under his copyright)
It is the combinatory effect of notes that make music, words that make poetry, selectors that make css.
I think the idea that css is just an "hour and a text editor" is a misunderstanding. The page _is_ the css. The HTML document is just structural markup - the only think important is the content. The rest are just structural tags or references to the css. I spend much more than an hour or two writing and testing my css in the move from PhotoShop comps to a webpage. The css is what creates the page - I don't feel a great sense of creative success after marking up a page with headline and ul tags, but realizing a graphic design through css is definately a creative process and the rewarding part of web design for me.
Yes, there is skill in graphic design and interface design, but there is also skill and work and talent involved in creating efficient, elegant css. It is open source only in the same way that the English language is open source. What I do with css, and what I do with language, is intellectual property and mine to use exclusively unless I explicitly say otherwise.
I can write a letter and tell people "use this template to write to your congressman" (or whatever) and they would be in the right to sign their names to that letter. But if someone else even copies this post and signs their name to it, it would be stealing. (despite the lack of profundity, the lack of original word combinations…this is not great writing.)
Keep brainstorming this because to raise CSS implementations from tech grammar to a copywritable collection of language will require a test in court to recognize it as such.
Can you really copyright:
h1 (font-family:arial;color:blue)?
^^ Likewise you can't copyright single words. When you package those words together into something thats when it becomes a little more fuzzy.
Just my flopzighamen� anyway..
Hi Patrick.
I still think a claim for an "original" CSS solution would fall under a patent rather than a copyright.
Using an image for a header is not an original idea, but FIR *is* an original method of achieving that effect.
I think its stretching it a little bit to claim that as being self-expression or identity.
But leaving aside the desirability of encouraging CSS innovators to patent their solutions rather than share it with us poor schmucks, where does that leave the majority of solutions?
We have a small number of problems to solve (liquid three column layouts, yada yada yada) and a limited toolset to solve these problems. Hence, people will arrive at the same conclusions, and others will simply steal those conclusions.
Change a few lines of code in a 50 line CSS file, and it isn't the same thing any more… rename the classes, job's a carrot… so whatcha gonna do?
I arrived at this solution through thought and experimentation
He arrived at this solution by nicking my source code outright
She arrived at this solution by nicking 60% of my source code, and 40% of Their source code.
They arrived at the conclusion that trying to control this is largely pointless!
I doubt it's the individual lines of CSS that determines copyright of that file. It's the unique combinations within that file that makes it unique, right? So of course we can't copyright h1 (font-family:arial;color:blue) – but if the rest of the document is different, that's a unique file. For example, a lot of people use Verdana as their main body copy type. Does that mean only ONE person can use {font-family: Verdana; font-size: 1em}? Of course not.
Anyway, the point is that Jackson provided Gawker with a professional document and it was filched, without getting proper compensation. CSS or not, that's just wrong. It's like approaching a publisher with a book, having it rejected, and then they publish the book anyway without paying you and change the author's name. It's not the case of whether CSS can be copyrighted or not – it's the case of someone providing an organization with something, and after it's rejected, uses it anyway. In other types of cases, that can bring up a lawsuit.
It's one thing for someone to just visit your site and filch your code – but Gawker actually was APPROACHED with the original document.
The smart thing would have been for Noel to loudly trumpet that Gawker Media is using his CSS all over the place, and let that fact, along with the sites' visibility, lead to more work.
Some public acclaim may even have given Noel leverage to pressure Gawker to pay for the code and book some future business. Bawling out Nick Denton in public not only ensures Noel won't get hired, but anyone that knows Nick and respects his opinion probably won't go to Noel for work, either.
I won't judge whether it was appropriate for Gawker and Gizmodo to adapt the Fleshbot code. I sympathize with Noel, but I suspect a little more private discussion (how about a phone call?) would have cleared the air.
To bastardize the proverb, life threw Noel a lemon in the form of an IM misunderstanding. Noel chose to suck on the lemon. He should have made lemonade.
"there is skill in graphic design and interface design, but there is also skill and work and talent involved in creating efficient, elegant css"
^^ I'm not denying this for one second. But it is a non-sequitur to claim that protection afforded to one is automatically afforded to the other.
As I tried to elucidate earlier, CSS is just a solution to realising a vision. You want to cross a river you build a bridge. Once in a century perhaps, someone finds a new way to do this, but the vast majority go for a tried and tested solution. The suspension bridge, the cantilever etc etc…
Do the engineers claim copyright the methods they've used in previous projects? No - although they can patent new methods they've pioneered if they are so inclined. Do the architects protect the visual appearance of their bridge - you bet your ass!
We're wandering off topic I think, but there seems to be a collective tendancy to be precious about CSS as if it is an 'art'. The art is in the design - the CSS is just engineering. Not that this devalues the work in any way - there's a lot of damnably clever chaps out there and I doff my cap accordingly.
Were these conversations prevalent the first time someone realised that you could use rowspan="2" to achieve a different layout with tables? Seems unlikely…
Sorry to intrude again - but I would like to reiterate that Gawker were off bounds. Not because of the sanctity of code, or any such blather, but because they broke an agreement. That in itself seems simple enough.
"It's an analogy that's been used before, but CSS is nothing more than the 'grammar' of web design."
I took a photo of a sculpture in the city once. I didn't make my camera, the sculpture I photographed, the film in the camera, or the paper it was printed on. I didn't come up with the theories behind use of light or composition. Other photographers use all those same tools all the time. There have to be thousands if not millions of photographs of sculptures, and undoubtedly there are plenty of other photographs of that very same sculpture.
Yet I have every right to copyright that photograph.
You say that a CSS file lacks originality in the sense that CSS and XHTML are the 'grammar' for a Web design and everyone else can use the same tools. What you're ignoring is that it is the whole, the end product, that is original work. Thought has been put into the composition of the CSS file, even though the designer doesn't happen to be the inventor of the CSS spec.
'You can copyright a slogan, but not the sentence structure or the words that go to make it up."
Actually, you can't generally copyright a slogan, just as you cannot copyright a title, name, or short phrase: it's too small. You can protect your slogan with a trademark if it's connected to a product or a service, but there is a minimum amount of authorship.
In most cases, copyright cannot be placed on something without sufficient originality. What cannot be copyrighted:
- anything that isn't fixed (ie written, saved to disk, recorded)
- an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery (that's what patents are for)
- "useful articles" (objects with a utilitarian purpose and, interestingly, clothing)
- small works, like a really short phrase or a few words
- a compilation of works, unless some original thought was put into the arrangement (no to the phone book, yes to World's Greatest Beer-Drinking Songs)
- it cannot simply be a mechanical reproduction of something (I can't copyright that Chemical Brothers CD I just burned).
All else is deemed to have sufficient originality to be considered copyrightable. I'm not convinced that a CSS file with the complexity of the fleshbot spec doesn't count. It is an expression, done in a particular way to create a particular result, even if that result is similar to other works.
"Let's face it - a CSS file is an hour or two and a text-editor."
Bzzt, wrong answer. That photo I mentioned earlier was a thirty second snap-decision to go stand someplace, squint through a little window and press a button. How much effort is required for original work to deserve protection? Three hours? Twelve? Ten minutes, but only if it's really really really hard?
In US caselaw, the 'sweat of the brow' argument was rejected several years ago in Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Co. As well as pointing out that a phone book isn't creative or original enough to constitute a copyrightable work, the 6th Circuit ruled that the amount of effort one puts into creating something has no bearing on the originality of the end result.
"well, in that case i think it might apply to cases in which CSS is used in unusual, innovative, original ways…"
So it's only the unusual, innovative, original, oh-my-god type stuff that deserves protection by copyright? Oh-oh, there goes the protection for about half of today's pop music.
A work doesn't have to be any good to be protected by copyright. It just needs to have an element of original authorship.
I wonder how bad this problem will be once WYSIWYG editors can create valid stylesheets. I'm not saying that the copyright and ownership issues will go away or won't be important, but I think we're in a transition stage. Right now smart designers can code better, cleaner, leaner pages than tools can, but eventually someone will come up with an editor that can figure out how to position everything and will do this work for us. A good designer shouldn't be someone who can code the simplest CSS to do the job. The tools should take care of that. A good designer should produce good pages.
If you take the view that the CSS is the design, then the argument becomes easier to solve - everyone accepts that a piece of design is copyrightable. The confusion here (at least one of them) arises from the fact that for the design to be rendered requires the CSS, images, content and a browser (don't forget that!). As such I can understand some people debating the relevance of copyright law to the piece. In terms of copyright law for a piece of text, you cannot copyright an 'a', but you can copyright a sentence. The CSS might not be the entire design no more than a sentence from a novel is the whole story, but it is an intrinsic part of the piece, written by someone and is his copyright.
Lets look at a another of the argument raised here - the idea that "anyone can write some CSS". If I wrote a "Hello World" program in my spare time, that code is my copyright. Issues arise however that someone else may of implemented the same program in the same language, but this doesn't matter - as long as I can prove that my implementation was written without reference to the original, and that it was all my work yadda yadda, then I have copyright of that code. Note that owning the copyright doesn't preclude the earlier author of the program which happened to be the same still has copyright of his code. Don't get patents and the option of prior art get confused with copyright law - they are very different things!
>>�well, in that case i think it might apply to cases in which
>>CSS is used in unusual, innovative, original ways��
>So it�s only the unusual, innovative, original, oh-my-god type
>stuff that deserves protection by copyright? Oh-oh, there
>goes the protection for about half of today�s pop music.
Actually I have the impression that a lot of people really think so and use this as an excuse to copy mp3s. "Oh that's not really good music, I wouldn't have bought it. It's not worth the money. But with albums that I really like, I do go out and buy the CD."
Well then, if it's really not that original why are people using it? Why did they copy the stylesheet? One cannot have it both ways: Having that exact "thing", and at the same arguing that it can be "copied" 'cause it's nothing special.
[My comment was in no way related to the lawfulnes of any activity, but rather to the logic of the argumentation]
sorry Sencer, I think I should have been a little clearer instead of making a lame attempt at humour. My thought is that the CSS for something should be considered protectable by copyright, even if it's awfully similar to something else, or if it's freakin' hideous. The idea of it being 'special' or 'different' should not be the only thing that makes it worth copyrighting.
Mary, you are too right.
There's no denying that people go around looking at each other's CSS to adapt techniques. But there's a *big* difference between saying, "Oh, drop down menus!" or, "Oh, image replacement!" and copying an entire stylesheet (whether it was offered in an agreement or not).
He went through work to take their layout and rebuild it more efficiently, and that work was stolen. It's unfair to say that it's not protected under copyright. I'm not saying that people won't do a similar layout using some of the exact same CSS, but the difference is that they did it themselves.
In this case, we know for sure that the CSS was copied directly. Therefore, the copyright can be defended.
Dris, you see it exactly how I do – correctly as well. It's not the design that I thought up. In fact, I have NOTHNG to do with the "design". I did however construct a stylesheet that you can tell (as clear as day) was adapted without my permission. End of story.
Nick and I are talking this over and we will most definitely reach an amicable solution within the next few days.
I might add one more note to Mary's list.
If you are a designer with an axe to grind, remember that for many media enterprises, any publicity is good publicity. I wonder if Fleshbot noticed a bump in hits over the past few days?


text:
About Us
Wii gets miniaturized in Canada
posted: 11/27/2012 10:42:00 PM
More On:
While the Wii U gets all the fanfare the past week, Nintendo's not killing the Wii yet. In fact, they are launching a brand new smaller Wii console.
Dubbed the
Wii MINI
, this new Wii is smaller and has a red and grey case around it. It's launching in Canada for a price of $99.99 and comes with a red Wii Remote Plus and Nunchuk.
Gone is compatibility for GameCube games, which I've actually used a few times. For those wanting that, there's still the original version.
For now, it's only going to be available in Canada, but who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo releases it in other territories and in different colors. Seeing as the first Wii sold like gangbusters, it's going to be hard to tell how well the MINI will do.
NINTENDO INTRODUCES NEW Wii MINI THAT'S ALL ABOUT THE GAMES
Share on facebookShare on twitter More Sharing Services
With a New Look, $99.99 Wii Mini Offers an Amazing Value for the Holidays
After nearly 100 million sold worldwide, Nintendo's Wii console is getting a new look and a new price. On Dec. 7, the new Wii Mini home console launches in Canada at a suggested retail price of just $99.99 and puts the focus squarely on Wii games. The system can play more than 1,400 disc-based Wii games. Wii Mini is smaller than the original Wii system, and comes in matte black with a red border. The system comes with a red Wii Remote Plus, a red Nunchuk controller and works with most Wii accessories.
"There are games in the Wii library for every type of player," said Ron Bertram, Nintendo of Canada's vice president and general manager. "Wii Mini is a great gift for the holidays that brings everyone in the family together to play. Wii Mini has a mini price, but it's all about big fun."
Wii Mini is designed exclusively to play Wii games. Its family-friendly design has no Internet capabilities and does not play Nintendo GameCube games. It's a great value for first-time Wii owners who just want to jump in and experience all the great Wii games that helped usher in a revolution in motion-controlled gaming. Wii games are available at a variety of price points for every kind of shopper. Some top Wii games during the past six years include:
• A whole range of value-priced Nintendo Selects games, including some of the top-selling and best-reviewed Wii games of all time, at a suggested retail price of $19.99
• Super Smash Bros. Brawl (suggested retail price of $29.99)
• Donkey Kong Country Returns (suggested retail price of $29.99)
• Mario Kart Wii (suggested retail price of $39.99)
• Wii Sports Resort (suggested retail price of $39.99)
• New Super Mario Bros. Wii (suggested retail price of $59.99)
• Wii Fit Plus with the Wii Balance Board (suggested retail price of $99.99)
Wii Mini is available exclusively in Canada during the holiday season. No information is available about its potential availability in other territories in the future. Remember that Wii Mini features parental controls that let adults manage the content their children can access. For more information about this and other features, visit nintendo.com/wiimini.


text: Shipping PolicyFREE GROUND SHIPPING is available for all orders to worldwide (all country are accepted). Express shipping options are also available at additional cost. All orders take 48 hours (Mon-Fri) to process before being shipped. In most cases, your order is shipped out at the next business day when you place the order. This Processing Time is completely separate from the Shipping Time, therefore, to estimate Delivery Time, please consider the following:


text:
Huh? O'Reilly can't decide what's wrong with Oregonian story
Research ››› ››› GABE WILDAU
On May 17, FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly accused Portland daily The Oregonian of failing to report that former Oregon governor Neil Goldschmidt committed a crime by having a sexual relationship with a 14-year old girl when he was governor of Oregon in the mid-1970s. When O'Reilly's guest pointed out that The Oregonian did, in fact, report that Goldschmidt's alleged actions are a crime in Oregon, O'Reilly altered his charge, accusing the guest of "parsing words" and then asserting his original conclusion.
From the May 17 edition of FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right, here's what bothered me about this [coverage of Goldschmidt by The Oregonian]. Number one, they never in The Oregonian mention that it's a crime.
The University of Oregon School of Journalism & Communication's dean and professor, Tim Gleason, responded to O'Reilly by noting that The Oregonian did report that a 35-year old having sex with a 14-year old is a crime:
GLEASON: Well, first, you're factually inaccurate, Bill, in about the fifth or the sixth paragraph of the story, they did say that it was a crime.
Indeed, the May 7 article in The Oregonian reported on the law in the sixth paragraph:
The Oregonian, as a general policy, doesn't identify victims of sex crimes. According to Oregon laws in effect in 1975, sexual intercourse with a girl under age 16 constituted third-degree rape, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The statute of limitations at that time was three years from the commission of the crime.
So O'Reilly altered his charge. The problem, he then said, is not that the article failed to mention that what Goldschmidt admitted to was a crime but, rather, that The Oregonian did not report that Goldschmidt actually committed the crime:
O'REILLY: All right. Let me correct you because I was not factually incorrect. I have the story in my hand here from Friday, May 7, by Harry Esteve and Gail Kinsey Hill. What The Oregonian says in the sixth paragraph is that "according to Oregon law," and I'm quoting now, "sexual intercourse with a girl under 18 constituted third-degree rape, a felony punishable by five years in prison." It didn't say that Goldschmidt committed the crime or anything like that.
But in addition to the passage quoted above, in which The Oregonian referred to the actions under discussion as a "crime," the May 7 article in question reported Goldschmidt's admission in the very first sentence:
Former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt admitted Thursday that he had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl when he was 35 and mayor of Portland, and said he is resigning all his public and private positions to "rebuild my life."
Gleason tried to point this out; however, for O'Reilly, quoting from the article under discussion was just "parsing":
O'REILLY: [Goldschmidt] admitted it. He admitted it. He flat-out said, I had sex with a 14-year-old girl while I was mayor of Portland and I'm 35 years old. Come on, he admitted it. What do you want?
GLEASON: And The Oregonian then very carefully said that if, in fact, this is true, it would have been a crime. So, you know...
O'REILLY: Come on, you're parsing, he admitted he did it. He admitted he did it. There is no question about it. You're parsing.
So O'Reilly's complaint was even though The Oregonian reported Goldschmidt's admission that he had sex with an underage partner, and even though it reported that such activity is illegal -- and referred to it as a "crime" -- the paper did not state categorically that Goldschmidt was guilty of a crime. For O'Reilly, the paper's failure reinforced his view that:
O'REILLY: The Oregonian has their favorites, they play favorites. I worked in Portland. I know they do. And now there is no question about it.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.


text:
The UNWTO Secretary General said in Zambia after his election that "I was first chosen as deputy secretary general in Senegal. I was first elected as the secretary general in Mali. Now I am blessed to be re-elected in Zambia-Zimbabwe."
Mr. Rifai added that his job is not easy explaining that the role of being both a reformer and consensus-builder can be polar opposites; however two things can go both-in-hand and should go hand-in-hand. He added "We cannot live in a world that is static; everything changes. Reform is not just a character or a passion. We have no option but to keep reforming and keep changing." The Secretary General thanked staff in Madrid and UNWTO members for making his work visible. He said he not only welcomes scrutiny, but rather encourage them.


text:
Annual Report
Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1978 - Historic buildings
From inside the book
10 pages matching headquarters in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 10
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Using and Managing Historic Properties
Report of Certified Public Accountants
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
Administrator Advisors American Annual architecture Architecture Conservancy assets assistance Award Belle Grove Bicentennial Board of Trustees Calif Carlisle H Casa Amesti Charles Charleston Chesterwood City Cliveden Commission Committee Company Foundation conservation Corporation Council County Daniel Chester French David Decatur House Director Donald Donations Drayton Hall ervation Ex Officio federal film Filoli fiscal Frank Lloyd Wright George grant headquarters Heritage historic districts Historic Preservation historic properties Home and Studio Irvin Abell James Biddle John Landmark Lloyd Wright Home Lyndhurst maritime preservation master investment account membership ment museum National Trust nonprofit Note Oatlands Oklahoma operations organizations Preservation Conference preservation ordinances Preservation Revolving Fund preservationists published Regional Office restoration Richard Robert September 30 Services Society Thomas tion tional Trust books Trust for Historic Trust members Trust properties Trust public U. S. Department Urban Vice Chairman Vice President Washington William Woodlawn Plantation Woodrow Wilson House


text:
Britney Spears' Taxes Reunite Her with Kevin Federline
Nov 29, 2012 12:13 PM EST
Britney Spears and Kevin Federline don't just share two beautiful children. They also share a more than $37,000 debt to the state of California. RIP Jelena and TomKat! Check out the most shocking celebrity splits According to TMZ, the former couple o… Read more