TampaYankee

... and continues to do so. Here is a mighty good read about how the austerity band wagon built up steam and acceptance based on erroneous economic research, and ignoring lessons from past experience . How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled Paul Krugmanhttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/06/how-case-austerity-has-crumbled/?page=3

Generally no, and we are speaking in generalities here. Escorts traffic in fantasy. Thus the market reflects not the experience of the escort but the fantasies of the clients. You know this too and just take pleasure in the bitterness that you enjoy spreading. Again generally, clients focus on experience when they are looking for a surgeon or attorney, when their ass in on the line, not in bed. If you take from my comments that I do not like your attitude reflected in your posts then you would be right.

Do these snide remarks fulfill your aspirations in life or are you just a bitter old queen? Is that a distinction without a difference?

Interesting that the Deep South has less red than the Mason-Dixon states, more or less.

Most probably. DOMA will be struck down and Prop 8 will be written very narrowly so as not to get out front of the parade of states.

RA1, your are a more forgiving man than I. I would have cancelled the transaction right away unless I knew every other venue that had the item available was charing more that $16 extra, and then I might have still canceled out of pique. Paying a fair share in one thing. Being taken advantage of is quite another.

Does anyone know specifically what the law says with regard as to what will be taxed, exactly? How can this be anymore of a 'nightmare' than developing software and payment mechanisms to calculate and fill out forms not only for a myriad of variations of federal income taxes, some quite complex, but also for the income taxes of all the states that collect income taxes? Sales tax calculation seems like a minor 'nightmare' by comparison, and yet, a dozen or more enterprising private concerns have slain that much bigger dragon. I suspect that before this sees the light of day states will be obligated to provide a state menu of taxable items, maybe in machine readable format, that the industry trade group creates a standard 'tax package' with database and 'checkout counter' addition that folds into current or new checkout software. Fold this into the cost of doing business. We all knew that this day would come. Internet sales have taken off in the last five years. State revenues have been in the dumps the last five years and continue to hurt. Strangely, states need money to fund schools, fire houses, bridge and roadway repair, etc. We all wish there was a free ride to be had but we know that ain't so. We must pay our own way. Internet purchasers have been getting a free ride. States cannot afford any more free rides and the internet has matured into a stable commerce venue. I was vehemently against this for years. Internet commerce needed nurturing, not the tax man. In all honesty, it has come of age. With the exception of groceries and bulk items like auto tires and yard lime, I do virtually all of my shopping online these days. In the beginning I did very little because it seemed to me that the prices online were virtually the same and the shipping was exorbitant. I'm thinking of Amazon in the early days. Over the last five years the online market place seemed much more competitive to me and shipping seemed more reasonable either because they dropped in costs (sometimes free if you were willing to wait a week or more) or because I could combine purchases covered by a single modest shipping bill. However, what really tipped the scales for me in terms of actual participation was the tremendous upsurge in fuel prices the year prior to the Wall St meltdown. Driving ten miles one way to shop for a single item with $4.00 gas made any online shipping charges irrelevant. One final experience cemented my embrace of internet commerce. Four or five years ago I bought a 42 in flat screen TV through an Amazon special for $698 with equivalent units listing for $899 - $999 and to top it off, with free shipping. I was concerned that I might collect a bag of glass chards and circuits when it arrived, but Amazon seemed ok about their return policy. It arrived in pristine condition ready for plug-and-play. Bottom line, the time has come, internet commerce has matured into a substantial viable commerce avenue, the states need the money, its the fair thing to do for overall commerce. The tech collection issues are easily surmountable. Will it hurt online commerce? Maybe a little at first, but it is my gut feel that most shop the internet not to beat the taxman but for the selection, convenience and price competitiveness between vendors. Any decline is likely to be short term IMO. The benefits remain overwhelming.

The Web is no more? Say it ain't so Joe.

Most of these I didn't recognize. I will miss these... Monday Mornings -- TNT Great Show 2+ thumbs up , great writing by David E Kelly, a travesty I will really miss. Southland -- TNT Gritty LA police drama. Gritty is the best descriptor by far. Golden Boy -- CBS Not that far off the usual cop beat but quirky with nasty station/city hall politics playing central role. So maybe it is not the usual cop beat show.

Shows That Won't Be Back This Fall As TV networks set their fall schedules this month, the ax has already started to fall on a number of veteran shows. Read all about it... http://tv.yahoo.com/photos/shows-that-signed-off-in-2013-1368227305-slideshow/

It is real easy to appropriate a photo like that. Much easier than creating an ass like that. Caveat Emptor.

I was really surprised with Oregon. I had bought in to the idyllic nature of Oregon sold decades ago. Never got past it. It was next to heaven-on-earth with forward thinking people and so what if they ate crunchy granola. Wow!! Number one bottom of the barrel for retirement.

Out of their five top states for retirement: Tennessee Louisiana South Dakota Kentucky Mississippi I never retire in any one of them with the remote possible exception of Tennessee and that one only because of ancestral ties to the state. These would not have been my top five.

Best places to retire: How your state ranks By Bankrate.com People have distinct ideas about the best places to retire. For many, it's about proximity to beaches, lakes, golf courses or grandchildren. Bankrate took a more pragmatic approach to come up with its latest, more robust, list of best and worst states for retirement. We looked at practical considerations concerning health, safety and costs. We gathered state statistics on cost of living, crime rates, tax rates, access to medical care and average annual temperatures. We then ranked the states from best to worst, with the best being those states with a relatively low cost of living, low crime rates, low tax rates, easy access to medical care and higher-than-average year-round temperatures. Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/best-places-retire-how-state-ranks.aspx#ixzz2SsIYkagp Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook

10 Worst States for Retirement By Chris Kahn | Bankrate.com No. 10: Delaware No. 9: Minnesota No. 7: Maryland and Vermont — Tie No. 6: Maine No. 5: Wisconsin No. 4: California No. 3: Washington No. 2: Alaska No. 1: Oregon See the details at : http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-worst-states-for-retirement-153214340.html

Depends on the boss and coworkers. Complaints come easy these days.

I agree there is some potential for a slippery slope but I also believe the nature of the questions is most often telling as to the purpose. Especially to the pros like attorneys and judges. The suspect may be clueless for a while but not the pros when they review what happened

Why not? It really seems so clinical and tactilly 'detached', about on the same level of a receptive sex toy in a sex researcher lab. You really need to see the video to appreciate this remark. The above link didn't work for me but I googled the Origami R.A.I Condom to find a link. The proof of the pudding is in the... I guess. Interested to hear feedback on this.

I would go with 'statements' rather than testimony, which, to my mind, is a more formal presentation of information. But yes, the information obtained prior to Miranda would be limited to PSE application. Any attempt to use said information for trial purposes would be disqualified. As for grounds for dismissal, IMO a violation of Miranda, per se, is never grounds for dismissal. Any dismissal would depend solely on the sufficiency of qualified information available at trial. So, even if Miranda was violated but there exists sufficient untainted information/evidence to proceed with a trial, then full speed ahead. None of that violates the defendant's right to a fair trial. If the Miranda-tainted information is not presented at trial then ho harm - no foul. All of the above assumes that the 'defendant' was a target of investigation. Otherwise, if he was just being interviewed as a person who might have knowledge of an incident and during that interview it became apparent from his statements that he might be a target of investigation then the authorities must stop to notify him that he may be the target of an investigation and Mirandize him. All of that assumes there is no PSE angle to the case. If there is then the authorities must decide whether they wish to pursue the PSE aspect or the criminal action aspect and make a decision with Miranda depending on their direction of pursuit. If I understand your second point about inquiring into older crimes while investigation a current one, then I think I do not agree. It all comes down to whether the person to be questioned is a 'target' or possible target of the investigation. If he is a target of the present crime investigation then he is Mirandized. If he is a target of the investigation of an older crime then he must be Mirandized. If he is not a target of the older crime but becomes a possible suspect as fall out from the new crime investigation then he must be Mirandized immediately when that is established. In either case, once a person becomes a target of investigation then he must be Mirandized if he is questioned. The principle of Miranda is to inform a suspect or potential suspect of his Constitutional Rights before he is questioned so that he may exercise his rights if he wishes. Of course the authorities are free to ask all the questions about a ten year old crime they wish without Miranda. But if those questions go to establishing the participation in a crime or guilt of that person then the statements and fruit of those statements most probably will be excluded before trial or upon appeal. I share your view that Miranda is to notify the suspect that he has the right of access to an attorney, either privately or publicly. But more so, also it informs the suspect of his right against self-incrimination. That is the way I see it.

As I said, Texas is welcome to piss in its own well all it wants. Where capitalism ties in is that Texas' economic leverage sets the market for all of us whether we like it or not. We cannot commission a more objective curriculum because we do not have the 'pockets' for it. Once again, the monied interests call the tune. Texas is rich and stupid for pissing in its own well. The book publishers are selling our education to the highest bidder and capitalism says that is the way it is suppose to work. Is that a good outcome? That is a good example of why capitalism might be good for economic interests and not so good for public interests. That is not the only example, most certainly. Don't get me started on health care, prison management, and flight aviation management, aka the FAA flight control function. I could go on and on... That is not to say that capitalism does not serve us well in many venues, just not in all venues, and always with a modicum of regulation, umm... like antitrust statutes.

As those great philosophers known collectively as ABBA said... "Money, money, money... makes the world go round". Markey would have the money, Capuano... the best wishes.

I too decry the erosion of our rights and liberty as reflected in parts of the Patriot Act and other 'modern' statues. I'm very serious when I say this. On the other hand, I really cannot see any sensible practical person getting his panties in a bunch over this narrow issue. This is where flaming liberals go overboard forsaking common sense for pure ideals scripted by men of ideals in an impure world. These principles are guideposts meant to point the direction that our actions should take. But they do not exist in some vacuum or a rarified atmosphere on Mt Olympus. They exist in a real world that has some life and death issues. Mr. Greenwald holds that it is one thing to hold back the Miranda warning and quite another to hold back access to an attorney. I submit that if they are not one and the same then they are effectively equivalent, to any thinking person. If the attorney gains access to the client then the first thing he will do is to Mirandize the client himself. Quo erat demonstratum!! That defeats the Public Safety Exception instantly. Can anyone argue otherwise? Now, about all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Public Safety Exception. We are a nation that reveres individual rights while at the same time recognizing importance of the well being of our country and public community. There are times when these come into conflict. Circumstances and costs must be weighed to determine how the scales must tilt to best represent the tension between these principles. I believe a clear and compelling case was apparent that the Public Safety Exception (PSE) was warranted. The limits of that exception are pretty straightforward in principle if not so in applying it. However, the test is really quite simple. Was the information elicited of a nature to determine public safety or to establish guilt for a person's actions. The former is permitted and the latter is not. My understanding of the PSE is that information is elicited only for the purpose of establishing public safety and thus cannot be used at trial to present guilt. Some might say there is overlap. Possibly true. But what is elicited under the PSE may not be used for trial of that defendant. It must be established in some clearly independent way. Interviewers may stray from the permitted question in their zeal to make a case. If so then that is to their detriment as the defendant would seek to have that information disqualified. That would be a stupid ploy in the interrogator's part. There are checks and balances. There must be in order for the PSE to have any legitmacy. The SOTUS has ruled so. Thus the SOTUS and lower courts along with the defendant attorney are those checks and balances.

Hmm... Where have I heard this complacent view before? Does anyone remember Martha Coakley? Well, if she wasn't mentioned above most would probably have answered no. Hopefully, history won't repeat. But if complacency repeats then the outcome may as well. Early polls show a tighter than expected race. The only way to make it a sure thing is to run like your life depended on it. Even then nothing is sure. Coakley planned a coronation instead of a campaign. She had neither. Let's not make that mistake again.

Dodging a bullet.... No to nit pick but that was obvious at the time and much more so based on his and the GOP positions on the budget, the deficit, the safety net, foreign policy and much more. It is my firm belief that if Romney and the GOP had taken control of the White House and Congress this country would have been fundamentally changed forever. His views of family life are inconsequential in that respect. If that counts as dodging a bullet then we dodged a Trident Class sub unloading all of its launch tubes against us, based on their announced policies. His quaint family philosophy doesn't show on the radar by comparison.