Hot Document

How about Michelle Obama's thesis?

quidfecisti — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:15:37 GMT

Or is that not hot enough?

Who Cares

jcorso — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 06:49:26 GMT

The former Vice President's daughter's 20-year-old undergraduate thesis?

Come on Slate, next thing you'll be telling us about the former vice presidential candidate's daughter's fiance's mother's drug bust. Oh wait, you did.

Time to move on.

wouldn't it be funny?

maxiepad — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:49:54 GMT

Imagine if it turns out that the whole "Hope"/"Change"/"Yes we can" presidential campaign framework was actually conceived by Obama, Malia Obama, and casually discovered by David Axelrod sketched out in crayola inside a coloring book from her kindergarten years.

madoff and his accountant

david wayne osedach — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:03:47 GMT

How many billion are safely tucked away offshore for Madoff and his accountant?

A pertinent Yiddish expression

JoeBarr — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:58:14 GMT

Dear Editor,

Apropos the article about that Madoff parasite, who happened to be a Jew. I recall an old expression pertinent to the likes of Madoff, (and not applicable to Jewish mobsters): "and here goes a 'farkaker yid' ." Continuing along these cynical lines, am I right in assuming that there will be Rabbis who will offer forgiveness and blessings, for the right price, perhaps?

But seriously, this is not about one corrupt Jew or another, what we urgently need is to restore trust. So the question is whether our society is ready, able and equipped to deal with this challenge? Are we going to fight Wall Street corruption with sort of vigor necessary to root it out? Are we going to begin by applying justice on Madoff and his cohorts, one commensurate to the damage they caused?

Joe

Troy, Mich

Renting for the inauguration...

Veronicalogan72 — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:52:32 GMT

For those still looking for Inaugural housing, check out this blog http://inauguralrentals.blogspot.com/. They have REASONABLY priced inaugural housing options in D.C.

The weather is just right...

wmmjones10 — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:08:30 GMT

Sing to the tune of Let It Snow....

Oh the tar is starting to bubble, getting the feathers is not any trouble, bring Bernie Madoff to the square, Tar and Feathering seems really fair.

Need I go on???

Senator Specter's wake-up call.

tonto_goldberg — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:13:56 GMT

I believe that Holder ought to be denied confirmation because of what we already know of his questionable memory and judgement. The senator's request for extra time to rehash some of the bad things about Bill Clinton's Justice Department seems to be just a stalling tactic. Everyone already knows this stuff, and I suspect that such partisan tactics will only harden the other senators' positions. If there is more to come out that's not already public, there might be some merit to holding extended hearings. Then again, I am not a US senator.

In this case, Specter's request for a delay on hearings for Holder's appointment can mean only one thing - the votes aren't there to derail the nomination. Apparently the senator thinks that vote count might change if he delays things long enough.

There's only one other possibility, that Specter has forgotten who won the 2008 presidential election and which party gained seats in the senate. If the GOP wants to re-hash anything, they should re-examine why in the world they confirmed Alberto Gonzales. He's the one who drove the Justice Department from professional performance into the sewer of partisan witch-hunts. Is Specter eager to face up to that?

A Chiquita loving lawyer for Attorney General?

Queenliz — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:21:21 GMT

I hope not. For one of the few times in my life, I agree with the Republicans who are balking at the Holder appointment. [Although, it must be for different reasons. I can't imagine them being at odds with a murdering USA corporation such as Chiquita Brands International.]

In 2004, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita that involved the fruit company’s payment of “protection money” to the AUC, in direct violation of U.S. laws prohibiting this kind of transaction. In the agreement brokered by Holder, Chiquita officials pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a fine of $25 million, to be paid over a 5-year period. However, not one Chiquita official involved in the illegal transactions was forced to serve time for a crime that others have paid dearly for, mainly because they did not have the kind of legal backing that Holder’s team provided. Holder continues to represent Chiquita in the civil action, which grew out of this criminal case. . . ”

Iflizwerequeen, Holder would not be anywhere in the new Obama government--much less serve as the Attorney General.

A swamp within a swamp

DirtyBird — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:38:56 GMT

The judiciary committee (I use lower case to reflect my distain for that group) is a quagmire of partisan zealots, one of the leaders of which is Leahy. I agree that paybacks are hell, but that doesn't make them right.

Holder has a lot of crap in his closet which deservers airing before he is confirmed. I'm sure Leahy and his crowd know that allowing the oppositon to fully vette his record will be painful and embarrassing to them as well as to BO. There are a lot better choices than Holder ane they should look elsewhere. Being black shouldn't be a criteria for the post - which is the only point about him that I think has any merit at all.

PR Guide to Laying Off Employees

jbh4@aol.com — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:31:53 GMT

As a retired HR executive, laying off individuals was the hardest actions I had to take. These people had done nothing wrong and in most cases had done their jobs to the best of their abilities. And due to business conditions the company had to reduce cost, and the fastest way to reduce cost was to reduce payroll. This does not make it right and it is never the outcome companies want, but sometimes is has to be done.

All in all, the leaked layoff template is pretty begnine and fairly well planned. The only part I do not like is where they talk about hiring individuals to replace some of the laid off employees. This is simply gutless on the company's part, but it is not uncommon for management who did not have the courage to fire someone for performance to call it a layoff. This is simply bad management.

Even though common practice is to get the laid off employees off the site as quickly as possible so as not to demoralize the remaining workforce, I have always felt it was poor practice. I was almost always overruled. All employees need a period of mourning, a chance to say goodbye to their colleagues. The best example of when this worked very well, was when a company I worked for established an onsite outplacement center where laid off employees could come for counseling and assistance by the outplacement firm. Since it was on site, it was not uncommon for other employees to stop by to see their former colleagues, to offer job hunting leads of to simply offer a shoulder and condolences. Everyone felt better and regardless of what the future held, all knew they would be treated well. Why don't more companies do this, rather than treating all laid off employees like potential corporate terrorists? I just don't know.

What sort of agency is this?!

lahtiji — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:15:32 GMT

This is pretty standard corporatese for "Someone's gotta go, and we've decided it's you."

But the "Client Messaging" page makes it sound like they're running a bisexual whorehouse!

"Mary Smith will be moving off your business. Now that we understand your business better, we are replacing her with someone whom we feel will be a better partner for you."

"Mary Smith will not longer be working on your business. In order to serve you better and provide greater innovation we have made a staffing change to your business. Paul Jones will be replacing Mary on the business effective ____."

If I were a client of this agency and I were told this, I'd never stop laughing.

This is getting the carat w/ no vaseline

gdogncbd — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:50:09 GMT

i guess this is how you lay people off that have jobs that got paid well above a miniumum wage. you can take it in 2 ways,that in all honesty their customer-client base has changed,company needs to change to fit what client is looking for.Or you have been working for this company that has petty been able to smooth talk and brag of all the sky is the limit-motivated employees on earnings and advancing they offer.either way ur being laid-off.

Housing during Inauguration week

chris25 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:01:23 GMT

Thousands of people are using http://CrashTheInauguration.com, the most complete Inuguration guide for poeple without tickets. It lets you find a place to stay and book a room online with local DC residents, info on how to get to DC, and info on parties and events going on.

"Right-sizing?"

Blooger — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:08:44 GMT

Who comes up with these ridiculous terms, and who honestly thinks they accomplish anything beyond insulting the intelligence of everyone on staff? If a manager ever told me I had lost my job as part of the company's "right-sizing" effort, that person would quickly lose a tooth as part of my own "right-hooking" effort.

laying off employees

david wayne osedach — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:37:09 GMT

The PR guide for $249. is well worth it. It gives clear guidelines for this sensitive subject.

Cut the Bull. Place the Blame Where it Belongs

RealConservative — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:59:51 GMT

Bush, Cheney, Reagan. Hell, thanks to them, over the past 25 years, even those with jobs, likely didn't have one worth keeping anyway! Now, millions will even lose the slave wages with no benefits just to keep the corporate criminals afloat.

how does congress have authority to investigate pardons?

Scott Hughes — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:29:00 GMT

The Constitution states "he (The President) shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." There is no constitutional authority for Congress to investigate pardons, and Mr. Holder should never have had to attend this hearing. The Rich pardon was lawfully granted and if the people of the United States did not want Bill Clinton to have the power to grant pardons, they had two opportunities to deny him this power.

Once again, the non-issue

Swift2 — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:52:00 GMT

Ford pardoned Nixon, and made it impossible to have a legal and comprehensive list of his crimes. Bush pardoned all his co-conspirators in Iran/Contra, and thus pardoned himself. He also pardoned the miserable human being named Armand Hammer.Very little press reaction.

The Clinton pardons in general were much tamer. The Rich pardon, in particular, was aimed at stopping the criminal charges, thus allowing the man to come home and pay his civil fines, and rejoin society. Oh, horrors, the pearl-clutchers say, here is the evil Clenis doing something to just fill up his pockets, get boodle into his library, etc -- and with lots of smarmy innuendo that there was something up between Denise Rich and Bill -- forget the fact that there's no evidence of the same.

I'd say that Eric Holder's reactions were exactly right. This was a giood deal for the U.S., and only the Village press, the intolerable insiders with the sliding moral scale -- pardoning Rich bad, a war of choice in Iraq based on lies good -- has kept the deal from being done, and the Treasury enriched by a sizable fine. Morons;.

Holder Reinforces Obama's Terrorist Ties

doctorfixit — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:12:44 GMT

Holder, is the consigliere in the Obama Chicago-mob famly, the fixer who will provide legal cover for Obama;s various corruptions. In this role he succeeds Janet Reno, the butcher of Waco. Holder is a venal toad and oblivious to the odor of his terrorist pardons and the other vile deeds he performed for the Hill-billy crooks. Holder will be used to facilitate direct negotiations with Castro, Chavez, and other enemies of the American people.

So what's the difference?

fhdpjosc — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:52:20 GMT

What is ht fundamentla difference between killing a baby and killing an older child? Can you not abandon a toddler or a pre-teen in the elements? Will they magically survive as well? Of course not. No, he law was a way to recognize that women go crazy at childbirth.

And further, it is not a law that men can use. No man is permitted to abandon an infant because he does not want to take care of it. A man is held to a higher moral standard. Always. It is women who will kill their babies rather than give them up. The women the law protects can always give he baby up for adoption. White babies in particular will be snatched up immediately. We all know this.

So why do women want to kill them when they can give them away? Why do we need to teach them abou the special baby dump box, when we all know they can just go to the hospital and say "I am afraid, alone and overwhelmed. Please take my baby. Goodbye."

It is because the police will track them down and perhaps accuse them of abandonment. Avoiding that tiny stigma is the reason they kill their babies. We are happy to place that same stigma on men, and therefore men are not permitted to dump their unwanted babies on hospitals.

Men and women are different biologically, and we know it.

Do this little thought experiment. It is Nebraska, a baby-dumping state. A young man shows up a the hospital with an infant and says he is too young to take care of a child. He is unemployed overwhelmed, and cannot do the baby justice in this life. He asks that the hospital give the baby to some married couple who can love the baby, take care of it and give it all the things that he, a poor white trash male, and his girlfriend can never hope to.

Do you think for one second, one second, that the hospital would not be on the phone to the police immediately looking for the baby's mother? Do you think for a one second that she wouldn't immediately get the baby back? Do you think for one second that the father would not be stuck with child abandonment charges, and eventually forced to pay child support (if not charged with child endangerment or kidnapping)? Even if everything he said was true, was absolutely correct, and in the end it worked out just like he said and the child's life was sheer misery and poverty, do you think it would make one bi of different?

No. The law does not apply to men. We are wallets full of money. We shall always be wallets. We cannot escape wallethood even when we have no wallet.

If Obama doesn't have to answer to a court...

Levon Tostig — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:56:47 GMT

why should God?

RE: CBS's Dream Team

vandyfc — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:08:33 GMT

NON Biased ??!! CBS has been nothing but biased and anti republican since the race started. Don't feel alone, so has NBC and ABC. FOX is the only semi non biased news I have been able to watch. Through the entire race for president, the bias was so obvious that even Saturday Night Live made fun of it !!

For 20+ years I have watched NBC or CBS National News but after the attacks of Bush, the gratuitous mention of the republicans, and the obvious bias towards the democratic candidates...... I realized how much the media plays in electing a president.......and I now watch FOX.

We'll see if the media's massive play to get the democrats elected and anti-Bush antic's pays off when there is a need to be the "first to report" the democrats faults in 2009 and later. Believe me, there are many......no one seems to want to take the lead in reporting news that should interest ALL.....not just their political agenda's party.

"The Regrets and Sorrows of Jack Gruet"

tsumbra — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:33:53 GMT

"The Regrets and Sorrows of Jack Gruet"

www.ilovepoetry.com/viewpoem.asp?id=95692

OH MY GOODNESS!

baldone66 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:52:22 GMT

Dan Rather's shoddy reporting is a BIG CONSERVATIVE CONSPIRACY to defraud a valued member of the noble CBS NEWS TEAM!!

WHO KNEW?

(Hmmm... You sure there are still no sour grapes about his being shown the door at the 68 convention? The man is known to bear grudges... Hey Dan, you're out on your ass now... Time to remove the tent pole from it... Courage!)