Oh my! I decided to check in with TPMCafe after a bit away (life does that sometimes, alas), and I couldn't find anything, didn't recognize names, etc.etc. And then I see this comment.... Warm and Fuzzy! Thanks, TheraP. I'll see about migrating over, but it might take me a little while. Still, many thanks -- and I look forward to getting back in the swing of things.

Posted at February 16, 2008 11:24 AM in response to Message in a Bottle

I've just made it over after the Big Change, and I must agree with some of the comments upstream. Big question though: where are the discussion tables?

Posted at February 16, 2008 11:22 AM in response to Please Excuse Our Mess!

Here's wishing you all the best in your future endeavors.

Posted at August 28, 2007 11:04 PM in response to Moving on

We can't just start a band? even with uniforms?

Posted at August 25, 2007 9:56 PM in response to Is "The Productivity Miracle" History?

You were not mistreated or unfairly criticized. You were subjected to some hard questions and objections, along with a few jokes. But I don't see any "Road Rage" at work here.

Although they didn't make up the bulk of the discussion, there were a number of comments that were inappropriate. I don't think calling *anyone* a "blood-soaked bag of hot air" is advancing the discussion. It's not a hard question. Likewise, insisting that someone isn't "outraged enough" isn't really productive. Instead, how about laying out *why* one thinks the speaker has misrepresented things. What actions / recommendations does the commentator deem to lack outrage?

There are a number of ways to express disagreement. A lot that were on display yesterday attacked Ann-Marie Slaughter as a person. That's not questioning her ideas or raising objections to a proposal. That's ad hominem. I'm not saying that questioning motives or credentials cannot be a part of the discussion, but it shouldn't be the *only* part of the discussion.

Posted at August 9, 2007 10:56 AM in response to Road Rage Revisited

Okay, knowing the price of things is good.  As others have pointed out, though, it probably won't change anyone's health care choices. I can see how this type of disclosure could be important ground work for later things, so okay.

But another wrinkle occurs to me.  Sometimes there are complications.  So it's not going to possible to know the cost of, say, a birth beforehand.  There might be the "normal" cost, but if there's a procedure that needs to happen NOW, I don't think anyone is going to wait for disclosure.

Posted at August 7, 2007 11:00 AM in response to Universal Access to Affordable Care: A Declaration of Health - Step One

It's not about free speech, per se, but about the community rating standards.  As Josh Marshall stated when the rating system was put in place, no one who is participating in good faith should be troll rated.  Obviously, it's difficult to define "in good faith," but JMM also stated that benefit of the doubt should be liberally given.

Posted at August 7, 2007 7:16 AM in response to Universal Access to Affordable Care: A Declaration of Health

I don't know, mcs.  To me, that sounds like the end of public schools.  If we want to support "educational institutions of various flavors," why not get rid of public schools and just give people their $5000 to educate their children?  Either we have a public education system, or we don't.  Since we do have one, let's keep the money in it!

Posted at July 11, 2007 11:11 AM in response to In Which I Outsource to Prof. Martin Carnoy

Another thought. Most private schools do not require that teachers are certified by the state, at least initially.  That makes a difference in teacher salary and recruiting, I think.

Posted at July 9, 2007 11:37 AM in response to In Which I Outsource to Prof. Martin Carnoy

I suppose it depends on your definition of Christianity.  If that entails believing in Jesus as the Son of God, the Savior of the World, and worshiping him as the Christ who was crucified and resurrected on the third day, well, I'd say that the Mormon Church -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- counts as Christian. 

My understanding is that the disagreement comes from different understandings of the Trinity.  Whereas Catholics and most Protestants believe in the Trinity as established by the Nicene Creed (one being with three aspects, both infinite and minute), Mormons believe in a godhead -- made up of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost -- as three distinct being who are united in purpose.

Perhaps gonzone feels that the Mormon church -- and its members -- are deserving of mockery.  Perhaps that's a valid opinion.  But it certainly does not belong in a discussion of fusion voting!

Posted at July 5, 2007 12:14 PM in response to Fusion: The Value of Independent Organizations (Or, Because the Angel Moroni Won't be Back Anytime Soon)