Where Are My Keys?

Way to go, LEGO..

 

Too bad you weren't paying attention, Teachers..

If you had done your homework (no pun intended) prior to casting your vote, maybe you wouldn't be surprised when something like this happens:

Pennsylvania's Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) is slashing the hours of 400 adjunct instructors, support staff, and part-time instructors to dodge paying for Obamacare.

"It's kind of a double whammy for us because we are facing a legal requirement [under the new law] to get health care and if the college is reducing our hours, we don't have the money to pay for it," said adjunct biology professor Adam Davis.

On Tuesday, CCAC employees were notified that Obamacare defines full-time employees as those working 30 hours or more per week and that on Dec. 31 temporary part-time employees will be cut back to 25 hours. The move will save an estimated $6 million. 

"While it is of course the college’s preference to provide coverage to these positions, there simply are not funds available to do so," said CCAC spokesperson David Hoovler. "Several years of cuts or largely flat funding from our government supporters have led to significant cost reductions by CCAC, leaving little room to trim the college’s budget further."

Showing that the teachers still aren't paying attention to current events, their "solution" may cause them even more grief down the road:

The solution, says United Steelworkers representative Jeff Cech, is that adjunct professors should unionize in an attempt to thwart schools seeking similar cost-savings efforts from avoiding Obamacare. 

"They may be complying with the letter of the law, but the letter of law and the spirit of the law are two different things," said Mr. Cech. "If they are doing it at CCAC, it can't be long before they do it other places."

Right.  The solution is to Unionize.  Ask the 18,000 former Hostess employees how being in a Union saved their jobs.  What Mr. Cech fails to realize is that the symptom here is the underlying costs associated with Obamacare.  Unionizing would merely put a Band-Aid on the problem, while the disease continues to run rampant.

The disease of Obamacare is best explained in this very insightful comment:

These folks will have no problem. They will soon sign up for every government benefit that they are eligible for. Be sorry for the taxpayers who are now going to help support the millions of workers that Obamacare effects. In case you are unaware, that is exactly the point of Obamacare. Bring everyone down to a lower standard of living so they we all need to depend on the government.

Michelle Obama was correct.  Barack has fundamentally changed America.

Elizabeth Warren taking on more water..

Legal Insurrection has stayed on the Senate candidate and fake Indian, this time in regards to her ability to practice law in Massachusetts.  Now, one of Warren's defenders has admitted things don't look good:

Soon after my original post, Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem, Mark Thompson at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen wrote a post taking an opposite view, No, Elizabeth Warren Did Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

That post by Thompson was cited far and wide, including at Memeorandum as well as at friendly conservative blogs which wanted to present the case for Warren to provide balance.

In light of my post this morning that Warren represented a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts on an issue related to Massachusetts law, Thompson has concluded in a new post today:

Professor Jacobson has uncovered this morning a case in which Elizabeth Warren entered an appearance in a federal appellate court as a representative of a Massachusetts client in a case that appears to have clearly implicated Massachusetts law.  Although this is still a federal appellate court, because we’re dealing with a Massachusetts client and issues of Massachusetts law, this looks really, really bad for Professor Warren.  With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak.

Thompson also has updated his original post:

UPDATE 4 9/27: Professor Jacobson has uncovered new facts that I view as a gamechanger.  Although I stand by my above analysis as applied to the facts known at the time, Professor Jacobson’s discovery this morning answers my objections to his arguments.

Making progress.

More to come.

Update:  Thompson emails, for attribution:

Professor Jacobson:

I couldn’t figure out how to leave this as a comment at your site, but I wanted to let you know ASAP that I concede that your discovery this morning answers all of my arguments and is a gamechanger. Your diligence in investigating this matter is commendable.

Regards,

Mark Thompson

Jack Marshall at Ethics Alarms adds:

Prof Jacobson, on his blog Legal Insurrection, is in line for an Ethics Hero award with his tenacity regarding Elizabeth Warren’s dubious qualifications to engage in the practice of law in  Massachusetts. The overwhelming reaction by his colleagues in legal academia, and mine in the legal ethics community, has been to airily dismiss his arguments as trivial, far-fetched and thinly disguised political warfare, since Jacobson is an unapologetic conservative blogger (and a distinguished one.) Meanwhile, the mainstream media has, I think it is fair to say, completely ignored the story….

The rude brush off Prof. Jacobson is getting in this wagon-circling exercise is wrong in every way, and does injustice to every person and institution involved, including the Massachusetts legal establishment, the legal profession, ethical lawyers (which, believe it or not, the vast majority of them are), Senator Brown, the U.S. Senate, Massachusetts voters, and the American public….

I do find it interesting/funny that someone used the term "circle the wagons" to defend Warren.  You guys get the jone, right?

Doing the right thing, even when $50,000 is on the line..

No one would have been the wiser, but two 11-year olds would have known the truth:

Nate started going bonkers at the other end of the ice, high-fiving and pogo-sticking. Pat was laughing. Fandemonium ensured. The crowd noise only grew louder. Somebody outside took Nick by the shoulders and said, "Your brother just won $50,000!!!"

A man from Odds On Promotions came and gave them a paper to sign and said the check would be delivered a few days after that and, wow, just, congratulations!

"Is it really ours?" the kids asked their dad.

"Guess so!" he said.

"I was going to buy a new hockey stick," Nate said. "And give some to my brother, maybe. Like, $1,000. And give some to my school. And our hockey association."

Nick was hoping to buy his first laptop. They both needed new bikes.

Their dad was thinking: "Fifty grand? Five kids, one daughter in college, one in high school? This is really going to help."

But when they all got home that night, something didn't feel right. After the kids went to bed, Pat and his wife, Kim, had the same little mosquito buzzing their consciences.

But why? The money would've been paid by a monstrous out-of-state insurance behemoth, since the youth hockey association had taken out a policy. Who worries about monstrous out-of-state insurance behemoths?

The next morning, the parents were about to tell the kids they were going to have to give the money back when the boys floored them with their own announcement. They didn't think they should take the money. "What if our friends ask us about it?" Nick asked.

It was settled then. They all decided that having to lie about it just wasn't worth $50,000. "We kept thinking about signing that paper [saying Nick had made the shot]. It just felt wrong," Pat says.

That morning, he called the man in charge and told him what had really happened. Yes, his boy who had made the shot signed the back of the ticket, but he'd signed his brother's name. Wrong kid.

Poetic justice?

Men's Wearhouse sells their soul one day, to learn it didn't matter the next day.

Good luck finding sympathy from the customers you alienated.

Another lesson in reality, learned by #OWS..

The kitchen crew tasked with feeding the protesters are complaining.  Complaining that they are working 18-hour days, and that food is being eaten by the "professional homeless":

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

...

Some protesters threatened that the high-end meals could be cut off completely if the vagrants and criminals don’t disperse.

Unhappiness with their unwelcome guests was apparent throughout the day.

“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.

A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”

Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.

I'm shocked, I tell you.

You are feeling "overworked and under-appreciated"?  So are the U.S. Taxpayers, who play by the rules, and support those that choose not to participate in Society by helping to pay their way. 

And the "problem" you are facing with unwanted folks sponging off your stuff?  Isn't that kind of the same thing as our porous border?  You know, how illegals have figured out that once they get to the U.S., it's all good?  Free food and shelter?

And finally, don't the protesters realize the irony of this issue?  The #OWS folks are there to protest between the "haves" and "have nots".  Are they not choosing to ignore some people that need more than they do?

It's nice to see the "real" Socialists in charge beginning to exert their will/rules/order on the rest of the group.  Perhaps some of the folks there will see that their "leaders" are not really that different than the groups they are protesting.

Might make a few Conservatives out of them.

Discovering the impact of unexpected immigration..

This time, the shoe is on the other foot:

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona’s new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora – Arizona’s southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns – cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money.

...

The lawmakers were to travel to Phoenix for a Wednesday breakfast meeting with Hispanic legislators.

They want to tell them how the law will affect Mexican families on both sides of the border.

“How can they pass a law like this?” asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales.

“There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,” she said in Spanish.

“Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems” it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs, she said.

“We are one family, socially and economically,” she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Amparano said the Mexican legislators are already asking the federal government of Mexico for help for Sonora.

Wow.  So the influx of people into your infrastructure, with no means to pay for that influx causes problems for your Government?  Who knew?

It also sucks when criminals put a large financial burden on the system too, doesn't it?

Mexican President Felipe Calderon accused the United States on Thursday of dumping criminals at the border because it is cheaper than prosecuting them, and said the practice has fueled violence in Mexico's border areas.

U.S. officials earlier this week reported a record number of deportations in fiscal year 2011, and said the number of deportees with criminal convictions had nearly doubled since 2008.

"There are many factors in the violence that is being experienced in some Mexican border cities, but one of those is that the American authorities have gotten into the habit of simply deporting 60 (thousand) or 70,000 migrants per year to cities like Ciudad Juarez or Tijuana," Calderon told an immigration conference.

Among these deportees "there are many who really are criminals, who have committed some crime and it is simply cheaper to leave them on the Mexican side of the border than to prosecute them, as they should do, to see whether they are guilty or not," Calderon said. "And obviously, they quickly link up with criminal networks on the border."

You know what Mexico should do to prevent this?  They should build a fence along the border to stop us from dumping bad guys there.

Candidate Obama is a teabagger, and thinks President Obama is unpatriotic..

 

Careful what you wish for..

 

Karma 1, Kid 0..