Nothing like jumping to conclusions

Really? You've already talked to "most of the Pennsylvanians who voted for Specter in 2004?" In 2004 he apparently collected about 20% of the democratic vote and has since seen 200k former Republicans in PA also switch to the Democratic party. Sounds to me like he's following his constituency.

"Most of the Pennsylvanians who voted for Specter in 2004 did so, in many cases reluctantly, on the good faith belief that he would vote with the Republican Party on leadership and at least nominally be part of the Republican coalition, even if departing from it on a number of key issue votes."

Idiot statement of the day

Apple reports strong returns in the middle of deep recession while maintaining its higher price point. What does this mean to David Goldman?

 

"Time will tell if Apple can maintain its strong growth when the economy begins to turn around. As a company whose business is mainly consumer oriented, a lot will depend on new consumer trends and the quality of Apple's new products."

Okay. Seriously. It's like a joke. PC prices are in a race for the bottom as PC makers concentrate solely on surviving the current downturn. Apple maintains its position despite the downturn and positions itself to continue its strategy as the economy picks up. And this dude writes about how they might SUFFER in an improving consumer market? Gimme a break.

Who'd have known?

Turns out I DO have something in common with Ms. Dowd. I'd "rather be tied to stakes in the Kalahari Desert, have honey poured over me and red ants eat out my eyes" than listen what she had to Twitter about anyway.

Arming civilian vessels?

"As Dr. Ikle' observes the reason that crews have not already been armed is that the shipping companies have been advised not to by lawyers and by their insurance companies."

Is that REALLY the only reason crews have not already been armed? Do armed crews really change either the "cost of entry into piracy" or the "prospective rewards?" Pirates already have enough weaponry to inflict a great deal more damage than they have to date. If that is primarily because ships have limited their ability to defend themselves, then changing that dynamic might simply lead to more violent pirate actions. Shooting your way on to a ship that you most certainly outgun is probably still better than barely surviving as a fisherman. 

I think that's more likely the fear of shipping companies. I'm not saying that arming civilian ships isn't the answer...but I don't think it's as easy an answer as is currently being presented.

Huh?

Talk about jumping to conclusions. Pirates collect ransom. Pirates come from Somalia. Somalia has some connections to Islamic terrorism. Therefore, ransom money is funding terrorism. You think he could at least TRY to offer a bit of proof here:

"And worse than this ongoing demonstration of cowardice is the financing of terrorists that results from the huge ransom payments these pirates are allowed to collect."

Seriously...?

Dude writes an article about Boeing and can't even figure out he's got the wrong nomenclature for their "new flagship?" And this is in TIME?

"The impression among investors who follow Boeing is that boneheaded management had allowed poor labor relationships and a slowdown in the launching of the company's new 777 flagship, which has been set back by well over year, to undermine the tremendous demand for the firm's planes."