California is a state and cannot go bankrupt. It can default on its loans. That would be catastrophic. If California can't take out loans, or only at sky high interest rates, then California can't undertake large-scale capital-intensive projects (highways, schools, prisons, etc.). It would also make day to day operations difficult, since tax revenue the state pulls in isn't obtained at a constant flow over the course of the year, but in big chucks when filing deadlines approach. That would be very, very bad.

if the Clinton's hadn't been accused by conservatives of everything up to and including murder.

Oh, Alex, trying to give a nuanced view of a complex issue? Well we can't have any of that, can we? Just try to learn from your mistake.

Who bears the risk of loss here? Are the pensions guaranteed by the state no matter what happens to CalPERS? Or does the risk fall on employees. If yes, then that has to change, at least on a going forward basis. If no, then, I'm sorry, but I say no to higher taxes. We can't damn California to insolvency to pay for public employees' retirements. We can't de-fund schools, prisons, public works and social projects to pay for public employees' retirements. Public programs exist for the public, not public employees. Now, obviously, we shouldn't expect them to work for free, but something's gotta give -- and that something is public employees being able to retire at 55 and receive 80% or 90% of their salary.

We've had enough of your 'facts.' We don't need your fancy book-leanin' or your high-falutin' lawyer stories based on your actual experience doing things we know nothing about. We know the Truth!

Seriously, birthers = epic fail.

Every time I see him in one of these allegedly comedic videos, I am overcome by a strong desire to smack him with a horse manure-filled sock.

"Free nukes? Food for the Army? New flat screens for the Sr. Party members."

With Kim Jong Il involved, probably just a free subscription to Penthouse.

I work with a conspiracy theorist nutjob -- a person who thinks that the Rothschilds, CFR, etc. have a machine which can generate tsunamis like the one in Indonesia a fews years back. Seriously. Thinks Joseph Stalin was Jewish, apparently confused by his time in an Orthodox seminary and because you can't be a conspiracy theorist without involving Jews. Thinks Obama may be the anti-christ, literally. But about Glenn Beck, she thinks that he's a fake, installed by the Bilderberg Group, Illuminati, et al to discredit conspiracy theories by spouting conspiracy theories in a buffoonish manner.

Microbes reached present day St. Louis before Europeans because those microbes were traveling on/in Native Americans as they moved, traded, raided, etc., around the North American continent. Euros contact NAs around the Caribbean, those NAs met other NAs living inland, and so on.

Brownshirt judge enforcing all those fascist Federal Rules of Civil Procedure!

When I was menaced by a drug-dealer in front of Grand Central a few years back, would I have had a reasonable case against the owners of Grand Central because of their negligence in permitting armed drug-dealers to hang out on their steps?

Possibly, depending on the particular facts of the situation. Grand Central certainly could have a duty of care to take reasonable precautions to prevent patrons traveling through a parking lot from being assaulted at the hands of a third-party. Also depends on the state -- in one you might have a viable case while in another the suit might get tossed out on a demurrer.

"I would assume that the claim will settle at some point no insurance company is going to want to take this type of case to trial."

Agreed. However, if the insurer believed that it had a duty to defend (which is triggered if there is merely a potential for coverage), but not to indemnify (which requires actual coverage), it might let the underlying matter go to trial rather than settle. Even then, if might still pay a settlement, but reserve the right to go after the insured for reimbursement. Of course, sometimes a plaintiff will refuse to settle a loser and the defendant will take it to trial rather than pay an exorbitant settlement.

I'm not sure that Joan is against interracial couples, or if she just wanted to needle her ex and his new gf.

Why should libel be treated any differently simply because it occurs on the internet? Plaintiffs still have to prove the elements. Defendants still get to present their defenses.

What a douche.

"Do ANY of the numbers in this piece add up? I was casting about for anything that looked like '1 in 8' or 12-13 percent in the supporting figures, and found nothing."

From the Mortgage Bankers Ass'n report:

"The delinquency rate for mortgage loans on one-to-four-unit residential properties rose to a seasonally adjusted rate of 9.24 percent of all loans outstanding as of the end of the second quarter of 2009[.]

* * *

The delinquency rate includes loans that are at least one payment past due but does not include loans somewhere in the process of foreclosure. The percentage of loans in the foreclosure process at the end of the second quarter was 4.30 percent[.]

----

Ok, so the seasonally adjusted rate of delinquencies is 9.24%. That doesn't include foreclosures. 4.3% of homes are in the foreclosure process. 9.24% + 4.3% = 13.54%. 13.545 is roughly one out of eight.

The other crazy thing? That suggests he's only said two crazy things. My gut feeling is that way underestimates the number of crazy things he's said.