In fairness, Sunnstein's recent comments have been, in fact, against the idea of the "Internet Fairness Doctrine" which he discussed in his book Republic.com. Since that writing, he has said that he has been convinced by opposing arguments that such a policy would be ineffective and couterproductive. Having said that, I'm a bit astonished that he came up with it in the first place. As a Progressive, I'm perhaps still not far left enough to understand how such a policy, which seems to be unnecessarily destructive of free speech, would ever be worthwhile.

The guiding principle is that the government get the best combination of price, schedule, and quality. There is no theory in the TINA pricing. The company is required to say "our costs will be X and our profit Y to deliver Z to you when you want it." The government "allows" only a certain amount of profit on a contract. If you make more, perhaps a component's cost goes down hugely in the market, you are required to go back to the gov't and allow them a rebate on their cost. If you make more because you fudged the numbers, you get barred from federal contracts and may also end up behind bars. It is for these exact reasons that many companies don't do business with the government. I should also mention (having some experience in the process) that the companies still manage to hide an awful lot of "excess profit" and I don't feel the need to cry for them.

Don't have a GSA Schedule Contract, then. Trust me, those vendors who have them are happy to have one, but not all vendors/products work well with them. I think you're confusing contracting with the government in general with having a Most Favored Customer agreement with them. Not all (not most?) government contracts have such a clause.

Nor do I - anymore. Delete Yahoo! Account

Drill two relief wells at the same time as the main well and either leave the last few feet unfinished or enhance the casing to reinforce the area left open to the relief wells. When BOP fails, push through. - Unwashed Mass

There's no need for a conspiracy theory. All industries in China's economy are controlled by the government. The only question is the degree to which this control is exerted.

You can only have a military-industrial complex in a country where the two aren't both arms of the government. An iron triangle can't exist when only one actor is involved.

Right. Those independent folks just want to be left alone to make their way. No help needed from the government.

Do you have paved roads leading to and from town? Many of those roads were paid for by folks not in your town or county. Electricity? You might want to thank those meddling bastards-- especially this one. Postal service without a drive to an actual city? Phones? Hospitals? The list goes on.

You're not independent. Like so many others, you're tired of government "help" only to the extent that you dislike the help they offer.

This scheme has no chance of success. No self-respecting Apple user would allow anything in their backdoor that didn't come dressed in a turtleneck and jeans.

Really? Are you sure about that?

While that is true for 2010, in years prior it was not. In terms of individual numbers, Republicans are far in the lead in terms of overall insurance industry contributions. In other words, your crooks seem to be far more effective than my crooks.

You likely are suffering from atrial fibrillation. It is most often an electrical problem with the heart and can be controlled (typically) with antiarrhythmic medication. Sometimes, as it was in my case, it can be indicative of a more serious heart problem (in my case 2 of my three major arteries were fully blocked). You need to see a cardiologist as soon as possible. This may not be, but could be, something life-threatening.

You seem a little down; perhaps your humors are imbalanced. A good leeching should fix that right up!

You are correct, but the GP talked about corporations which are creations of law (passed by our government) and not of simple association like the simple business you describe. These laws specifically give advantages to corporations and other legal entities which would not exist outside the law (again, passed by and enforced through our government). The greatest of these is, of course, the limitation on pass-through liability for acts of the corporation to its shareholders/owners. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to create such entities explicitly given to the government, yet many folks seem to think their existence is just fine with them as is the shield from liability afforded to their owners (which is contrary to our legal notions of personhood and legal responsibility). I'm fine with unlimited corporate contributions to political candidates so long as the government does not provide a protected status to corporations. Feel free to form business associations. but understand that each of the members of these associations will be fully, personally liable for all actions and debts of the association. What's that? Without protection from liability there will be no corporations? Fine by me. Until that point, entities whose existence is solely a matter of law should realize that the law can constrain as well as benefit them.

It put the fear of God into the Pakistanis.

Reminds me of a trip home from I weekend I spent in Mexico

That's why I voted for Cthulhu. Why vote for the lesser evil?