When I was in my early 20s, I read an investment book that said it's common to encourage people to have three-to-six months of expenses saved, but suggested a month or two would be more realistic. If something bad happens, you're unlikely to spend three to six months completely dumbfounded, and if you need more than a month or two to get back on your feet, that month or two at least gives you some time to figure out what other resources you may have (e.g., unemployment, early 401(k) withdrawals, etc.). So, I think the advice you've been given is a little unrealistic.

In the book "The Map and the Territory," Alan Greenspan says that companies can weather just about any economic downturn by saving cash in the bank. But cash in the bank is not invested in inventory, equipment, paying bills, or doing anything else to turn a profit. So the question is how much should we expect companies to keep in their rainy day fund? If it's too large, we'll have to accept lower economic growth in the good times so that we don't have to worry as much in the bad times. Greenspan suggests that it's reasonable to bail out companies for once-a-century kind of problems. That sounds reasonable to me, but we seem to have these once-a-century problems every few years.

<quote><blockquote><div><p>Whatever services are added must pay for themselves</p></div></blockquote><p>Why? Is this a constitutional requirement?</p></quote>

In this particular case, the problem is "the post office is spending more than it brings in." The proposed solution is "offer new services." But that will only work if those services more than pay for themselves. Otherwise the services will "just make the bankruptcy ... bigger."

I think that was the rough idea behind creating Africanized honeybees (killer bees). Not so much because of climate change, but just to be able to make honey in the tropics. And it worked, if you ignore the behavioral changes.

I thought that was funny. I mean, any switch can be used to set off a bomb.

I think the idea is "the side with the least political muscle." Although the side in question has a generally effective trade union (if not, then how about a law allowing workers to fire their unions and sign with different unions?).

If I understand this proposed law, that is in fact the idea. Children can go to public schools only if they're vaccinated; but unvaccinated children can go to private schools or be homeschooled. Except, sometimes, when the state sends armed agents to seize homeschooled children because the state doesn't like the curriculum ( http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/police-seize-10-children-from-off-grid-family-because-theyre-homeschooled/ ).

Personally, I don't see how this proposal could survive a freedom of religion challenge. But as far as eliminating the "personal belief" exemption that California's had for decades, I believe it's perfectly Constitutional although a little out of character for the state. Five years from now, I expect that you'll only be able to opt out of vaccinations if you claim that it affects your eternal salvation.

And? Who cares what his motivations are? I mean, I get a chuckle out of the idea because of the motivation, but aside from that. He actually will help people out.

Thinking about it: the committee is based on the assumption that avoiding a climate disaster will require a lot of government intervention. Unless the policy is applied to everybody it will essentially become "people who don't support government intervention or increased government spending must disclose their sources of income before appearing before this committee." I think the result of that approach is pretty obvious.

I would feel a lot better about the disclosure if it were even handed. Instead of saying "those questioning whether climate change will lead to a catastrophe must disclose their sources of income before appearing before this committee" say "anyone appearing before this committee must disclose their sources of income." Full disclosure's a good policy, but it shouldn't be used as some kind of weapon to intimidate people from testifying.

A better example would be to compare Romney's comment about "binders full of women" as part of a (successful) affirmative action plan to Biden's (repeated) inappropriate contact with females -- including several teenagers.

They aren't trying to bypass the review; they're trying to get it done. It's been six years. How much longer will the State Department need to decide what kind of impact the pipeline will have on US-Canadian relations?

To put it another way, imagine trains start derailing, wiping out orphanages and polluting national parks. It doesn't take long for the same experts who criticized the moratorium on Gulf drilling to mention that the trains wouldn't be necessary if the pipeline were approved. If President Obama's popularity started to suffer, how long do you think it would take for John Kerry to deliver a report from the State Department clearing the project?

OK, that's what I get for believing Slashdot: according to a followup comment, the train wasn't carrying *this* oil. But it is certainly true that trains carrying oil do derail, and in fact one derailed in West Virginia recently.

There are quite a few questions about how this will play out, but some things are basically determined already: the oil's coming out of the ground (and getting burned), Canada isn't going to build more refineries to process it, so it's going to get transported. The questions are (1) where will it be sent, and (2) how will it get there?

A train carrying some of this oil derailed in West Virginia. So it's not like the alternative is all that much better for the environment.

Obama's spent the last six years saying that he won't approve anything without a review from the State Department. The State Department is made up of people who work for him, but they haven't managed to get that review done. I'm pretty sure "his own timeline" means "only when it becomes politically damaging to continue stalling."

But, as already mentioned, since he vetoed the bill, Congress gets a chance to override (it looks like they'll lose that, once that happens *this* bill is dead). If he hadn't vetoed or signed the bill, it would have died ten days after Congress passed it (not counting Sundays).

So if the President changes his mind, he'll have to ask for another bill. That shouldn't be too hard.

Do you remember in 2008 when Obama took heat for encouraging people to save energy by making sure their car tires were properly inflated? And how he responded by saying he supported an "all of the above" energy policy?

Some media outlets have been hammering on the Keystone pipeline because the "all of the above" strategy looks an awful lot like a "some of the above, if approved by the right interest groups" strategy.