I've found the new Trib site is vastly better using Firefox (with AdBlock installed) rather than IE. Apparently my comments will show up with "promark747" on the new site.

I'm not opposed to change, but the redesign of the Trib site is heinous, and I'm saddened by the possibility that many of us won't make the transition to the new CoS. It's been a wonderful 10 years getting to debate with a bunch of very intelligent -- if sometimes misguided :) -- individuals, as well as EZ himself. I'm going to give the new Trib site and CoS a little time for the dust to settle and then see if I can jump back in. Either way, no matter what happens, thanks to all who have made this place special.

Was surprised to see that it was the first time in Cubs history that a position player came in to pitch and got the victory.

Are there people who oppose Obama because he's black? Yes, obviously. But there are also just as many who falsely attribute all of his failings to alleged racism.

I have a really hard time believing that the High-Five wasn't used prior to Dusty's home run in 1977.

@JaKeH, The real question here is whether Democrats generally -- the people who voted *for* Obamacare, keep in mind, their opinion is the one that counts -- intended to slip in a secret, relatively unnoticed poison pill that would allow states to remove one leg (subsidies) of the three-legged stool holding up the whole policy, the other two being restrictions on insurers (no denying coverage for preexisting conditions, etc.) and the mandate, thus allowing it to collapse. I think the answer is obvious: of course not. It's simply illogical and absurd to believe that they anticipated states not setting up exchanges, as they obviously did by establishing the federal replacement, and not also anticipated that subsidies would be available through such exchanges." The Occam's Razor answer is that they really wanted states to establish their own exchanges and figured that the "poison pill" of lost subsidies would ensure that goal (after all, how else could they incentivize participation?) As it turns out, the pill was not poisonous enough. There is AMPLE history to contradict the "typo" claim.

@JakeH, "The federal exchanges were clearly meant to stand in the shoes of the state exchanges" Then why even have state-run exchanges?

@rayspace "With this in mind, the defendants’ primary counterargument points to ACA §§ 1311 and 1321, which, when read in tandem with 26 U.S.C. § 36B, provide an equally plausible understanding of the statute" So if you have two competing arguments with "equal plausibility," shouldn't the one supported by the actual text of the statute prevail?

JakeH, The authors may have anticipated some states would not participate, but since the federal government could not compel states to create an exchange, it created incentives to participate, namely the subsidies. A federal exchange was available as a backup, but that doesn't automatically mean it was supposed to get the exact same treatment the same as state-run exchanges. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/cannon-adler-health-matrix-23.pdf

Trying to figure out how you get out of the net...

Greg is 100% correct. Congress meant for the tax credits to serve as an incentive for states to establish their own exchanges, and as Greg said, it is up to the ACA defenders to prove that the plain text of the law was not the intent.

"Doesn't really matter what Rauner proposes." Agreed, my biggest hope for Rauner would be the ability to limit further damage to the state until Madigan passes away.

Now that the gov is running out of banks to extort money from, they are turning to other large companies, like FedEx: The gov says FedEx knowingly transported illegal drugs from illegal online pharmacies to customers from 2000-2010. FedEx says BS. They asked the government for a list of these supposed pharmacies that are illegal and the government wouldn't provide such a list and basically told FedEx to figure it out on their own. FedEx wrote: "We want to be clear what’s at stake here: the government is suggesting that FedEx assume criminal responsibility for the legality of the contents of the millions of packages that we pick up and deliver every day. We are a transportation company – we are not law enforcement. We have no interest in violating the privacy of our customers. We continue to stand ready and willing to support and assist law enforcement. We cannot, however, do the job of law enforcement ourselves." Typical government stupidity.

DrX, "if this was something recorded with a hidden camera while he was in a bathroom stall, then it actually isn't reasonable to have expected that this would be seen by the world. Odds are very small that a you're on hidden camera when you're in a stall in a men's room. I certainly wouldn't assume a fourteen year old would anticipate this remote possibility." The article stated it was another student who peaked over the stall and recorded it (presumably with his phone).

Dr X, I don't see any details in the article about the bullying...do you know more that you can share? Let's forget for a moment that the incident was recorded. Instead let's say he was masturbating out in the open in the bathroom and three kids walked in and caught him red handed (no pun intended). I think he SHOULD expect to be teased about it, and the grief that follows is mostly his own doing.

Regarding #2 (the Cubs), I think Ricketts is attempting his own "do over" in that the price he paid Sam Zell was already heavily discounted based on known restrictions--not only with the rooftops but with the landmarks commission.

LizH, Just because a job is hard or unpleasant doesn't mean it commands or deserves high compensation. As for the banks, these fines are just a shakedown by the government. The real culprits (aside from those who took out fraudulent loans) were the ratings agencies and the policies encouraging home ownership to those who could not afford it.

GJO'L, I don't view that incident as bullying...mistaken identity, yes, but sounds like he was defending himself (albeit disproportionately to the perceived offense).

Two questions: 1. Why do you think the boy didn't be more careful in hiding his activities? He had to know what he was doing was potentially embarrassing, and he had to know someone was in the next stall. He was either extremely careless or perhaps part of him wanted it to be made public. 2. The person who recorded the act was clearly wrong and should be punished SEVERELY. But what do you expect kids to do when they are made aware of something like this? Teasing is expected. I'm not saying the kid should be beaten up (if he was), but at that point it's contrary to human nature to expect kids to simply ignore it.

@SF, "But, "government job" is such an amazingly broad category that it seems silly to lump them all together anyway. I always wonder exactly what kind of job people are imagining when they talk about this cushy, overpaid government job." I agree...for purposes of this discussion I think many of us envision the lifers at the DMV and not the top scientists at the CDC.

@JL, "As mentioned in my previous post, it also is a terrible approach if we hope to act like private companies and try to attract and retain top talent." When you're discussing unions, "top talent" does not come into play. The very structure of a union rewards the weak and penalizes the better employees.

"They had a good union that negotiated in good faith for pensions" Sure, the union negotiated in good faith; the politicians did not. "And even if we agree with the $39,231 figure, I'd hardly call that generous - it's awfully hard to live on that kind of money, especially in the Chicago area" Give me a break. It's called RETIREMENT. To paraphrase Mike Royko, it's assumed you no longer need to buy another toaster, or spend a lot of money on clothes. You should be downsizing. And any pension or SS should be a supplement to savings. Pensions were never intended to be salary-level incomes, though they have become that due to greed.

"Could the legislature pass a constitutional amendment that let's the state off the hook? I'm not advocating this or suggesting that it's politically practical, but just asking if, from a legal standpoint, the state could get out of the pension problem with an amendment. ZORN REPLY -- Sure. Could it be done politically, though? I doubt it." When things get bad enough, they will amend the constitution. It's inevitable. And it's not accurate to say the pension issue is dissimilar from the parking meter and Park Grill deals. They are all a result of insider deals that harm the public.

When I was buying suits in my 20s, I was amazed that the suits with a size 48 coat would typically come with pants having a "drop" of 5 inches (i.e., a 43-inch waist). I had to have major alterations to fit my 34-inch waist. It's 20 years later, and I am thankful for the 5 inch drop and understand why that's the standard.

The MLB all-star game is far and away the best all-star game due to the nature of the sport. The other major team sports are heavily dependent on the experience of having the offenses and especially defenses working in concert (defense is a joke in most AS games). Football is probably the lamest AS game, as they actually change the rules for the Pro Bowl (e.g., no blitzing). Baseball's AS game is real baseball...with the exception of the debacle from several years ago when Brenly and Torre ran out of players (heaven forbid they save them for extra innings).