He's right. I found out the hard way, as a manager. I found that we had customers who were beginning to find excuses NOT to do business with us, because some of our salesmen were so focussed on getting a commission (then jumping to another company) that they were actually abusive.
Our best salesmen (LONG term) were on a salary, and really cared about the company - that's what we ended up with, by the way.
DEFINITELY a problem (and as an IP (aka "patent") attorney I can see it better than most. It would be worthwhile at least
considering getting rid of the USPTO (which would put me out of business, but be good for the US).
So, maybe we should whine less and do more??
Obama, I think, actually does have an approach that will work, if he can get the Republicans in the House to go along (well, okay, his approach won't work - they are more concerned with personal power than saving the nation - sigh).
1. It will be 20 years before I retire (though I have considered founding a company, and doing that instead)
2. The real problems are relatively recent
3. Lawyers are ethically bound to represent their clients,
and if they resort to actually fighting the system, they
need to be ousted. They are NOT judge, jury, or politician,
and pretending they are is counterproductive.
That said, I am free to express my personal opinion, and
I would contribute to a politician, or even an individual,
who would DO something - most people would rather whine.
Seems like for trivia, you can always find a "champion" to step up and lead a movement. For really important stuff like this, everyone simply sits around bitching and moaning.
At 81, I am not much inclined to be a "champion", but I would contribute what I could to someone who worked at fixing this (even though I am an IP attorney, still working).
I think someone should start targeting members of Congress who are too happy with the money they get from business to work for the people, such as by dismantling this broken system (thereby putting me out of work, but I am okay with that).
Being pretty close to "broke" (I lost several million on a scam, and gave most of the rest to my kids to "jump-start" them; and, of course, refuse to take any of it back), I am pretty careful with my money. I am beginning to do okay with my IP business, but I am far from being able to contribute much.
That said, I think this is a GREAT idea, and I intend to give till it hurts; even without a reason.
Being an IP attorney, I am torn: I have a client who developed technology that he could license in PR China, and get a pretty good revenue - if the USPTO would approve his (clearly patentable) invention - but he is a small entity, and the Office has never shown much interest in supporting small entities.
Meanwhile, the abuses by large entities are making patents a major factor in reducing innovation, and destroying jobs.
I don't suppose a major reform - wait, we tried that, and things got worse.
So lynch mobs are a good thing? Don't think so; that is how Reagan got his "fans" to agree to give all our money to the one percent with "tinkle down" (aka "trickle down") where the 1% gets to urinate on the 99%.
So true. I was on an aircraft in Denver a long time ago. In backing away from the gate, a part of the aircraft lightly touched another aircraft, so we pulled back in for inspection and possible repair.
The aircraft was loaded to capacity, and we had a long flight ahead of us. I was between two "oversized" people, and a little uncomfortable (and very tired).
The pilot mentioned that there might be damage, and we would be delayed for an hour to check and possibly do repairs; if anyone was uncomfortable with that aircraft, there was another leaving in four hours for the same destination.
We were airborne in about an hour and a half, with ... you guessed it, a nearly empty aircraft! Heaven for me, an additional 2.5 hour wait for the people with the "screaming meemies" - whatever that old phrase means.
Let's take it a small step further: if you pay for the courses, you get a degree. Of course, I am biased, I have
a math degree, but at the same time, if you eliminate math, why not eliminate going to class and listening to a dull lecture? Just pay the tuition and spend the rest of your time in college being an "artist", giving you fame without pain.
I realize you have no interest in the other side of the discussion, preferring to say "violence in media isn't
responsible", but when you analyze something someone says, be fair about that!
"It's quite a stretch to contend that an unreleased movie somehow "acknowledges" the "link" between movie violence and actual violence. Unless James Holmes was part of the "Gangster Squad" crew, this is simply unfortunate timing, much like the terrorism scenes that caused several films to be delayed following the 9/11 attacks."
He didn't say that the "Gangster Squad" was in issue!
And these are experts??? In what universe!?!?
We eliminate income and payroll taxes and put in consumption taxes - really fair, right? So, people who have a high income make their money here, consume in, say, Canada or France, etc., and pay no taxes at all, while people who can't afford that pay all the bills, and that's fair?
Who do these people work for - Romney? Oh, now I see, yes, very fair for people making millions per year!!!!
Einstein was RIGHT! The only thing we KNOW is infinite is human stupidity!
Wait - by and large, I agree with you. Money has FAR too much influence in all aspects of our life, and especially politics.
However, it would help if you didn't distort the issue. To the extent that Obama is pandering for money, shame! To the extent that he is avoiding "bad publicity" so that he CAN be reelected (thereby preventing Romney from permanently killing the effort), that is just being pragmatic - it could be a very good thing in the long run.
Don't "spin" it so it looks like only the negative, and ignores the positive!