PSoTD

Once again about the Washington Post's priority for important stories. I don't blame James Carville for having the kind of personality that desires attention from all at all times, but I don't understand why the Washington Post thinks that what he has to say in this writeup would interest anyone at all. Who cares?

America survives because Abraham Lincoln didn't have a thousand twits blathering about his every word.

The Sacramento Bee now has a place where Californians can do that. I was able to find out what a few of my friends make that are employed by the state. But I'm really not sure how the searchability of salary of state employees really helps the general public. What's the practical value of this, other than allowing people to rummage around and find out the base salary of their acquaintances?

All employers, whether they be public or private, profit or nonprofit, pay employees with a variety of devices - base salary, bonuses, overtime, benefits, etc. Focusing on one without incorporating the whole package seems very piecemeal. Doing it without including a job description, rather than just a title, seems piecemeal as well.

Having said all that, I'm surprised at how low a lot of the base salaries for state employees seem to be for a relatively expensive housing market such as California...

Most people don't read blogs, magazines, newspapers, toilet paper packaging, you name it, most people don't read it.

No disrespect to hairless typists in particular, but I think I can generally say with a high degree of confidence that most National Review "writers" have the likeable qualities that God gave leeches.

Well, at least as with as much confidence as I have in the writer linked.

Jim Brady, Executive Editor of Washingtonpost.com, was asked the following question:

At this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, a panel of futurists claimed that print newspapers wouldn't exist by 2014. To what extent do you agree with this?

Statements that broad are bound to be wrong. The Washington Post will absolutely exist in 2012, as will other big newspapers like The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. I do think you're already seeing midsized and smaller papers deciding to go the Web-only route. If you look at current online revenues, all newspaper companies are still struggling to make money on the Web. But since the publishing costs online are microscopic compared to print, and with newsprint costs going up many newspapers are figuring they can save a lot of money by going online-only.

Again, such a broad statement is absolutely wrong. But there will be a lot of newspapers in the next 5 years that go web-only, in the US at least.

The question was about 2014, Brady assured only that the Washington Post would be around in 2012. Hmmmm.