I'm also not an IM user. But I'd say if supervisor needs to know soon and tends to be -- shall we say, imperfectly vigilant -- in checking e-mail, I'd say your position is at least defensible.

So, why are Guiliani and his wife traveling with the McCains to the debate tonight? I was speculating last night that this whole situation might give McCain, king of the Hail Marys, an excuse to dump Palin and go back to Mitt. (Not that I think it's necessarily likely, but it does seem like the kind of thing McCain would do.) But I don't see how that calculation would work with Rudy, and I don't recall them having anything good to say about one another, so I wonder what's up?

I don't think there are any absolutes about office IM-ing -- the fact that your office supports it for internal comms tells me that it's not really rude or problematic in itself to have a message pop up (unlike, say, in a situation where IM is seen as social/blowing off stuff and you'd want to hide the fact that you're doing it). On the other hand, pay-related questions sort of default to confidential even when they're not actually top-secret stuff. I'd probably email for that reason, but send a "hey, check your email, I've got a question that needs a response today" to make sure it was seen.

I guess I will handle that desire with chili for dinner.

I'm making chili RIGHT NOW! Whether IFG will have to wait until the taste test.

Bankruptcy law is probably the most stable job out there right now.

The work is steady, but you might not get paid.

Oh, no--they're getting paid. Well. I know a guy working for the feds in bankruptcy court.

Don't you get paid up front in bankruptcy law?

eta: Of course, the above stuff from the McCain campaign might just be calculated to lower expectations on Palin (so they can then say she met or exceeded the expectations, and thus won the debate, etc).

Well yeah, isn't that a given? You need to give the tv pundits some way to spin it.

Don't the debates tend to confirm whatever opinions you had going into them? At this point, for those who hate her, every stutter, every uncompleted sentence, every WTF non-sequitor and every flat out lie simply confirms that she shouldn't be elected. But to those who love her those same qualities are counted amongst her charms.

Don't you get paid up front in bankruptcy law?

Well, I do know that the people coming into the office on Sunday were writing out checks and/or paying cash, so yes, they do get paid at least something up front.

Paulson’s “all your bailout are belong to me” proposal,

Aw, he really said that! Paul Krugman is totally my economic scholar woobie.

One of Corwood's High Hat co-editors posted an LJ entry that said, "I'm beginning to entertain the possibility that the entire 2008 presidential campaign is just an elaborate attempt to gaslight me." Which caused me to bark out loud at my desk with laughter, which caused me to have to read it out loud to my very young office-mate. Which then caused me to have to explain gaslighting, Gaslight and Hitchcock to her. ::headdesk::

Don't the debates tend to confirm whatever opinions you had going into them?

Well yeah, in general. But there have been some conservative commentators who originally supported her but have since changed their minds after seeing her interviewed. Some have recommended that she drop out.

For a man who hadn't decided yet whether to debate, and whose campaign was suspended, there's not shortage of chutzpah. (Or of boneheaded miststakes, perhaps more to the point.): [link]

(ETA: screencap is from this morning's WSJ)