home

Friday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 08:54:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm sure there's lots of news today besides what we've covered. If you're online tonight, and feel like discussing something else, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

For those of you watching TV, Big Brother 11 has an interesting development. Seems the house contains several bigoted residents who have made racial, misogynistic and homophobic comments. There's been a pretty big outcry on the entertainment boards and blogs about it. [More...]

(In addition to Jeff, there's been Jordan's homophobic and Braden's misogynistic and racist comments. More here.) Braden was up for eviction last night, along with a female African American contestant who complained about his bigotry. The vote was a tie, 5 to 5, with the tie breaker(head of household) casting the tie-breaking vote to evict Braden, but not because of his views.

Pretty depressing. One would hope the younger generation has learned from the mistakes of their elders. Apparently not. Ignorance and bigotry continues.

< Walter Cronkite Passes Away | Late Night: Bachelorette's Wes Hayden Says "The Gloves Are Off" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Night Open Thread | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Not in this economy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:11:16 PM EST
    You kidding?  The administrative costs alone of just making the switchover would be way, way, way beyond every state in the country right now, all of which are struggling just to fund the basics at 80 percent or so.

    I'm happy to see the amendment getting support, but it's token support only because single-payer is I think quite literally impossible on a state-by-state basis because of the requirement for balanced budgets.  It could only ever be done on a national level by the federal government.  I suspect the main reason it got all those votes is largely because it's impossible for individual states to do this.

    I think it's important not to foreclose the (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:45:57 PM EST
    option for states to go to single-payer, especially given the mess that is being made of "reform" in the Congress, and I would further argue - and I don't think I'm alone in the argument - that it is precisely because of the state of the economy that going to single-payer makes sense.

    I agree that single-payer is likely to be more successful if implemented on a national level, but I would be curious to know what enormous administrative costs would be involved at the state level?  I know, for example, that Maryland has the MD Health Insurance Plan, which came into being as the insurer of last resort for people who had been rejected by private insurance for the usual oh-you-had-a-pimple-in-1987? reasons - I would think it could be expanded with little cost to serve as "the" insurance company for the state's residents.

    Impossible?  I don't agree.

    Parent

    States could go single-payer, but (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:57:47 PM EST
    the federal government would have to cooperate. Any state implementing single-payer would need waivers from the feds so that Medicaid and Medicare $$$$ that go to that state's residents could be used in the single-payer plan.

    Those two programs are huge. I don't think any state could implement single-payer without incorporating them. And, I've got to say, I'm just not feeling the single-payer love from this administration.

    Nonetheless, the amendment is important to have in place just in case circumstances change.

    Parent

    Just saw this proposal by Obama (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 08:03:24 AM EST
    on Medicare.

    After weeks of talk, the White House began circulating draft legislation Wednesday spelling out President Barack Obama's proposal that Congress surrender much of its authority over payment rates for Medicare to a new executive agency.

    The proposed five-member Independent Medicare Advisory Council would be charged with making two annual reports dictating updated rates for Medicare providers including physicians, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health and durable medical equipment. Congress could block the recommendations only if lawmakers agreed within 30 days on a resolution, and the greater veto power would lie with the White House itself.  Politico

    It would be effective on September 15, 2014.

    Wouldn't this give any President the ability to dictate policy and slash Medicare payments if he wished. We've all seen how so called "Independent Agencies" can be stack so that they dance to the tune of the President. Since it is no big secret that Republicans would like to abolish Medicare, getting a veto proof majority to override harmful cuts to Medicare would be unlikely  IMO especially if the president was also a Republican.

    Parent

    From the information I could quickly (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:42:21 PM EST
    gather using google, it seems that the MD Health Insurance Plan offers several insurance options through Blue Cross Blue Shield who would have the infrastructure already set up. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the program to know if this would fall under my idea of single payer or not since there has to be a profit margin involved for the insurance company.

    I am fairly knowledgeable about how insurance works. For any healthcare system to be sustainable, it has to be made up of a diverse pool of people which contains a large pool of young and healthy  people to offset those who are sick and will be filing claims on a regular basis (i.e., more money has to come in than goes out). Even without the subsidies to help pay for premiums and a profit margin for Blue Cross Blue Shield, I don't know how this program could be sustainable on a long term basis if the pool consists primarily of people with preexisting conditions. Seems like it would have a large negative cash flow on an annual basis. There may be variables that I have no knowledge of that might change this equation but that seems the most likely scenario.

    I say this as a strong advocate for a national single payer system.

    Parent

    I'm only familar with MHIP because (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:59:34 PM EST
    one of my daughters had insurance with them. At no time was I aware that BC/BS was involved - I don't think anything we ever received from or through MHIP had anything with BC/BS on it anywhere!  

    I absolutely agree that if a private insurance company is administering/underwriting MHIP, it probably is not the right framework for single-payer, but I still do not think that getting a SP plan up and running would be all that onerous, or as expensive as continuing under the current model of multiple plans with multiple procedures and paperwork and rules that are designed to make money for company executives and shareholders.

    It seriously should not be that hard for people to see a doctor, get a test, have a procedure, get a prescription filled, to get and stay healthy so that we can be productive.  I see the insurance companies as being roadblocks to CARE, not facilitators, and the sooner they are made to relinquish that role, the better we will all be.

    Parent

    Nationally it would be a slam dunk (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:24:41 PM EST
    since the infrastructure already exists with trained administrators and staff due to Medicare and Medicaid. Going to a straight single payer system on a national level would eliminate the profit margin, produce savings through an economy of scale and provide a hugh diverse pool of people which would spread the risks and make the program self sustainable.

    On a state by state basis, unless you selected an existing insurance company to administer/underwrite, each state would have to hire and train administrators and staff, provide office space/equipment and set up reserves in advance to cover claims. If single payer was offered as one of many options and had restrictions on who could participate, you run the risk of the pool consisting of people who get the coverage for free or highly subsidized and those who are already sick. That would not be sustainable due to the costs.  

    Parent

    A consortium of states could do it. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:38:31 AM EST
    Say all New England or the far west could join together to implement single-payer for their states as a group. That significantly increases the pool and cuts down on each states share of administrative costs. States would still need at least the Medicaid money since Medicaid is jointly funded by the states and the feds. States would need to put their Medicaid people and those dollars into the single-payer pool.

    Parent
    That IMO is much more feasible (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:48:29 AM EST
    than individual states. If they combined the stated Michigan plan of putting all government employees into the single-payer pool as well, it sounds like a very workable solution. Definitely better than anything else that has been proposed in Congress to date.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:15:37 AM EST
    "On a state by state basis, unless you selected an existing insurance company to administer/underwrite, each state would have to hire and train administrators and staff, provide office space/equipment and set up reserves in advance to cover claims."

    Just imagine even the task of identifying and enrolling the health care providers, not to mention setting up the registration and verification of state residency and IDs for patients, and then constructing the software to maintain the databases.  The mind reels... Doing it as an individual state would also create unmanageable problems with fraud, especially in states like Vermont with large numbers of summer residents and transient farm workers.

    There may be some states that have systems already in place for which it would be easier to do than for others, maybe Maryland is one.  But for the majority of states who have only Medicaid as a single-payer framework to build on, it's a massive task.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:22:13 PM EST
    Administrative costs would be quite low, certainly lower than current admin costs.

    There is a proposal in the Michigan House (15.1% unemployment and $1.8 billion state budget shortfall) to combine all public employees, state, county, local, school employees, public retirees, etc. under a single health insurance plan with an estimated savings of $800 million annually. There would be some small benefit cuts (increased co-pays) but essentially the same coverage.

    That's savings for converting to a single private plan. A state single-payer plan for everyone could lower costs for everyone and make the state an attractive location for businesses.

    Certainly administrative costs would plumet.

    What makes you thing that there would be massive "switchover" costs?

    Parent

    By starting with a large captive audience (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:40:03 PM EST
    (i.e. all government workers), that plan might be feasible especially since the premium structure and related expenses already exists and it should provide a diverse pool of people. Staff may need to be expanded to handle those activities now done by the insurance companies and I would be interested in whether or not they plan to set up an initial reserve and the amount.

    Parent
    That's a great idea (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:19:53 AM EST
    but it's manageable when you're doing it on an employer basis basis employees are easily identifiable bureaucratically, and also because the costs of keeping the records of who's eligible are widely distributed.  Stop and think for a minute about trying to identify and verify all residents-- and only residents.  Your state and municipal employees are already registered and enrolled and managed, so it's just a relatively minor question of switching the already known names over to a central system.

    Parent
    Vermont is broke (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:02:33 AM EST
    and it's one of the poorest states in the country.

    We have had for some time something close to a "public option," with two ins. cos. who've been persuaded to take on anyone otherwise uninsured, with a pretty good sliding scale based on income.  The state picks up a chunk of the cost, but there isn't enough money in the till to make a strong effort to get everybody who doesn't have insurance covered.  I think they managed not to cut the funds in this year's budget, but they may have to as the deficits mount higher and higher and everything else possible has been cut to the bone.

    Even in good economic times, Vermont is not a prosperous state and already has a higher tax burden than many states.  Small family dairy farms do not produce a lot of tax revenue.

    IOW, do not even think of looking to Vermont to pave the way on single payer.

    Parent

    Segue: Vermont. Sen. Leahy's (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:13:27 AM EST
    description of his state's views on gun control was news to me.  There isn't any apparently.

    Parent
    Of course not! (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    Vermont has literally no need of gun control.  We have no gun crime problem.  We have hardly any crime, period.  Our average annual murder rate is something like 6.  Gun crime is an urban problem, and we could hardly be less urban.  Our largest "city" is 30,000.  Guns here -- rifles and shotguns -- are simply a tool used for hunting and for protecting self and livestock from the occasional marauding predator.

    Parent
    The biggest story by far (to me) (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:12:27 PM EST
    is health care reform. It seems the Obama WH is trying to gain the upper hand again (or at least control the media news cycle). The Cronkite death probably knocked health care off the Sunday morning agenda. The president (and our wimpy legislative) leadership need to stop playing nice and kick some butt.  Dems who do not fall into line on this issue should be punished. As for repubs- to hell with them and this bipartisanship crap.  If they had won, they would gladly roll over us, and you can bet their caucus would be 100% in line.

    My friend who supported Obama in the primaries (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:15:26 PM EST
    told me yesterday that he now wishes Hillary had been elected.  Said that Obama's learning curve is steeper than he anticipated.  I didn't say "I told you so."  

    Learning curve eh (none / 0) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:53:42 PM EST
    I didn't say "I told you so."

    I would have and have been.

    During the slow motion train wreck that was the 2008 primaries so many of us tried to caution them but were repeatedly insulted for our efforts.

    I still get an occasional email with the signature "Yes We Can"

    I'll keep saying I told you so until that signature vanishes.

    Parent

    Amy Klobuchar (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:26:52 PM EST
    I commented the other day how much I appreciated her positive contribution to the Sotomayor hearings. Tonight FireDogLake has an article about her great wit. I guess Minnesota has funny women as well as strong ones (and good looking men etc).

    http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/17/theres-something-about-amy/

    The thing (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by eric on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:02:07 PM EST
    about Senator Klobuchar is that she really is just a regular person, (as the Senate goes anyway).  She isn't rich and has worked her way up through politics for years.  Her family name is sort of famous here in Minnesota because her father was a long time columnist in the Minneapolis newspaper.  And while she is a lawyer (she and I actually worked at the same firm for a while), she doesn't have the wealth or entitlement like so many other Senators.  A humble Senator by any comparison.  She has impressed me greatly.

    Parent
    Don't know much (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:24:24 AM EST
    about her policy-wise, but I sure as heck like her a lot personally from what I've seen.

    Parent
    She's *very* funny! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:23:32 AM EST
    She was on some show the other day just after Franken finally won, and the host asked her if Minnesotans were pissed off and impatient about the whole mess, and she said, "Well, when you have 6-month-long winters, you don't tend to be impatient about much of anything."  She got off one entirely good-natured, friendly, but to-the-point zinger after another in the interview.  No question Minnesota is going to have the wittiest Senatorial delegation.

    Parent
    Sounds like a line (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:27:07 AM EST
    straight from Prairie Home Companion, worthy of Garrison Keillor -- except that he would tell the truth.  Their winters are eight months long.

    Parent
    That said, it has to be said (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:34:26 AM EST
    that the former prosecutor in Klobuchar tends to emerge on law-and-order issues; a true Minnesota progressive (aka populist), she is not.  See her votes on nativist anti-immigrant security bills and others that suggest to me that she and Franken will split their votes on a lot of issues, if he does live up to his progressive promises.

    Parent
    Surpise. The Rockies are already (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:28:55 PM EST
    ahead of the Padres.  Top of the 2nd.

    Segue is baseball. Here is Rickey (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    Henderson on preparing his Hall of Fame induction speech.  Should be interesting.
    "I don't know what I'm going to do. I don't think I'm a doctor or a professor," said Henderson, the all-time leader with 1,406 steals and 2,295 runs scored. "I wrote a speech. I don't know if I'm going to read it. I wrote it one way, you know, this and that. When the time comes, I'm going to do whatever feels right. There's no special way to do it. I'm going to be creative. But it's been fun. It's getting exciting."
     (Excerpt from mlb.com.)

    Parent
    He played for the Padres two different (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:53:39 PM EST
    times.  Always a scrapper and fun to read/hear his musings.

    Parent
    Mostly because (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:01:30 PM EST
    Ricky was being Ricky before anyone ever heard of Manny. In retrospect he was fun. He was always a great player but he was umm...well how do you describe someone that frames a million dollar check rather than cash it, so he can feel like a millionaire.

    I'm sure Ricky talking about himself in the third person again will be a joy to behold.

    Parent

    when's this happening?! (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:07:23 PM EST
    Ricky has always been one of my top fav players. A lil' 3rd person Ricky speak is always a good thing :)

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:12:59 PM EST
    he has grown out of 3rd person Ricky speak as he shows none of this during his Mike & Mike interview on ESPN, but he does squash and also verify some Ricky stories.

    Ricky Henderson Interview

    Parent

    Terrific. Thanks for the link. I was (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:24:09 PM EST
    hoping he would verify or trash this one:  Rickey says, how come no one ever gives me the steal sign.  So they teach him the day's signs, but he successfully steals a base in the face of a "don't steal" sign.  

    Parent
    July 26. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:13:40 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:27:48 PM EST
    Glad he's going in as an A, that's how I see him in my mind :)

    Parent
    I was hoping for a Padres cap, but (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:29:48 PM EST
    no one encouraged this hope.  Everyone sd.:  Oakland.

    Parent
    I can see why you would hope for (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:39:53 PM EST
    one :)

    I just always remember him in the A's uniform. I can't even picture him with other teams. Funny how my memory works, eh? He was always "my guy" no matter where he was. (NoCal gal at the time) He's partly why I draft Jose Reyes whenever I can for my fantasy teams.


    Parent

    My interest in baseball started in about (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:41:27 PM EST
    1995 so I have selective memory.

    Parent
    Not selective (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:43:16 PM EST
    just less historical. We welcome all newbies ;)

    Parent
    Mine started earlier (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:54:54 PM EST
    but not near as early as football (9yrs old for FB). I liked BB enough to hang with friends when the "boys" wanted to go to games etc, but got much more into it during the 80's, and especially towards the end of the 80's when I had Giants friends to hang in bleacher seats with. In the fall you could watch 49er FB on the jumbo while the game was on quite nicely from the bleachers (at Candlestick). RH was higher on my list than BB for a time. To me, he was what was good about BB. He was exciting. The first Yankee game I went to was vs Oakland when I moved here in '89/90 . . . in the bleachers, of course!

    I still have an old t-shirt from my long ago Giants days that says "I have a Giant Attitude". It was a nice graphic T. Don't see enough like that any more (style wise). Of course, wearing a Yankee's T says it all  ;)

    Parent

    Are you sure (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:59:09 PM EST
    that was Rickey Henderson?  I never knew the word "I" was in his vocabulary.

    Parent
    Steve M, how are baby Desmond (none / 0) (#17)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:01:44 PM EST
    and his big sister? Does Desmond do any tricks yet?

    Parent
    Aw (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:07:17 PM EST
    Thanks for asking!  They are doing just great.  Audrey is talking more and more although her favorite word is still "no."  Desmond has the cutest little smile and he is really good at presenting the back of the head to Daddy when he leans in for a smooch... something his big sister was skilled at as well.  My parents are in town this weekend for some quality time with the grandkids... which means an actual date night for Mommy and Daddy tomorrow!

    Parent
    Sounds like everyone in the family, (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:39:15 AM EST
    grandparents and kids and Mom and Dad are getting some quality time.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:02:02 PM EST


    Parent
    My thoughts exactly. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:12:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Never count out (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:17:32 PM EST
    the Pescados. Although hard to know who you would prefer to win, the Fish or the Phillies when the Bravos are trailing them both.

    Parent
    I'll be rooting against those Fish (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:22:32 PM EST
    here next week.  

    Parent
    "And that's the way it is" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by talesoftwokitties on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:38:29 PM EST
    Walter Cronkite RIP -

    Oh my. Jeralyn's update re Big Brother (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:26:42 PM EST
    seems to belie the theory the younger generation has, in large part, moved past bigotry and discrimination.

    Say it ain't so, Joe... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:31:24 PM EST


    Parent
    What I'm afraid of happening, is (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:07:39 PM EST
    due to lack of experience. Younger generations aren't influenced by involvement in the "equal rights" area. The big picture that some of us saw, they haven't experienced. I think there has been a shift towards being more race/ethnic/gender/preference friendly, but the understanding isn't there. And I think there does need to be understanding (and fight) from the younger gen. Everything will not be "okay" if they don't get personally involved.

    And quite frankly, I think O's "bi-partisan" message and style of "leading" hurts us even more and sends the wrong message to younger people.

    Parent

    Correction: Pls Excuse my use of (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:12:45 PM EST
    "preference". My lazy brain didn't compute it should not type that. "Orientation" pls.

    Parent
    Absolutely agreed (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:29:21 AM EST
    It's particularly painful with young women who are so scornful of the term "feminism."  Every time I hear that, I think to myself, "You'll find out."

    In most places, neither racism nor sexism are anywhere near as blatant as they were when I was growing up, so it's more insidious and harder to identify it when you run into it.

    I do think that's progress (first time I ever heard the "N" work was from a cop in my nice liberal, but mostly white, New England suburb, and that just wouldn't happen today), but it does make it harder than you think it should be to keep the progress going.  It does slow down, inevitably, when what you're fighting against is less visible and obvious.


    Parent

    Not Sure (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 08:04:03 AM EST
    I'd use the antics of participants on a 'reality show' as credible evidence of much of anything sociological except maybe what it reveals about some human hunger for that fifteen minutes in the spotlight, any spotlight. Seems to me there's a premium on these programs for people to act out outrageously.

    Having said that, I thought the argument on the other thread was that successive generations have grown up in environments where prejudice is much less tolerated so they themselves embrace and tolerate it less than earlier generations (like even mine the so called progressive sixties gen) did/does.

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#65)
    by DFLer on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    However, that model is nonetheless disseminated to a nation-wide audience.

    Parent
    When the gov't is so openly (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 09:15:55 AM EST
    prejudicial, and legislates discrimination, how does it impact the culture? The candidates run on prejudice...I WON'T support gay marriage, I WON'T support abortion, I WON'T support equal rights, I WON'T give healthcare to the poor, Do YOU want a WOMAN answering that 3:00AM phone call?! And, many voters choose their candidates based on who in this country they will continue to oppress.

    Parent
    Look out. VP Biden is going to (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:38:21 PM EST
    the Ukraine and Georgia.  See AP sidebar.

    Maybe he should challenge Valery (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:52:57 PM EST
    Gergiev, the Russian conductor, who supports S. Ossetia in the press worldwide, to a duel.  I agree the situation is tenuous and doesn't need Biden messing it up more.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:35:21 AM EST
    He's definitely not Russian, I think Georgian, but not Russian.

    And I'm sorry, but Valery Gergiev would be a big fat nothing if he were from some less exotic place.  He's a perfectly adequate conductor most of the time, but so are 10,000 other people in the world.

    OK, got that off my chest.

    Biden is an idiot and a loose cannon, and I cannot fathom why Obama would let him go off to delicate places like this without adult supervision.  Maybe he's got a tough minder with him from the White House.  Let's hope so.  HIs last expedition on the Georgia situation produced very dangerous and stupid commentary from him.

    Parent

    Watch it. I am a Gergiev groupy. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 09:37:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Feel free (none / 0) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 09:17:50 PM EST
    He's a colorful character.  Just not a particularly good conductor, IMHO.  Lenny was flamboyant and colorful, but he also knew his stuff right to the core. Not so Gergiev, sorry to say.

    Parent
    Hot dog! (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:20:28 AM EST
    Today's weirdest news story: Homeowners who sure don't "wish they could be an Oscar Mayer wieners," as the ad jingle goes.  They just wish the Oscar Mayer wieniemobile driver had gone into reverse, instead of going right into their house.  Story and photos here.

    And as the story says, there are five other giant hot dogs on wheels on the road -- and, as the story does not warn you, all are driven by young drivers.  It's actually a college internship.  I've always wondered whether the students really put that on their resumes.

    This beats the previous wieniemobile story of yore, just a few years ago, when one of the young drivers was in the Chicago Loop at rush hour and decided to pull over to stop and see a friend working there.  So said young driver parked the big dawg across several spaces -- illegally.  In Chicago's rush hour.  The Chi Trib had a great photo of one of it's city's finest ticketing a wiener . . . and the headline was priceless.

    CATO Think Tank (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 12:22:25 AM EST
    On health care wingnut style:

    The plan (see PDF) is to eliminate employee health benefit insurance and all government health care support, and throw everyone into the private insurance market. Insurance companies would be allowed to risk-rate premiums, so that as people got older and/or sicker their premiums would go up.

    However, Cato says, this doesn't have to be a problem. The solution is ... wait for it ... insurance insurance. They call it "health status insurance," but essentially it's insurance insurance. It's a separate policy you take that will insure you against catastrophic increases in your health insurance.

    I'm not kidding. That's the brilliant plan.

    Maha via digby

    Friday Night Open Thread | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment