TampaYankee

If this Health Care legislation passes then it will have to be revisited sooner better than later. At the risk of being accused of understatement, the present legislation is suboptimal. In fact some parts of it are just plain crazy. Unfortunately, this happens when there is lack of broad congressional support for the basic legislation purpose. That concentrates unusual power in the hands of a few critical politicians or in troublesome special interests. That is the nature of American politics.

Unfortunately, more than a few will fall for this scam. I take it that you signed up for the 7 day trial? Please let us know if they let it expire gracefully or if somehow you manage to get on a recurring billing plan.

Another article in a similar vein... http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20091224_5120.php The Left's Fatal Abstraction Critics Of Health Reform On Obama's Left Have Largely Focused On Symbolic Issues by Ronald Brownstein Thursday, Dec. 24, 2009 With the Senate's passage Thursday morning of sweeping health care reform, President Obama took another giant step toward the biggest legislative achievement for any Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson muscled Medicare into law in 1965. Comprehensive health care reform has defeated every president who has pursued it, from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton. But, even with some hurdles remaining, Obama is now on track to sign legislation early next year moving the U.S. toward universal coverage. Though the bill bears all the scars and imperfections of its arduous advance, it's likely to stand as the signal domestic accomplishment of his presidency, even if he serves two terms. And so, naturally, the reaction of the most visible component of the Democratic base has been to link arms with congressional Republicans and the conservative grassroots to insist that the bill be killed. Even as conservatives denounce the bill as an ominous extension of government's reach, leading lights of the Internet-based digital left like Howard Dean, MoveOn.org, Markos Moulitsas and Arianna Huffington are portraying it as a Christmas gift to special interests. One side sees a socialist taking America on a sleigh ride toward Sweden; the other a sell-out surrendering to big business and reactionary "ConservaDems." Who says no good deed goes unpunished? The new Internet-based left, because it is so heavily reliant on college-educated whites generally less exposed to the economy's storms, has a blind spot on kitchen table issues. The right's fury is easy to understand. It has opposed universal coverage for generations both on policy (excessive federal intrusion into the marketplace) and political grounds. Though conservatives are now confidently predicting a short-term backlash against the legislation, the right's shrewdest strategists have long worried that if government-guaranteed health care ever takes root, Americans would become more inclined to look to Washington for economic security, which would weaken conservative anti-government arguments. The left's outrage is more puzzling. The bill has been wrenched by many compromises. But it imposes on the insurance industry tough rules long sought by liberals, including a ban on the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Once fully phased in, it would spend nearly $200 billion annually to help more than 30 million uninsured Americans obtain coverage. Yet it squeezes enough savings from inefficiencies in current health spending that the Congressional Budget Office projects it will reduce the federal deficit in the near- and long-term, and the independent Medicare Actuary calculates that it will vastly extend coverage while increasing total national health care spending (by business, government and individuals) by less than a penny on the dollar through 2019. And it advances almost all the ideas that cutting-edge reformers consider essential to slowing long-term cost growth by nudging the medical system away from fee-for-service medicine toward approaches that more closely tie provider compensation to results for patients. Against all that, the aggrieved left has mostly focused on two concessions made to centrist Senate Democrats: restrictions on abortion coverage and the abandonment of a public competitor to private insurers. But each is a largely symbolic dispute: There's little evidence the legislation would seriously constrain access to abortion, and the CBO has estimated that only about 6 million people would choose a public option. (It was equally irresponsible for the Senate centrists to threaten to sink the bill over such tangential provisions.) Even political scientist Jacob Hacker, widely considered the father of the public option, wrote this week that it "would be wrong" to derail the bill because it still contains "vital reforms." In some respects, the left's discontent may be unavoidable. Perpetual dissatisfaction is the nature, and arguably the role, of activists. It's easy to forget that not only did liberals issue similar complaints about Clinton, but conservatives like Newt Gingrich groused that Ronald Reagan cut too many deals with Democrats. The new Internet-based left, because it is so heavily reliant on college-educated whites generally less exposed to the economy's storms, also has a blind spot on kitchen table issues. According to the Census Bureau, just 6 percent of college-educated whites lack health insurance, for instance, compared to 19 percent of African-Americans and 31 percent of Hispanics. But the idea that Democrats should just press restart after the grueling struggle to reach this point carries an air of fatal abstraction: If health reform fails now, the next chance for big change probably wouldn't come for years, if not decades. "The universal rule of health care -- there are no exceptions -- is you get what you can," says Brown University political scientist James Morone, co-author of The Heart of Power, a recent history of health care politics. Still, the left is raising one legitimate concern: the risk that Republicans will seize on the deals the White House cut to secure support from individual senators or key constituencies like drug manufacturers "to rebrand Obama and the Democrats as the party beholden to special interests," as Huffington wrote. The left's prescription for that problem -- junk the health care bill -- is batty, but that doesn't mean its diagnosis is wrong. With a populist wave building against all large institutions, Obama could find himself deluged if he doesn't learn to surf. The president's strategy of enveloping potential opponents has brought him to the brink of an historic health care victory. But if Obama is to keep his head above water next year as he moves to issues like financial regulation and climate change, he may need to tilt his dial from conciliation toward greater confrontation with the powerful interests blocking his way.

It is time to take our profits and plan to reinvest in further health improvements in 2011. The present bills are so flawed, and practically speaking there is so little flexibility in the Senate Bill if passage of any bill is to be gained, that I favor bypassing the Conference Process and urge the House to accept the Senate Bill as written. My reasons are given below. I'm very disappointed with the Senate bill, less disappointed with the House bill but disappointed nevertheless. I believe that single-payer is the best way to achieve universal coverage and cost restraint, although I am leery of bureaucrats and politicians running anything. However, the insurance industry has shown that they too are unable to meet the health care needs of the nation -- the reason being that really is not their mission only the vehicle to their mission: profits. Health Care was my second priority in securing a Democratic victory in the last election, Supreme Court appointments being the first. I am bitterly disappointed with the political process that has achieved the results to date although not suprised. Also I am bitterly disappointed with the results achieved. I was willing to compromise away single-payer in favor of a robust public option, recognzing the political realities. I was disappointed when that option was weakened to make it limited to only the few who fit the narrow constraint for participation. I was demoralized when it became clear that this could not gain 60 votes. I was elated when Medicare Buy-In was offered as an alternative -- a much better option than the anemic public option IMO. I was futher elated with the ascension of the drug reimportation ammendment. Both crashed and burned at the alters of special-interest politics and senatorial ego. I was bitter at the final result and wondered why bother to proceed. Sure, there still are some very important advances gained -- extended coverage with subsidies for those who need them, end of recission and pre-existing conditions exlcusion, both very important reforms. Will this fatten the insurance companies? Undoubtedly, and that burns me. Maybe the Medical Loss Ratio will curb the insurance companies unabashed milking of the premium payers. One can hope. Surely they will work to game the system to their advantage. Yet, taking the long view of what has been gained and the fact that social improvements in the fabric of our nation have been few and far between, and in recognition that such advancements are seldom made in the absence of convulsive events, I'm prepared to settle for what we can get while we can get it and then work to improve what is a deeply flawed bill. In the Wall St vernacular, if we don't take our profits now in the hope that the market will go higher we stand to loose what has been gained. Loss of the extended coverage with subsidies, end of preconditions and recissions, imposition of premium allocation to medical care constraints and real curb in cost growth are too important to lose. Better to cement the gains and incrementally build more than to always hope to hit the jackpot or bust. If we fail now I believe we won't revisit this again until we are driven to by a convulsive event, likely the widespread failure of the national insurance/medical system or failure to gain control of our budget with attendant rampant inflation and demands for massive reduction in spending with deep cuts in medicare, medicaid, and social security -- which plays right into the GOP/Conservative Right Wing playbook. Make no mistake, notwithstanding what some progressives think, failure to act will not increase Democrats in Congress in the midterm election. There will be no tidal wave of public rage to unseat those against single-payer or public option. Just because polls indicate that so many people are unhappy with the present bills does not mean that they aagree on the same alternative -- both extremes hate the bills. The Red States will still be Red, Purple may turn more reddish too. The Dems in Congress are at their high water mark right now. They will lose seats in both houses. There will be no moderate Republican tidal wave sweeping into office to change the complexion of the opposition. It is very unclear that all losses will be restored in the next presidential election, nor is it clear that Obama will be reelected in 2012. If the Dems recover and thrive in 2012 it will be time to revisit a public option or extending Medicare below 55 in addition and to instituting better ways to pay for Health Care. Thus it is time to take our profits and plan to reinvest in further health improvements in 2011. I suspect the lowest hanging fruit at that time will be drug reimportation. That might even be achievable next year. Some in the GOP seem ready and willing to embrace that. I would like to see medicare buy-in revisited too. As the benefits of the new health care are embraced and fear of change subsides, the next round of advancements will come easier hopefully. There is something to be said for evolution over revolution, escpecially when one-step revolution is demonstrated to have little chance of success without a convulsive event as catalyst. Even in those cases change was limited and evolved over time to the programs we have today. Finally, IMO the present bills are so flawed, and practically speaking there is so little flexibility in the Senate Bill if passage of any bill is to be gained, that I favor bypassing the Conference Process and urge the House to accept the Senate Bill as written. What little in the way of improvements to be gained realistically from the House Bill does not warrant putting the important Health Care advances at risk of another tap dance in the Senate. The GOP knives are still out, the intransigent Dems are not going to be shamed into 'doing the right thing' or have a change of heart or be bullied into compliance at the threat of being accused of killing Health Reform. That would have already happened if it were a possibility. This has already become a painful and bloody process spilling over into an election year. Why put everything at risk AGAIN for what few minor improvements might be achievable. The Risk/Reward ratio just isn't there. We should take the profits we have and come back in 2011. I hope the progressives are smart enough to see the glass half-full so that we can cement progress and move to the next level. Progressives have a demonstrated history of shooting themselves in the foot going back to Ted Kennedy shooting down Nixon's health care reform, which Ted came to dearly regret, for decades. I came across the article referenced in the top level post which describes some of the more recent history of prgressives failing to take the glass-half-full view. Maybe they won't make the same mistake again. I'm not convinced they won't. Their way or the highway has usually led to the highway. Finally, the Progressives ought to be more than willing to lend at least half-hearted support of this advancement if for no other reason that GOP belief that such an advancement will fundamentally change the GOP's ability to influence the government as they desire, going forward. The GOP Holy Grail is to pare back our government to a Treasury Department, Secretary of State, and War Department, with a presiding executive who oversees day-to-day governmental operations and acts as Commander-in-Chief when necessary. They see a popular national Health Care program as the death knell to any future influence to achieve their aims. With popular national health care, Social Security and Defense taking up to 90% of the budget, it doesn't leave them much to take a meat ax to. They would be consigned to tikering at the edges of government, denying the quest for the Holy Grail. History shows that it is very difficult if not impossible to take away from the people those programs that enjoy widespread popularity. Even deep-pocket lobbyists have a hard time swimming against a populary supported stream. This could have been a lot shorter. Sadly, I dont have enough time to devote to that refinement.

Why the health care bill is the greatest social achievement of our time. Food for thought. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/just-noise

Not the only case, sadly. Referred to tech team for resolution.

Just one more big chink in the armor of the idea of diverting part or all of social security savings into the stock market, an idea I strongly favored a decade ago. After seeing the investment industry meltdown in the last 15 months, the apparent causes that lay in the Wall Street culture of unadulterated and to this day unabated greed, in the inability of, or lack of desire for, Congress and the regulators to protect the integrity of the investment community, and in apparent continued lack of desire for the community to police itself, and the lack of resolve for Congress and the Treasurey to clean up the Too Big Too Fail phenomenon and further potential for Wall Street abuses, I will never support the privatization of a government mandated retirement program. If the government is going to mandate a retirement program, i.e social security, (which I strongly support) then I demand that the Full Faith and Credit of the United States Government underwrite that mandated investment. I might feel different if we had sane goverment safety controls in place like Glass Steagall. But as long as Wall Street and the Bankers own Congress and have their alumni running the Treasury, I'll pass on any privatization attempts. Too bad, because on paper and in a well-regulated market world, partial privatization offered some real potential benefit. I'm sorry that my private retirement investments are left to the whimsey of the corrupt market. As long as Wall St is allowed to run free I would divest my investments in favor of more conservative vehicles. Unfortunately, contractual obligations don't permit me that lattitude.

Notwithstanding Robert Downey Jr., based on the trailers, my cup of tea seems to be Sherlock Holmes. I love the art direction, the costumes, the cinematography -- captures the rich setting of Holmes' London. The first reviews are great too! http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2009/12/15/sherlock-holmes-movie-reviews/ 'Sherlock Holmes' Movie Reviews December 15, 2009 | By: Sharon KnolleComments The first reviews are in for Guy Ritchie's 'Sherlock Holmes' (which doesn't hit theaters until Christmas Day -- or, if you're in the U.K., Boxing Day), and critics agree that Robert Downey, Jr. makes for a dashing Victorian sleuth ... although Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle would be hard-pressed to recognize his most famous creation. "He turns the venerable deerstalker-capped and becaped figure into a gym-toned, half-deranged Holmes unlike any seen before," Variety says, adding, "Distractingly, for the time period, he sports a wild-haired, stubbled look that makes him resemble Al Pacino's kid brother." Another British paper compares this mussy-haired, fight-clubbing Holmes to "a rock-and-roll roué resembling a young Keith Richards." The pairing of Jude Law's Watson with Holmes is mostly receiving raves, with The Times UK declaring, it's a "career-best" performance from Law. The Hollywood Reporter, however, feels that Downey and Law are so alike physically and temperamentally, that Downey need only only hand over Holmes' iconic pipe to trade roles. Read on to see what else critics are saying about 'Sherlock Holmes.' Variety: "A good number of Robert Downey Jr.'s 'Iron Man' fans will likely follow him here, as he turns the venerable deerstalker-capped and becaped figure into a gym-toned, half-deranged Holmes unlike any seen before. Although Downey's recent ascent to action-blockbuster topliner defines the nature of this new Holmes, the thesp's essential identity as a resourceful and vigorous character actor asserts itself up to a point. Distractingly, for the time period, he sports a wild-haired, stubbled look that makes him resemble Al Pacino's kid brother, and there are times when his well-accented Britspeak reaches such basso depths that his dialogue can't be fully understood. Ritchie has never worked on a scale anything approaching this before and, while some of the directorial affectations are distracting, he keeps the action humming." The Hollywood Reporter: "Credit action uber-producer Joel Silver for recognizing that the only way to revive Sherlock Holmes for contemporary audiences is by turning him into Jason Bourne and hiring someone like Ritchie to overload the senses with chases, fights, effects, editing, bombastic noise and music ... Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law certainly don't fit previous castings, which is fine, only they're a little too much alike ... If Downey would hand his pipe to Law, they could switch roles from scene to scene ... Rachel McAdams and Kelly Reilly do well with thinly written roles, delivering enough energy and wit to give their few scenes a spark. Mark Strong makes a menacing presence -- something like a Bond villain, two dimensional yet memorable -- and Eddie Marsan has fun with Holmes' long-suffering Scotland Yard counterpart, Inspector Lestrade. More 'Sherlock Holmes' reviews from RottenTomatoes The Guardian (UK): "High-end hack work. It could have been made by anyone ... Good news for those Holmes purists appalled by the prospect of literature's most cerebral sleuth getting a geezer makeover, but bad news for the rest of us: 'Sherlock Holmes' isn't even a magnificent mistake. It's just a film that makes you hanker after Ritchie's back catalogue. Holmes is played with boggle-eyed haminess by Robert Downey Jr while Jude Law is Watson – inspired casting at first glance: his weirdly boring aura superficially lending itself to the role. But they're both a pain: the former a cartoon with darting eyes rather than a brain, the latter just a blank. .. At least in the past Ritchie knew what he was making, even it wasn't always much good. This muddle of genres reflects a collapse of confidence in his ability to deliver anything." The Times (UK): "Downey Jr. is terrific as the troubled eccentric Holmes. It's an ideal role for him and testament to his seemingly effortless ability that he eradicates the deerstalker and pipe image almost instantly. The surprise, though, is that Ritchie draws a career-best performance from Law ... However, a pleasing double act cannot carry an overlong film. After the botched jobs of 'Revolver' and 'RocknRolla' it is a relief to see Ritchie directing someone else's script. Sadly, it's not a very good one, ill advisedly building a bespoke Holmes story from scratch and coming up instead with Scooby Doo." The Telegraph (UK): "Guy Ritchie has spent a reported $80 million on refashioning Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes and Watson with verve, panache and, for him, relative restraint. It is undeniably a rollicking romp, an all-action blockbuster – but it could have gone a lot further over the top. Doubts about the casting of Downey in the title role are dispelled from the start. He is engaging and convincing within the role (the accent is spot-on), although whether this is a character Conan Doyle might have recognized is another matter. Ritchie has turned Holmes into a rock-and-roll roué resembling a young Keith Richards ... The pace rarely slackens throughout, the set pieces are explosive, the score relentlessly thunderous."

Can't speak to the stand-up you mention but I was impressed with Downey in the TV trailer -- shirtless in bed handcuffed to the posts. Hunky! Much more so than I would have suspected. Based on that shot, I'd do him. Speaking of hunks, I was very surprised to see the muscle Matt Damon put on for Invictus.

um..... no. IMO it's pretty much a generational thing although there are exceptions, eg. old fart bikers and their mamas to name one. I could imagine you as a biker except for the fact that they dont make side cars that accommodate a gaggle of twinks. The generational spillover is larger than that by far but still a definite minority I suspect. I think it is gross to see the middle-aged women on Houswives of .... sporting their cute little tatoos, although the whole show is nausious in the extreme. For my generation, it was beards. I grew my second beard at age 21 and kept it for 35 years, much to my mother's disappointment. She always remarked that I reminded her of the old men when she was a young girl. Each generation always finds some way to distinguish themselves from their parents generation. I suspect the pendulum will swing back in time.

'Up In The Air' Leads Golden Globe Nominations. See Golden Globe thread for details.

'Up In The Air' Leads Golden Globe Nominations DAVID GERMAIN | 12/15/09 03:21 PM | AP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/up-in-the-air-leads-golde_n_392389.html BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. "Up in the Air" landed at just the right time, emerging as a potential Academy Awards favorite with themes of job loss and economic calamity that offer a heartbreaking yet hilarious reflection of these hard times. The film grabbed a leading six Golden Globe nominations Tuesday, including best drama, plus directing and screenplay honors for Jason Reitman. George Clooney earned a best dramatic actor slot as a frequent-flyer junkie traveling the country in first-class seats and premium car rentals as he fires the rank-and-file at downsizing companies. "We just got a little lucky. Jason's been writing this movie for like six or seven years now and it only really came about right at this moment, and he kind of adapted the screenplay to fit the times," said Anna Kendrick, a supporting-actress nominee as a bright young efficiency expert whose innovations threaten the livelihood of Clooney's character. "I think it's a better movie for that." Kendrick's competition includes "Up in the Air" co-star Vera Farmiga, who earned a supporting-actress honor as Clooney's frequent-flyer dream woman. Other drama picks were the space fantasy "Avatar," the Iraq War tale "The Hurt Locker," the World War II saga "Inglourious Basterds" and the Harlem teen story "Precious: Based on the Novel `Push' by Sapphire." The musical "Nine" ran second with five nominations, including best musical or comedy and acting slots for Daniel Day-Lewis, Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard. Also competing for musical or comedy are the romance "(500) Days of Summer," the bachelor-party bash "The Hangover" and two Meryl Streep films, "It's Complicated" and "Julie & Julia." Hollywood's second biggest film honors after the Academy Awards, the Globes are a key ceremony that sort out the prospects leading up to the Oscar nominations Feb. 2. The 67th annual Globes will be handed out Jan. 17, six days before voting closes for the Oscar nominations. There will be room for more films this time at the Oscars, whose best-picture category has been doubled from five to 10 nominees. Oscar organizers hope the expanded field will open best-picture honors up to a broader mix of movies. Three film contenders had two Globe nominations each: Streep, competing against herself for musical or comedy actress in the Julia Child tale "Julie & Julia" and the romance "It's Complicated"; Sandra Bullock, nominated as dramatic actress in the football story "The Blind Side" and musical or comedy actress for the romance "The Proposal"; and Matt Damon as musical or comedy actor for the whistleblower satire "The Informant!" and supporting actor for the South African rugby drama "Invictus." Among television categories, nominations for drama series went to HBO's "Big Love," Showtime's "Dexter," Fox's "House," AMC's "Mad Men" and HBO's "True Blood." Musical or comedy series slots went to NBC's "30 Rock," HBO's "Entourage," Fox's "Glee," ABC's "Modern Family" and NBC's "The Office." "Up in the Air" has had a glowing reception from critics and awards watchers since it debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, where Reitman also premiered his two earlier features, "Thank You for Smoking" and "Juno." Audiences have crowded theaters for the film, which so far has been playing in limited release before it expands nationwide on Christmas Day. Though it has plenty of heavy moments, "Up in the Air" generally had been considered a comedy, and distributor Paramount submitted it for the Globes' musical or comedy categories. The movie's serious side clearly resonated with Hollywood Foreign Press Association members who hand out the Globes, since they designated it as a drama. The notion of what's a comedy or musical and what's a drama often gets fuzzy. Fox Searchlight submitted the country-music tale "Crazy Heart" as a musical because of its wall-to-wall tunes, yet it wound up nabbing Jeff Bridges a nomination for best dramatic actor. Robert Downey Jr. scored a nomination for musical or comedy actor in the title role of "Sherlock Holmes," which has a lot of humor but is mainly an action thriller. "Up in the Air" is based on the novel by Walter Kirn, published in 2001, months before the loose and easy air travel the book depicts was changed forever by security clampdowns after the Sept. 11 attacks. The novel also came years before the recession. Reitman started working on his big-screen adaptation six years ago, giving it a lighter touch for the flush times back then. As the economy tanked, the film took on a weightier tone. Reitman incorporated today's prevailing employment insecurity and shot segments with real people who had lost their jobs, their painful remarks and recollections woven throughout the narrative. Reitman's father "Ghostbusters" director Ivan Reitman, who was a producer on "Up in the Air" said the film reflects not only the financial crisis, but also the way modern times alienate people from personal interaction. Clooney's Ryan Bingham revels in his solitary traveling life, a master of the angles to build his flyer account toward a lofty but ultimately meaningless goal of 10 million miles. Yet he's a man who has left his human connections on the ground. "It seems sort of very apt," Ivan Reitman said. "The way we keep isolating ourselves more behind technology, behind getting trapped in a kind of loneliness that seems unique for our times." Also finding favor were films with war-on-terror themes, which previously had made little impact with audiences, critics or awards voters. Along with its best-drama nomination, the Iraq story "The Hurt Locker" earned Kathryn Bigelow a directing slot and Mark Boal a screenplay nomination. "Brothers," combining action at home and in Afghanistan, had a best-actor nomination for Tobey Maguire and a song nomination, while the homefront war tale "The Messenger" picked up a supporting-actor honor for Woody Harrelson. In "Brothers," Maguire plays a soldier suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after fighting in Afghanistan. "I did the movie largely to explore this arena and shed a light on a subject that could use some light shed on it," Maguire said. "We're responsible for this, in its entirety, as a society." Set among a three-man unit that defuses bombs in Iraq, "The Hurt Locker" helps put the abstractions of the war into real terms for viewers, Bigelow said. "For those of us who have never been to the front lines or perhaps are never going to go, I think it unpacks it a bit," Bigelow said. For Bigelow, the Globe attention also has a more personal connection: She's competing for best director against ex-husband James Cameron, nominated for "Avatar." "Very interesting," Bigelow said. "It's very curious." ___ AP Entertainment writers Sandy Cohen, Derrik Lang and Jake Coyle and AP writer John Rogers contributed to this report.

I disagree. I believe they sought to give us a less despotic government than was the norm for the times. In that they did succeed. The cost was in sacrificing more 'effective' government. But that also fit nicely into the philosophy of many founding fathers and many of the governed. In those times 'effective government' was seen as effective for the few. Not an inaccurate assessment for the times. More effective government has evolved slowly in fits and starts along two lines: one to benefit social fabric of the country and the other to benefit commerce fabric of the country. The social activists among the founders were the anti-slavery contingent concentrated mostly in the North. The commerce activists of the times were the pro-slavery contingent mostly in the South but supported, at least implicitly, by strong business interests in the North. Over the long run the commerce activists have had the upper hand as power, i.e. money, is concentrated in that sector. Improvements in the social structure are more tied to convulsive events: Civil War, Workers Rights and The American Labor Movement, The Great Depression, Civil Rights unrest in the 60s. It's arguable whether Medicare would have passed without the concurrent civil rights social upheaval that primed much of the country to awaken a broad based social conscience. That tension continues between those sectors as seen in the strong pro-commerce Bush II years and today in the Health Care drama.

LAS VEGAS — The owner of a brothel more than two hours' drive from Las Vegas said she hopes to hire Nevada's first legal male prostitutes within a month, now that state health officials have approved a method to test men for infectious diseases. George Flint, a minister-turned-lobbyist, is up in arms over the idea. Flint, a Reno wedding chapel owner and longtime lobbyist for the Nevada Brothel Owners Association, said he feared the idea of male prostitutes serving male clients could spur a legislative backlash. He said he works to make the brothel industry socially acceptable to both libertarians and conservatives. He called the change the "Pearl Harbor" of the brothel industry. For full article see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/george-flint-nevada-broth_n_391213.html

The party is over in Rhode Island. The legal loop hole that permitted legal prostitution indoors has now been closed by the Legislature. Excerpted from the full article... Rhode Island State Police said they’ve arrested 14 people for prostitution-related crimes since a new law went into effect that banned indoor prostitution, including a man who plays the New England Patriots’ mascot. ... ... A bill signed into law in November made prostitution a misdemeanor crime regardless of where it occurs. Previously, indoor prostitution was allowed in Rhode Island because of a legal loophole inadvertently introduced by the legislature in 1980. For the full article... http://www2.turnto10.com/jar/news/local/article/police_arrest_14_since_anti-prostitution_law_enacted/28157/#When:22:17:08Z

I agree, you don't impeach for hypocracy. We'd be up to our ass in impeachments from all directions at all levels of government. I'm satisified that just one more Family-Values/fiscal-conservative hypocrit has been neutered. Interesting how many political high flyers of both stripes bite the dust. However, my contempt is reserved for the hypocrits among them. Most of them seem to be right wing Conservatives. Just sayin...

Surprise, surprise! I am and long have been convinced that this 'wisdom' is actually a learned response fostered by Judaeo-Christian western culture. I think most objective anthropologists, modern and historical would support that view. Look back to ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyption societies or to earlier Asian and Pacific Islander societies. Truth is, in early European and Mideast societies, marriage was grounded in political alliances, large and small, and in procreation. That is the well-spring of 'women as chattel' perspective. Ain't that the truth.

The number is up to seven now. Tiger Woods' Reported SEVENTH Mistress Is A Porn Star http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/holly-sampson-pictures-ph_n_382242.html I'm coming to admire Tiger very much. Not for his infidelities, but for his gargantuan appetite and his stamina to feed it. Truly an example worthy of notice. Why did this man ever want to get married? He had to be aware of his apetite at the time. Now he has some sticky and unnecessary complications.

And now this... Mindy Lawton, Tiger Woods' Alleged Mistress: Tiger Is 'Very Well Endowed' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/mindy-lawton-tiger-woods_n_381573.html Mindy Lawton, a 34-year-old waitress, claims to have had a year-long affair with Tiger Woods filled with regular sex in a range of locations. The Daily Mail writes that the pair met in the summer of 2006 at a diner where Lawton worked. According to Lawton, Woods is quite the lover. He is "very well endowed" and "knows his way around the bedroom. On a scale of ten I would give him 12," she tells News of the World. Lawton's sister, Lynn, adds that Mindy described their sex as "extremely good." Woods was fond of sleeping with her in numerous locations -- from parking lots to the shower to the garage -- but the golfer refused to have sex in his bedroom. Lawton also says that Woods has a particular passion for the color red, which he is known to wear on Sundays at golf tournaments. But according to Lawton, that isn't the only place he enjoys the color: "His favourite [underwear] were my red panties with black lace. He had a thing about red and said he always wore it on Friday as that was his mother's favourite colour." Both articles also reference Woods' penchant for sending steamy text messages. One claimed he was "dreaming of being inside of her," according to Lynn Lawton. This claim would fit with the alleged text messages he sent another purported mistress, Jaimee Grubbs. Check out both the Daily Mail and News of the World for more details. ---------- For those who want more... http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk//news/article-1233559/Tiger-Woods-8-hour-diner-waitress-deal-kept-affair-news.html http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/631528/Tiger-had-me-in-the-rough-Mindy-Lawtons-frantic-sex-with-Tiger-Woods.html Looks like Tiger deserves his name.

Funny that you should muse along this line... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/tiger-woods-dream-derek-j_n_380697.html Tiger Woods' Dream: Sex Romp With Derek Jeter, David Boreanaz And Rachel Uchitel, Report Says UsMagazine.com describes an erotic dream that Tiger Woods reportedly sent Rachel Uchitel, one of his alleged mistresses. According to the web site, Woods told Uchitel in an email that he envisioned her having sex with Derek Jeter and Bones star David Boreanaz at the same time. The juicy email describes his fantasy in lurid detail: "I had a dream we were married and I was leading the tournament," Woods reportedly wrote. "I came home, excited to see you, and there you were in the bedroom getting f--ked by Derek and David [boreanaz]. Some part of me thinks you would like that." See link for complete post. Maybe not a gay relationship but at least it seems he might like to watch. Who knew?

Not suprising. I don't blame them. He broke a confidence that, whether or not it should, causes them a lot of unnecessary grief from segements of the public, more importantly from the FCC probably and most importantly from advertisers. It was a mistake on his part if he really wanted these types of gigs. If not then no big deal. It wasn't that he was unaware of potential blowback with the Janet Jackson history. Chalk it up to youthful poor judgement.

Andrew Sullivan: I'm Breaking From The Right And now Andrew Sullivan speaks his mind. While not exactly a card carrying American Right Wing Conservative he has a long-term conservative bent but far from a rigid ideologue. Nevertheless, he is not to be dismissed as any liberal or progressive. Thus his comments on the present American Conservative Movement warrant notice. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/leaving-the-right.html 01 Dec 2009 12:31 pm Leaving the Right It's an odd formulation in some ways as "the right" is not really a single entity. But in so far as it means the dominant mode of discourse among the institutions and blogs and magazines and newspapers and journals that support the GOP, Charles Johnson is absolutely right in my view to get off that wagon for the reasons has has stated. Read his testament. It is full of emotion, but also of honesty. The relationship of a writer to a party or movement is, of course, open to discussion. I understand the point that Jonah Goldberg makes that politics is not about pure intellectual individualism; it requires understanding power, its organization and the actual choices that real politics demands. You can hold certain principles inviolate and yet also be prepared to back politicians or administrations that violate them because it's better than the actual alternatives at hand. I also understand the emotional need to have a default party position, other things being equal. But there has to come a point at which a movement or party so abandons core principles or degenerates into such a rhetorical septic system that you have to take a stand. It seems to me that now is a critical time for more people whose principles lie broadly on the center-right to do so - against the conservative degeneracy in front of us. Those who have taken such a stand - to one degree or other - demand respect. And this blog, while maintaining its resistance to cliquishness, has been glad to link to writers as varied as Bruce Bartlett or David Frum or David Brooks or Steve Chapman or Kathleen Parker or Conor Friedersdorf or Jim Manzi or Jeffrey Hart or Daniel Larison who have broken ranks in some way or other. I can't claim the same courage as these folks because I've always been fickle in partisan terms. To have supported Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Dole and Bush and Kerry and Obama suggests I never had a party to quit. I think that may be because I wasn't born here. I have no deep loyalty to either American party in my bones or family or background, and admire presidents from both parties. My partisanship remains solely British - I'm a loyal Tory. But my attachment to the Anglo-American conservative political tradition, as I understand it, is real and deep and the result of sincere reflection on the world as I see it. And I want that tradition to survive because I believe it is a vital complement to liberalism in sustaining the genius and wonder of the modern West. For these reasons, I found it intolerable after 2003 to support the movement that goes by the name "conservative" in America. I still do, even though I am much more of a limited government type than almost any Democrat and cannot bring myself to call myself a liberal (because I'm not). My reasons were not dissimilar to Charles Johnson, who, like me, was horrified by 9/11, loathes Jihadism, and wants to defeat it as effectively as possible. And his little manifesto prompts me to write my own (the full version is in "The Conservative Soul"). Here goes: I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law. I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt. I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government's minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008. I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value. I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power. I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful. I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation. I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government. I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs. I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism. I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families. I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact. I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy. I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending. I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck. I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations. Does this make me a "radical leftist" as Michelle Malkin would say? Emphatically not. But it sure disqualifies me from the current American right. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the conservative movement. It left me. And increasingly, I'm not alone.

I agree that he, with that populist bent, had a certain appeal to me early on in the GOP Primary. However, once he got on the religious bandwagon with remarks like we should govern according to the gospel over the Constitution and that he didn't beleive in evolution that pretty much did it for me. I have no problem with people practicing religion in their everyday lives. I drawn the line when they desire to govern a diverse nation according to their brand of religion. Also, I can never see myself voting for anybody that denies The Theory of Evolution as scientific fact. What other obvious objective facts that don't fit with their prejudices will they choose to deny when deciding what is best for the nation both domestically and internationally? In a democracy there is room for differences of opinion on policy but not on facts established by rational processes. Not in my opinion.

Screw the celebrity, I hope she is enjoying the money. I suspect she finds the celebrity a burden based on past stories.

Rupert Everett's Advice To Gay Actors: Stay In The Closet http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/rupert-everetts-advice-to_n_377010.html Rupert Everett has been openly gay since he came out 20 years ago, but he doesn't recommend that route for other actors. "It's not that advisable to be honest. It's not very easy," he told UK's Guardian. "And, honestly, I would not advise any actor necessarily, if he was really thinking of his career, to come out." At 50, the 'My Best Friend's Wedding' star says that homophobia in Hollywood has kept him from becoming a leading man. He says that heterosexuals are cast as gays (pointing to 'Brokeback Mountain' and 'Transamerica') but gay men are denied the plum straight roles and often reduced to drag. "The fact is that you could not be, and still cannot be, a 25-year-old homosexual trying to make it in the British film business or the American film business or even the Italian film business," he said. "It just doesn't work and you're going to hit a brick wall at some point. You're going to manage to make it roll for a certain amount of time, but at the first sign of failure they'll cut you right off. And I'm sick of saying, 'Yes, it's probably my own fault.' Because I've always tried to make it work and when it stops working somewhere, I try to make it work somewhere else. But the fact of the matter is, and I don't care who disagrees, it doesn't work if you're gay." Everett does admit that his openness about his sexuality has afforded him personal happiness if not professional success. He's glad he's not one of the "plenty" of gay Hollywood stars still stuck in the closet. "I think, all in all, I'm probably much happier than they are," he said. "I may not be as rich or successful, but at least I'm vaguely free to be myself." The outspoken actor has never been one to shy away from controversy. He previously said that President Obama has "gone black" and talked about Graydon Carter's "monster cock." You can read the whole Guardian interview here.