TampaYankee

You gotta be kidding. They all scare me. As for Santorum getting a pass on abortion from the moderates -- maybe. But he won't from women on birth control. 98% of women support birth control and most have used it. Abortion does not touch their lives and their daughters anywhere like contraception does. Surprisingly and stupidly all of the candidates are picking up that smoldering turd up and spouting nurturing words to it. If they persist then it will burn the GOP badly with women. (This will be another reason why the base will be disillusioned in the general election. Those nurturing words will be thrown overboard with that issue down the road, unless of course it is Santorum.) Mitt is even more of a lightweight that I ever imagined. Severely conservative -- my ass. I saw him operate in Mass. The real reason behind Romney Care? He thought it would be a feather in his cap when courting the Presidential Nomination and general Election. He waited until the last year of his term to move it. He never made a big campaign issue out of it or pinned it as his raison d'etre. His healthcare plan just sort of appeared out of thin air on the agenda towards the end. He hung it on prior GOP healthcare principles like 'the mandate' and 'exchanges' made up of insurance companies. He thought it would make him the great GOP visionary of the new Century -- showing how to use Republican ideas to achieve virtually universal health care. This guy is so rudderless other than in pursuit of ambition. He has no real principles, he's a fucking green-eyeshade-wearing bean counter with a meat cleaver who has no compunction about wielding it to make the bottom line look better, even worse to stuff his and his cronies pockets with cash and leave the workers with down-adjusted jobs or at the unemployment office . At least Bill Clinton had some principles to compromise. He also lied in campaign mode like Romney saying different things to different groups feeding them what the wanted to hear. But unlike Romney, although Clinton compromised his principles, at least he had some to compromise. Clinton bowed to the wind and change course a bit too readily but when the wind died down he would come back to his base principles. Romney has none other than making money and feeding his ego.

My daughter has tried repeatedly to get me to watch it. Sings its praises as a well written allegory for more adult issues. I just cannot get past the zombies.

Forgot to mention that I spend a LOT of time on the History Channel, NATGEO, and Discovery Channel. Then there is the Sundance, IFC, and TCM movie channels. I probably watch TNT and USA more than ABC, NBC, and CBS. I leave Fox TV to the youngsters and young at heart.

My gaydar went off on him the first season.

Yeah, this is one of my must see procedurals. Great cast and characters. It was orginally announced to end last summer but something happened to extend it. I suspected that Ms. Bacon was ready to move on. I also suspected the Production Co wanted to extend the show library to broaden appeal for rerun syndication. Else I have no idea why the reprieve of last summer. Maybe she was trying to recover a little after Madoff fleeced her and Kevin.

Wow!! I have so little in common with you guys. My viewing is more compatible with hitoallusa. Add Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnel and This Week to that list. Meet the Press some but it has become less compelling for me with David Gregory. I'm also a fan of procedurals like NCIS and CSI. I know, they are getting a bit long in the tooth but I still watch reruns of the original Law and Order twenty years after it started. There are some bad ones too like spins offs of the above that I skip. Poor writing and/or production values hurt them IMO. Not a fan of comedies or 30 min. shows generally. Not a fan of extreme gore or supernatural or vampires and werewolves. Prefer dramas, action, and intrigue, thus The Firm and BBC shows like Whitechapel and movies like Salt and Enemy of the State. Oddly, I get into some fantasy if well done like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, but they need a quality story line and compelling writing as these examples have. Looks like I'd need my own TV. lol

I have to agree with this assessment pretty much but that leaves the 5%. And every now and then a very good or great movie is made, often with a story line that crosses community lines like BrokeBack and Philadelphia. Also, how could any list omit Angels in America? I actually thought it was great. Not only was Nathan Lane great but I didn't know that Hank Azaria had that comic streak in him -- he was hilarious. And in my mind the best thing about it -- it crossed culture boundaries to appeal to non-homophobic straights, once again showing the straight community that gays are not monsters but real people with human feelings and needs. Did it go over the top at little? Maybe, but it was comedy aimed all across the spectrum. In the end I think all the gay characters were shown to be respectable human beings worthy of respect. And for those homophobes who feel there is no high ground in being gay, the movie also pointed out the moral failings of some of the homophobic 'family oriented' community. Every time a movie, a comedian or a book shows the humanity of people who are gay to the wider audience it advances acceptance or at least tolerance in that wider community.

I only recognized a handful starting on page 5 with Clay Aiken. Then Ru Paul and Lance Bass on Page 7 and most on pages 8 & 9. There were more than a few that I wouldnt'mind singing me to sleep.

Great voice, troubled lady. So sad -- the ending and the last 15 years of her life.

That was my first instinct and I did move it to the sandbox. However, I decided to add the request and bring it back to see if we might regain a higher level of discourse. It seems the effort was wasted.

I appreciate enthusiasm but let us try to keep a little higher tone in the forums. Thanks.

Is it April 1st?? Sure hope so. Else, say it ain't so, Joe.

Wow!!! I don't know whether to award you the MER Stream-of-Consciousness Literary Award... or send you a hobby-in-a-box. Until I decide could you just send me the phone number of...

Total Health Care Costs Fall When Poor Are Provided Insurance: Study The concept of support for universal health care is taboo among Republicans who scrutinize the Affordable Care Act -- dubbing it the "Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" -- and call for its repeal. But a new UC Irvine study challenges the GOP argument that the health care law is too costly, with data illustrating that health care costs on the whole fall when poorer, uninsured patients are provided with insurance. "In a case study involving low-income people enrolled in a community-based health insurance program, we found that use of primary care increased but use of emergency services fell, and -- over time -- total health care costs declined," David Neumark, a co-author of the study, said in a release accompanying the findings. The study -- which focused on uninsured people in Richmond, Virginia who fell 200 percent below the poverty line -- found that over three years, health care costs fell by almost 50 percent per participant, from $8,899 in the first year to $4,569 in the third after they received insurance. Participants who enrolled in health coverage made fewer trips to the emergency room, which are notorious for running up patient bills. Instead, insured participants went for more primary care visits. "A lot of the debate about health care reform surrounds the issue of whether we're setting up something that's going to cost us more by increasing use of medical services or something that will cut costs through more appropriate and timely use of medical services," Neumark said in the release. "[O]ver time, costs can be reduced through increased use of primary care and reductions in emergency-department visits and hospital admissions, but it may take several years of coverage for substantive savings to occur." Health care spending in the U.S. has been on the rise for years. Americans spent more than three times on health care in 2008 than they spent in the 18 years before, according to a Kaiser report. Low-income, uninsured individuals tend to rack up exorbitant health-care bills because they often rely on emergency room visits instead of primary care. In the long run, these bills are paid by taxpayers. The Affordable Care Act "is set to extend Medicaid benefits to about 16 million uninsured, low-income adults and children by the end of 2014," according to the study. In an extreme example of the societal cost of leaving some uninsured, New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell once chronicled the medical costs of a homeless man in Nevada who "used more health-care dollars, after all, than almost anyone in the state." "It would probably have been cheaper to give him a full-time nurse and his own apartment," Gladwell wrote. Mandatory health care already saw some success in Massachusetts last decade, when current GOP presidential candidate and then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signed a health care law that inspired the Affordable Care Act. Today, Massachusetts has the highest percentage of insured residents of any state. Though he initially supported the plan, Romney's rival, GOP candidate Newt Gingrich, continues to slam Romney for enacting the health care law. "Your plan essentially is one more big-government, bureaucratic high-cost system." Gingrich said. Gingrich's views are reflective of a majority of Americans who say they are in favor of repealing the health care law. A repeal of the act could potentially add "at least a trillion dollars to the deficit," according to HealthCare.gov. See original article for embedded links at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/health-care-costs_n_1266442.html

Paris Sex Shop Manager On Trial For Allegedly Selling Pornography Near Children The definition of "pornography" is at the center of a trial kicking off in Paris today to determine whether 1969, a central Paris sex shop that sells erotic toys and lingerie, is violating pornography laws by operating within 200 yards of a private middle school, Agence France-Presse reports. Nicolas Busnel, a 41-year-old manager of the store, faces up to two years in prison and a $40,000 fine after two Catholic groups filed complaints that the shop violates a child protection law prohibiting the "installation of an establishment that has as purpose the sale of objects with a pornographic character less than 200 meters from a school," French newspaper Le Figaro reports. But the child protection law does not clearly define what constitutes a pornographic object, according to Le Figaro. Busnel's defense maintains that the products sold at 1969 are erotic and not pornographic. "There are as many definitions of pornography as there are people," Busnel's attorney Richard Malka told the AFP. Henri de Beauregard, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the case, disagreed. "You can say that a sex shop is a 'love shop,' that a dildo is a 'sex toy' ... but these are just words," Beauregard told the AFP. "The simple truth is that we have here a sex shop that sells pornography!" Jean-Eudes Tesson, president of the CLER Love and Family association, one plaintiff in the case, said they organization has no problem with sex toys in general, but objects to the products being sold in view of students walking to school. "It isn't a scandal about ideology, we don't have anything against sex-toys: we aren't old-fashioned Catholics," Tesson told Le Figaro. "The problem is the presence of this kind of object in a window display that children pass by. That hijacks the work we are trying to do with them, to explain to them that the real sexuality is not in pornography." But in response to Tesson, the store's head manager Valerie Levy told Le Figaro the shop has never displayed sex toys in its window displays and added that since the store opened in 2008, the majority of its customers have been women. One traveler who reviewed the store said 1969 was in no way obscene or distasteful. "This is a gorgeous store with lingerie, sex toys, books, DVDs, lubricants, and the like," Jay Friedman wrote on The Sun Break. "Very tasteful and very much worth a visit." Levy has said she believes the plaintiffs in the case filed the complaint for money. Both the CLER Love and Family association the National Confederation of Catholic Family Associations (CNAFC) are asking for around $13,000 each in damages. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/manager-of-paris-sex-shop_n_1262807.html?ref=weird-news&ir=Weird%20News

Due to copyright restrictions the article may be read here: http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/807/consumer-reports-survey-costco-tops-list-of-major-retail-chain-stores

Judge N. Randy Smith's Dissent in Today's Prop 8 Ruling: A Preview of Vacuous Arguments to Come? David Groshoff, Law professor and Business Law Center Director, Western State University College of Law While many people are celebrating the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the Prop 8 case, I'll take this opportunity to use my platform for the usual buzzkill for a while, since a stay of this decision is in place until at least the end of this month, meaning justice delayed is justice denied. No surprise should exist that despite the well-written and narrowly approached opinion by the majority in today's Prop 8 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith wrote a weak and ridiculous dissent that provides some preview of what may happen should this case reach the United States Supreme Court. Smith is an appointee of George W. Bush and a 1977 graduate of Brigham Young University's (BYU's) J. Reuben Clark Law School. And Smith seemed to be following the lead of a current BYU law professor, Lynn Wardle, who not only teaches at Smith's alma mater but whose name also appears in the "Counsel Listing" on the Prop 8 case in his capacity with the anti-gay Marriage Law Project at BYU's law school. Professor Wardle is notorious for anti-gay rhetoric that includes comparing gay people with rapists, child molesters, and drunk drivers. Meanwhile, earlier this week, the CEO of the largest affiliated controlling shareholder of my law school made a video supporting equal marriage rights. Following Professor Wardle's lead at his alma mater, Judge Smith gratuitously quoted Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (in other words, Scalia's losing position in that case), the case that struck down all sodomy laws among consenting adults in the U.S., in Smith's Prop 8 dissent. Why? So Smith could copy Wardle's and Scalia's invective by comparing same-sex couples seeking to be married in California with people who engage in "adult incest ... [and] bestiality" as apparently similar "moral choices." But Smith's dissent transparently represents the same tired argument trotted out by social conservatives time and again for little more than the effect of sadly getting those canards into the dissenting opinion. In addition, despite the Supreme Court's result in Lawrence, and despite the Court's holding in Romer v. Evans (the case that served as the underpinning for today's Ninth Circuit's Prop 8 decision), Judge Smith instead wanted to discuss a 1971 case, Baker v. Nelson, in his Prop 8 dissent. Why? Because in Baker, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a marriage license for a Minnesota gay couple. (While the 1970s may have been a great decade for some people, times have changed . And, more importantly, so has the law.) When the Court wrote the Baker opinion, and until 2001, sodomy laws were valid in Minnesota. Thus, a legitimate government reason arguably may have existed to deny marriage licenses for a committed gay couple, because that couple likely engaged in what was then-illegal sexual conduct. But Baker's relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults. Adult lesbians and gay men are not criminals because they engage sexual conduct that was criminalized in the 1970s. Yet Smith's reliance on a 1970s case to buttress his analysis is grasping at straws (although probably unsurprising from a judge appointed by a president who believed that Harriet Miers was the more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than Samuel Alito). But beyond weakly attempting to distinguish Romer from the Ninth Circuit's well-written majority opinion (more on that in a minute), beyond attempting to inject language regarding incest and bestiality into a case involving marriage rights being taken away from lesbians and gay men, and beyond attempting to create an argument based on cases that simply have no bearing on the law and facts applicable to Prop 8 in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, what did Judge Smith's dissent accomplish today? Judge Smith's dissent showed us the degree of vacuous reasoning employed by those people and groups opposed to restoring the equal application of marriage rights to same-sex couples in California, should this case continue, either in an en banc hearing or at the U.S. Supreme Court. Today's majority, however, stated that no legitimate state interest existed as a rational basis for Prop 8's constitutionality based on Romer. In Romer, no legitimate reason existed to take away previously held rights in Colorado from one group of people but not others. The anti-gay-marriage faction offered four main potentially legitimate reasons (arguments) as to why Prop 8 may have existed in a constitutional manner: Furthering childrearing (a false proposition unaffected by Prop 8) Proceeding with caution before changing the definition of marriage (an insincere assertion, as 18,000 valid marriages already occurred in California) Protecting religious freedom (an argument unaffected by Prop 8 but begging the question -- and don't take it the wrong way -- "What about my religious freedom to have my ketubah mirror my civil legal rights under California law?") Preventing children from being taught about same-sex marriage in schools ("Schools teach about the world as it is; when the world changes, lessons change") Smartly, in its discussion of what arguably objectionable material schools teach kids, the majority nicely inserted the dagger of "no-fault divorce" into the discussion. Why? Because even social and religious conservatives understand that the advent of no-fault divorce did far more to weaken the institution of marriage than recognizing marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The majority wisely stated: Prop 8 worked a singular and limited change to the California Constitution: it stripped same-sex couples of the right to have their committed relationships recognized by the State with the designation of "marriage," which the state constitution had previously guaranteed them ... The name "marriage" signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships. And the Ninth Circuit majority underscored this point by stating, "We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries." That is, unless that couple is gay or lesbian and unless you're Judge N. Randy Smith or Professor Lynn Wardle. Follow David Groshoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidgroshoff See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-groshoff/n-randy-smith-prop-8_b_1261125.html

You know, it doesn't take an awful lot of smarts to see that this vehicile is unstable. The meerest bump would send it over on its side, rolling down the street. Given that it appears aa breeze could knock this over, how fast could one possibly drive it? I'll pass.

Yeah, sort of dumb isn't it. These are fiscal conservatives? Happy to see Santorum muddy the primary waters, especially since Newt seems to be sinking daily. Nevertheless, I wish them all continued good showing. Well... maybe not Romney. I do wish him continued big press anyway. Seems he cannot keep from making gaffes.

The vehicle is called MONEY. 94% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money to spend, courtesy of Dylan Ratigan.

Agreed. Rather than waking up I suspect the electorate as a whole only demonstrates a sensitivity to public embarrassment. The boobs will probably elect a lower profile version of Perry. This hypothesis will be confirmed or refuted by the next election.

Best to avoid social media, email, online banking -- the internet in general. Avoid credit cards, use cash and pay phones and live in a Faraday cage. Take cabs and public transportation. Or.... just relocate to a small island in the Caribbean or South China Sea and live off the land, so to speak.

Just last night local TV had a story on tattoo buyers remorse and the pain and potentially thousands of dollars to get them removed, if they can be removed or even lightened. Some leave permanently rough skin and even scars. Forget removing red, yellow and white pigments -- virtually unremovable. It takes repeated laser sessions to break up the pigments into tiny particles under the top layer of the skin so the immune system can flush them. However, they keep recoalescing thus another laser session. It takes repeated sessions before all or most of the particles get flushed from the body, if the treatment takes at all. It was pathetic in several cases watching people explain why they did it or have no real explanation for it or remark that they were sorry the didn't look further down the road. Seems to be lots of 'in the moment' explanations. There is lot's of remorse, especially when names from yesteryear are involved.

Pardon me, but I believe it confirms it. Look at what Texas has done to its schools at the lead of Perry. They dropped to 43rd in the percentage of students graduating His hand appointed State Ed Commission has dumbed down the state curriculum by instituting creationism as science on an equal footing with evolution and removing Jefferson, the New Deal and many other basic American history events and people who do not fit in with the conservative evangelical view of values and society. Also, IMO he has awarded state contracts and land, mineral and energy rights to his business buds for no benefit to the state while receiving commissions in the way of political contributions and possibly some sweetheart deals on the side. The Dallas Morning News has investigated a lot of those shenanigans and reported on them. I suspect Houston papers have too. He entered office a man of modest means and has become quite well-off in his years as Governor. I didn't know the job paid that well. He must have taken a second job to get that far ahead. Either the people can read and don't care, or do read and approve the state of affairs, or they don't read or cannot read and somehow remain in the dark, even with TV and radio. Any way you slice it, it paints the state with the same image of ignorance, corruption, and apathy. Just because Perry displayed outside of Texas what sort of boobs they have running the state downward and the electorate that put them in place repeatedly, they think it makes the state look bad. It's like the boobs woke up surprised that the hog they've been in bed with smells and has fleas. And the guys milking the state contracts and resources just don't like the sunshine illuminating their useful idiot that helps them loot the state. Well, it is a well-deserved accolade, only 45% are waking up and smelling the 'definitely-not-roses'. Yeah, somebody has made the state look bad but I think the buck stops with the voters on this one. Perry makes THEM look bad. One term can be forgiven, but three!!!!!!! Aye, there's the rub!

Ummm... this is going to make somebodies unhappy, no matter what the decision is.