UConn James

Again, you make the jump in logic that folding in 4% uninsured in one of the wealthiest states that has a large, sophisticated & geographically spread health care network "[bears] a striking resemblance" to a national situation where the uninsured range from 10% to upwards of 30% in a good many Southern and Western states where per capita incomes are low and they have geographically clustered health care infrastructure. (One of my cousins married a guy in Colorado where if you had a burst appendix, stroke or anything more than a slight heart attack, basically you're dead because you can't physically get treatment in time. Her father-in-law died a couple of years ago in just one of those situations.) Massachusetts' health plan cannot work effectively nationally --- at least, not without costing a truly massive amount of money we don't have, and in less effective methods than each state being able to craft their own plan based on their specific needs after some broad federal reforms that reduce medical costs. Because, insured or uninsured, it's the outrageous medical costs in this country that drive the problems of health care. That needs to be addressed first.

By the by, Romney is being endorsed today by mainstream Republican/quasi-Tea Party darling Chris Christie. Actually, their records aren't that dissimilar. Romney brought Mass. out of ~$3B (yes, that's billion) debt and created a surplus while he was governor... without raising taxes. I just get this sense that with each Whack-a-Mole flavor of the month in the Republican field, there's a certain segment that are just trying to cling to any candidate who's not Mormon/LDS. And when each Trump, Bachmann, Perry, and soon-to-be Cain's words and past statements start to meet headlines, there's Romney, still standing tall.

The headlines there make it seem like those are Romney campaign aides, which they're not. They are Massachusetts policy wonks who advised the then-governor. I doubt they have any connection to his presidential campaigns or I'm sure the article would have mentioned that. This White House is scared stevestojanless of Romney. They know he's one of the few Republicans who has very little chance of making a complete ass of himself and stick his feet in his mouth during a general election. All of the others have had moments, likely will have more, are not as thoroughly vetted, and are polling double-digits behind Obama in head-to-head electability, whereas Romney is 3 points back. His appeal to Independents --- which any presidential candidate has to win now --- particularly frightens the Obama camp which now has to run on a record rather than slogans. Independents are how they won Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania.... They know that in order to win, they have to be playing against the craziest, most divisive Republican in the race. I've said this before and I guess I have to write it again.... Romney was the Republican governor of a state that has literally a 80-90% Democrat legislature. Whatever they want to pass, they can pass. They were going to have a universal health care bill with or without him. Romney offered to pass it bipartisanly if the Democrats would agree to some terms that would make the plan less expensive for the Mass. taxpayers. And all of this was based on conditions on the ground in Massachusetts --- 4% uninsured (vs. upward of 25% in some other states and ~16% nationwide), a vast health care network that features several state of the art hospitals located throughout the state, and a population that has one of the highest per capita incomes in the country. It could be reasonably absorbed in Mass. Romney said that this model would not work in other states that have different conditions. He's also promised that if elected, he will make his first policy move to repeal Obamacare and replace it with the more limited common-sense approach the Republicans proposed (and were ignored) --- allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines, work to lower medical costs, and enact tort reform that will reduce the absolutely crippling malpractice insurance that doctors have to purchase and pass the cost along to their patients. As such, Romney was working within classic Republican states'-rights rules (for as much influence as he could, given the Democrat legislature). This state does what works for it, that state does what works for them. These people were not Romney's inner circle, then or now. Nor is it even known what kind of advice they gave. The Dems are going after Romney now and hoping that a specious smear campaign can eliminate their strongest competition before they have to face him --- kind of like how North Carolina might hope that South Dakota State beats Duke in the regional semifinals of the NCAA tournament.

Gilligan touched on this toward the conclusion of that NPR "Fresh Air with Teri Gross" interview from a while back that I mentioned before. How he grapples with morality while writing characters. He said he's basically an agnostic/leaning atheist and that there's something quite void about it, that since he believes we'll never know if there is a God/that there's probably not a God, the basis for morality is gone. People can just do what they want and there's no cosmic/forever consequence. There's no spoilers there. He does believe in a generalized morality --- that there should be consequences from bad guys, but that this isn't always the case in reality. Mum was the word on what awaits Walt from the writers' desired direction. There is still a very heavy onus on screenwriters in Hollywood that the bad guys ultimately have to pay for their crimes. Otherwise, a lot of the time, the audience walks away unsatisfied or uneasy about a film. That unwritten code among the studios has obviously laxed from where it stood in the '50s and such, but not as much as one might think. BB is one of a relative few that could get away with the bad guy not facing much or any ultimate consequences. "No Country For Old Men" and the Anton Chigur(?) character is another --- and that was just an absolutely brilliant film. Chillingly dark, but brilliant.

Maybe as a response to the fact that they commit crimes? Blacks are over-represented as a percentage of the state legislature too. What should we do about that? How about the state spending roughly twice as much per pupil in inner-city schools compared to rural areas? Why is no one complaining about disproportion there? Anybody who argues that statistics ought to reflect demographics can go shampoo a skunk's ass. BTW --- those statistics are bound to be inaccurate now, as Gov. Dannel Malloy decided to release several thousand prisoners to reduce DOC costs (And yet, his budget managed to increase state general fund spending by $3B over two years. (This despite already being $3.5 in the red)).

I haven't followed other teams.... I thought they lost their top 2 CBs to knee injuries.

Netflix Ditches 'Quikster' Spin-off Service Well, at least they're not too proud to admit this was a stevestojanhead move. Now, let's see if they can back away from the cliff further. A service that was going fine. And then they gotta f--- with it. I don't get people who do that kind of thing.

I would also like to note that even after Fitz embarrassed their DL with the 4th down cadence that drew an offsides penalty, they still did not take a cheap-shot on two kneel-downs when the game was in the bag. Philadelphia outclassing New England*/Wilfork. And friends, that's saying something.

Wow, this season was F---ing EPIC! If a character as big as Gus goes out, at least he went out memorably. How many of us thought that with him walking out of the room with that left-side camera shot, he would come out of it OK? Yet another episode title that means one fairly benign thing going into it, and then you have instant recognition of the episode by those few words afterwards. Hope that doesn't creep into my dreams.... As for Mike, the last we saw of him was when he got shot in the gut in Mexico, right? And the doctors were shunning him to treat Gus first. If he has recuperated (and you can bet that his treatment is over now that Gus is dead and not paying) I do think he's a practical enough man to realize that the operation is over and move on. Lots of ways this can go next season. Since the BB world is still in 2009(?), I wouldn't be fazed if they fast-forward the timeline similar to how "Desperate Housewives" advanced by 5 years. That lab destruction and handshake scene between Walt and Jesse seemed like it settled their business relationship, they've seen what all this has wrought, what they've had to do to survive / who they've become, and what it's done to their lives and they make an exit. (But can anyone make a clean break from all that's happened here?) And then somewhere down the line, their paths must cross again. I heard Vince Gilligan say on NPR's "Fresh Air" awhile back that the final 16 episodes may be broken up into two 8-ep seasons. If I had to guess, I'd say that one of them is going to be Walt having to elude Hank/DEA, b/c a mystery like this is sure to stick in Hank's craw. The potted Lily of the Valley reveal right at the end totally floored me. Bryan Cranston sold me on it being Gus and the ricin. But for it to have worked, it almost had to have been Walt who swiped the cigarette when he showed up at Jesse's.

Gailey saw ARC and Asomougha in their secondary and decided to attack with Freddie and short passes and screens all day. Loving how each week, they're something different, custom tailored to the opponent. This O isn't going to be the same thing twice. Since you brought it up, what is David Nelson's contract length? The gameplan didn't revolve around the WRs today, given the givens, but Nelson is clutch if the ball is anywhere near his wheelhouse. You're not wrong, Bill. Moorman has been on the decline. I respect what he's been to this franchise and what he does in the community, but the NFL is what you do consistently on the field. Boots like the one downed at the 2 have been few and far between the past few years. Moorman's game peaked in 2006-7 and he's lost his touch. He's had way too many touchbacks when he's been in prime pin-down position. Just like you shouldn't judge a guy based on a shank, it's also horrible to judge him on a 50-yarder downed at the 2. I would love if Moorman could perform consistently, but I fear those days are over. If someone can hold kicks in TC next year, I think it's time to shake hands and part ways. Brad Smith getting antsy and taking the KO out of the EZ very nearly screwed this team. Appreciate his 3rd/4th-and-short abilities, but you've gotta play smart football. There's not enough margin in the game to be forcing something that's not there. George Wilson doesn't get any love? What's a guy gotta do to get noticed in Bill's 'Few Thoughts'? As I noted in the Shoutbox during the game, I think Wilson made more plays in the first half than Donte Whitner made in any season. The defense hasn't changed that drastically so as to totally discount any comparison. DW was a liability back there. Yet another fail from the Levy-Jauron era (Marv really ruined his reputation there). At least it's been corrected. Love that it appears we've got a decent depth guy at OT when Bell returns... if Hairston hasn't played Bell out of a job by then. Not too bad of a first start for the rookie. As a true "dog person" it warmed the cockles of my heart to see Vick limping. IIRC, he had a personal role in murdering over 40 dogs. Two years in prison and now he's right back where he was? Justice is blind, deaf, dumb and easily purchased. All in all, this was a TEAM WIN. Eeked it out, but we'll take it!!!

BBF, uhhh... I don't know what game you were watching, but our pass rush couldn't contain Vick. Our entire defense couldn't contain Vick on several LONG runs. Rush 3 or Blitz seven, Vick gave us the same problems that "mobile" QBs usually do. Again --- Welcome to the new NFL where defenses have been neutered, scoring is averaging in the 30s and 21-point leads are not safe. This is an offensive league now. You will get burned a lot, you will get scored on; accept it and try to move on and answer when you're on offense. If your D can get a few stops per game, they're doing awesome. I don't think the 415 yards passing is as much an indictment of this D as it is that the Rules Committee has tilted the field FAR TOO MUCH in favor of offenses. Today, Chan really seemed to run a gameplan that saw the Iggles' secondary with ARC and Asomugha --- arguably two of the top 3 CBs --- and he decided to bypass attacking them and attacking their DL with Freddie and their LBs with short passes, screens and slant routes. This was not the same gameplan as the Chiefs and it will not be the same plan for the Jints. It was really custom tailored to avoid their strengths, try to grit out offense on the ground and hope that the D could come up with some turnovers/stops. Somehow, with some lucky tips and bounces, the game went our way. As the quote goes, let us fans not inquire why or wither, but enjoy the ice cream while it's on our plate.

Jarius was an Angry Bird today on that Avant catch. Came up, laid the smack and punched at that ball. He was clearly pissed.

If he weren't literally given a wedgie by the LT on one one of the late holding calls, it would've been three. Crappy how the OL can rape a defensive player like that, take an equivalent yardage loss, but keep the down.

And he's doing this mostly with Tea Party support. Maybe someone should inform Morgan Freeman . Have to say that I respect Mr. Cain and he'd be my #2 choice, but I don't think this country can deal with another president who needs on-the-job training WRT executive government and hasn't ever dealt with high-level national security issues, economic turnaround, natural disaster/crisis response. I'm sticking with Romney, the man Mr. Cain endorsed in '08, and would be thrilled if they formed the GOP ticket.

Then again, in my point was that the Raiders 1) have played in LA and 2) Mr. Davis still claimed it as their territory. I didn't know about his son. The estate/inheritance taxes are likely going to be killer. Possibly not as bad as any heir of Ralph would have had, since Davis didn't purchase a majority of his team 'til the late '70s --- but the govt is still going to take its juicy bite.

Perhaps today's news of Al Davis's death will light a fire under some fannies.... After a period of due respect.

I think it was telling how, as Cinci erased Nelson from Fitz's options, we struggled to move the ball/chains. As I've written here, DN has more than filled Josh Reed's shoes.

If anyone can truly be called an eccentric, Al Davis was it. He was a man who had his vision of things and stuck to it. Sometimes to the astonishment of all as his band of pirates bloodied and stunned their way into Super Bowl prominence, but most of the time, especially these later years, making matters worse for his team WRT coaching hires (with what coaches he could attract given his management style and hierarchy) and zany personnel moves. It seems that altho the love-hate relationship the league had with Davis is now over, the fans are assured of there being relative stability of the franchise. Given the givens, it will be no surprise if the Roski(?) group buys the team and moves it to LA, either right away while playing in the Rose Bowl stadium and/or once the proposed stadium is completed. It sucks somewhat for fans in Oakland proper, but their team is assured of staying in the same general region. Such a move might also benefit the 49ers and help quell some of the bad blood that has generated between the teams (the ugly incident during preseason only the most recent) from such close proximity. And as Bills fans, we can see a silver (and black) lining that this brings some measure of relief to the rumors over the years that our team would be heading there. So at the risk of sounding a little crass, it's fortunate that Mr. Davis went to the giant pigskin reward in the sky first. RIP.

Big 12 Invites TCU Yet Another Blow for Big East Can't say I blame them....

AP: Mizzou hoping to join SEC, reveal they were shunned by the Big 10 last year

Brandon is a very weird dude. First, the tunnel vision of wanting to get rid of Mikayla and his very creepy leering at her in the first few episodes. "He's got some demons," Coach said. No stevestojan. It's like Brandon wanted Mikayla to wear a burqa so he wouldn't get a chubby looking at her 6. And while I wouldn't kick her out of bed, and all due respect that she was in Playboy, her face is very manly. So far, Blue has stuck to the alliance of five. And I expect that to last. Brandon is getting to be a really whiny B word tho. Loved how Coach told him off tonight. It's like Christ, kid, get it together! Red is basically picking off people who are helping the least in the challenges. I missed ~ the first 40 minutes of tonight's episode so I didn't see whatever scheme Cochran was shown hatching during the preview this week.

Then again, that's probably the best matchup among the CBS early games.... Just hope the Providence FOX keeps with Bills-Iggles.

A point I've been trying to make for the past few years as people here kvetch about the defense. How many times have I typed out "... the NFL has slanted the rules in favor of offense...." I don't know, but it's a lot. McKelvin complainers say that while he's usually in position to do so, he doesn't make plays on the ball very frequently/well. Well, pass interference calls that spot the ball at the point of the foul are at least part of the problem. A DB puts his hands out or up, or even just a slight nudge and he takes a huge risk in gifting a WR a catch he may not have been able to actually make. It seems like McKelvin takes the option of his close presence at the point causing enough of a distraction in the WR's attention to force an incompletion. Can't say I entirely blame him. It's Catch-22 these days. The thing in all of the rules changes, tho, is that the balance in the game is gone. It doesn't really matter if you invest heavily in your defense. Given the rules, most any offense you face is going to get yardage, is going to get points. What matters most is the margins --- forcing a field goal here, bending-but-not-breaking and forcing an odd punt, coming up with an INT or knocking the ball out. But wait, you say, to a large degree defense has always been about the margins. Yes, but the margins are ever thinner. Defenses can no longer take away the big plays from talented offenses because --- by nature of how much harder the committee has made it to play unpenalized defense --- they aren't allowed to do so! The NFL wanted more scoring. We're seeing high-30- and 40-point games at a time of the season that used to favor the defense as an O got its stevestojan together. This is what's wrought. Neutered defenses. So, it shifts most of the burden of success onto your offense. When the other team scores, your offense needs to respond in like kind or you're soon going to be down 14. It's one thing getting a defensive penalty; it sucks, but it's not as big a deal in a league where that's going to be the equivalent of a routine slant pass because your DB has to be scared to breathe on a WR. Getting screwed over by the refs on offense now hurts bigger than ever, which is what made the Stevie Johnson catch-then/but-not-a-catch such a blow. And as much as our O looked like it can hold its own (with our starters in place), the FO's almost entire devotion to drafting defense --- while perhaps necessary and beneficial to rebuilding what Jauron literally gutted --- can't continue. Teams need to invest first and foremost in a QB who can run your offense, and then offensive (OL second most important) depth. Look at the Colts with Manning vs. without now. Everything came unraveled.

If Ms. Attkisson doesn't get a Pulitzer for "Investigative Reporting" in 2012 (the awards are given in April).... She's been all over this at every turn. It's rather a good sign that she's hit a nerve on the situation when people who are part of the conspiracy get pissed at a reporter for discovering the truth. My father once called CBS the Communist Broadcast System, and that was before Katie Couric took over.... This series has taken it a tack back toward respectability in my esteem.

This is more evidence than they have on Rogers Clemens vis-a-vis perjury in sworn Congressional testimony.