 |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif) crooksandliars | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/nate-silver-we-shouldnt-be-celebratin Nate Silver on why we shouldn't celebrate just yet:
Needless to say, it would have been very, very bad news for the Democrats if the motion to proceed to debate on their health care plan had failed tonight. But I'm not sure how newsworthy this really is. The potential hold-outs, like Lincoln and Ben Nelson, are going to have much greater leverage later on, when the bill nears its second major procedural hurdle: the cloture motion to proceed to the final vote.
And there's some bad news for Democrats too: Lincoln has joined Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman in making a fairly explicit threat to filibuster a bill that contains a public option. Mary Landrieu, on the other hand, sounds a little bit more open to compromise. But this impromptu Gang of 3 -- Lincoln, Nelson, Lieberman -- could be a tough one for progressives to penetrate.
Yeah, it's going to be ugly by the time they get done dealing away any real hope of competition for the insurance companies. I'm not optimistic about the short-term results here and I have to keep muttering to myself that this will be good for our children and grandchildren - probably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
offthekuff | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=23841 As noted yesterday, the Chronicle endorsed Annise Parker for Mayor in the runoff election.
With city tax revenues eroded by the continuing recession, the next occupant of the office must be a prudent fiscal manager as well as a leader who can make hard decisions on spending priorities. That will require a detailed knowledge of the city departments that deliver services to citizens in order to wisely prioritize cuts and stretch available revenues to the maximum.
At the same time, the new mayor must also be a visionary focused not just on how things are in Houston but how they should be in the coming decades. Despite a hostile economy, the incoming administration will have to continue improving the quality of life in our increasingly urbanized metropolis. That will entail strengthening public safety, reducing air and water pollution, completing an area-wide mass transit system including light rail, and guiding land development to protect the character of long-established residential neighborhoods.
In the general election the Chronicle endorsed both Parker and former city attorney and public agency lawyer Gene Locke, her opponent in the run-off. As we noted then, they each “offer deep roots in the city and a dazzling range of life experiences and public service.” And our endorsement of Parker should not be taken as a diminution of the skills and qualifications of Locke, whose back story as a civil rights activist, steelworker and successful major law firm attorney offers a compelling narrative.
Houstonians are lucky to face such a difficult choice. But Parker’s background and experience offer a better fit for the mayor’s office at this point in time.
Obviously, I agree with all of that. As Nancy Sims points out, the Chron isn’t alone in coming to this conclusion for the runoff. If there is such a thing as campaign momentum, I believe she has it.
On a related note, you probably missed Friday night’s showing of Red, White, and Blue on KUHT channel 8. It was intended to be a straight up debate between Annise Parker and Gene Locke, except that Locke did not attend. So instead, it was a one-on-one conversation between hosts David Jones and Gary Polland and Parker about the issues of importance. It will be rerun tonight at 5:30, or you can watch the YouTube videos below:
Coby and Greg have more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/WNJncs_WwjI/-On-Cancer-Screening,-Politics,-and-Communication There's no way this complex issue can be covered in one post, but thankfully there have been some really thoughtful pieces written by others that we can pull from. For example, my own comments led to this headline on the AtlanticWire: Politics Beats Science in Cancer Screening Debate, featuring a terrific piece by Kevin Sack in the NY Times (Screening Debate Reveals Culture Clash in Medicine), comments by Ezra Klein (WaPo), Arthur Caplan (MSNBC), and David Dayden (Firedoglake). The author of the AtlanticWire piece jumps to the heart of the issue and writes: According to the panel, the timing of the new pap smear guidelines is entirely coincidental. But politicians — already taking steps to distance themselves from the obviously unpopular mammography guidelines — seemed wary Friday. The anger from women, doctors, and advocacy groups over the relaxed screening guidelines is revealing, pundits say. They argue that it reveals a divide between the hard science of cancer screening and the explosive, personal politics of health. Kevin Sack's piece adds something to the debate in the form of a graphic showing that mammogram utilization has fallen recently in other age groups, and that a steady bit more than 60% of women 40-49 get yearly mammograms (for those interested, a state by state table is here.) 
Presumably for the 40% that don't get yearly mammograms, this represents no change. But the recommendations have been presented to younger women as if something important is being taken away from them, rather than what the panel actually said: that the experts suggest that they cannot determine whether yearly mammograms in that age group for low risk women are helpful or harmful and that the best thing to do is discuss it with your own doctor. The balance of benefits and potential harms, therefore, grows more favorable as women age. The precise age at which the potential benefits of mammography justify the possible harms is a subjective choice. The USPSTF did not find sufficient evidence to specify the optimal screening interval for women aged 40-49. That, of course, assumes you have a doctor, and that's where the interface between health reform and this topic is most obvious. As to what the risk is from breast cancer, and why the recommendations were changed away from "just do them", this St. Louis Post-Dispatch piece notes: The British Medical Journal published an article to help people understand the risk in simple terms. It means that if 1,000 women don't get mammograms, we can expect four of them to end up dying of breast cancer. If all 1,000 women do get regular mammograms, three will still die of breast cancer. No matter the odds, many doctors and patients say any life saved is worth everyone getting the mammograms. "We're all in agreement that this is not the best tool, but does that mean we should take the next step and not screen at all?" said Dr. Burton Needles, medical director of the cancer center at St. John's Mercy Medical Center in St. Louis. "Most of us who treat patients with cancer feel that the benefits still outweigh the risks of screening." For more details, Kossack charliehall (biostatistician) wrote this more detailed diary on studies available through the Cochrane database, and noted the same result as above: women in the screening group were just as likely to die as women in the no-screening group. Given that kind of information, the panel suggested individualized care over rote screening for everyone. And on the topic of relying on routine breast self-exam, which was another recommendation from the panel, Orac (pseudonym of a practicing surgeon from ScienceBlog's Respectful Insolence) notes: The USPSTF's recommendation not to teach breast self-examination (BSE) is another point of controversy. Despite a lot of enthusiasm for the practice, Cochrane Reviews and other evidence have failed to find convincing evidence that routine regular BSE saves lives. I wish it were otherwise, but it appears not to be, even though there are compelling anecdotes out there of women who did find a lump on BSE and it turned out to be cancer. Unfortunately, overall, the evidence to support BSE is weak. On the other hand, even the Cochrane Collaboration, which I have in the past sometimes accused of methodolatry and "nihilism" with respect to screening concluded: Some women will continue with breast self-examination or will wish to be taught the technique. We suggest that the lack of supporting evidence from the two major studies should be discussed with these women to enable them to make an informed decision. Women should, however, be aware of any breast changes. It is possible that increased breast awareness may have contributed to the decrease in mortality from breast cancer that has been noted in some countries. Women should, therefore, be encouraged to seek medical advice if they detect any change in their breasts that may be breast cancer. Indeed, on a purely practical level, I see nothing wrong with women being taught to be aware of how their breasts normally feel and to bring to a physician's attention any changes that concern them and still encourage that, but there really is no good evidence to support BSE. To add to that, Our Bodies Ourselves (Boston Women’s Health Book Collective) wrote that the case against screening is not new: New government guidelines recommending that women start screening for breast cancer at age 50 instead of 40 set off a round of criticism this week and caused much confusion for women who for years have been told that early detection saves lives. But a number of women’s health organizations, including Our Bodies Ourselves, the National Women’s Health Network and Breast Cancer Action, for years have warned that regular mammograms do not necessarily decrease a women’s risk of death. Premenopausal women in particular are urged to consider the risks and benefits. In fact, the NWHN issued a position paper in 1993 recommending against screening mammography for pre-menopausal women. It was a very controversial position at the time — even more so than now. The breast cancer advocacy movement was in its infancy and efforts were focused on getting Medicare and insurance companies to cover mammograms. What the NWHN found — and other groups have since concurred — is that the potential harm from screening can outweigh the benefits for premenopausal women. The above statement is important for several reasons. This is not a male view of the world superimposed on women. It's also not a view suddenly brought into the discussion by those wanting to focus on cost and cost alone. it predates this health bill, and it predates cost control discussions in the House and Senate, and in the Obama administration. More from Our Bodies Ourselves: I don’t believe the new guidelines are politically motivated, nor are they "patronizing" to women simply because they call into question the stress related to biopsies and false positive results. Rather, the guidelines provide a useful framework for helping each of us to decide when is the best time to begin screenings and the intervals at which they should be repeated. Personal health remains just that: personal. Note what the World Health Organization has to add on BSE: There is no evidence on the effect of screening through breast self-examination (BSE). However, the practice of BSE has been seen to empower women, taking responsibility for their own health. Therefore, BSE is recommend for raising awareness among women at risk rather than as a screening method. ++++++ So what do you do when you feel you are sitting on data that contradicts the status quo? How do you convey that information to the public? It's not like there's nothing written on the topic. Recognizing the political and social impact of the guidelines is a must, and failure to do so is a mistake, one that science and government types seem to make a lot. These particular guidelines won't be implemented immediately in any case. Physicians and the public still need to read and accept them. The likelihood of any such thing happening, or participatory and reasoned dialog occurring with the public with the current political atmosphere, is nil (now, those are odds we can all understand.) But if the recommendations make sense, further supporting data will present itself and the discussion will go on. Note that none of the above has anything to do with insurance companies. That's a side issue, more likely to be settled in the health reform debate than with these recommendations. But if Republicans want to make an issue of this (and they will), they are going to have to make an issue of evidence-based medicine. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) aims to apply the best available evidence gained from the scientific method to medical decision making. It seeks to assess the quality of evidence of the risks and benefits of treatments (including lack of treatment). EBM recognizes that many aspects of medical care depend on individual factors such as quality- and value-of-life judgments, which are only partially subject to scientific methods. EBM, however, seeks to clarify those parts of medical practice that are in principle subject to scientific methods and to apply these methods to ensure the best prediction of outcomes in medical treatment, even as debate continues about which outcomes are desirable. Our own Christopher Hughes recently wrote a diary on evidence-based vs anecdotal medicine. "Experience," or anecdote, is sometimes helpful in medicine, but often harmful, because we physicians often internalize our experience into hard rules about treating patients. This often leads us down dangerous paths. Evidence based medicine is long overdue counterweight to this kind of medical practice. EBM, when evidence is available, makes us think hard about our practices: Are we doing this because that's the way we've always done it, or because we have scientific research to back up our decisions? That is the future of medicine. These guidelines will stand or fall on their merit, but given the fact that the US is 19th of 19 in preventable deaths, the way we do things is going to have to change. And that may mean recognizing when cancer screening is helpful and useful (colonoscopy) and when it's not (Pap smears before age 21.) And it may also mean allowing ourselves to debate the issue without accusing each other of trying to kill women. Personally speaking, I really haven't tried to kill any women all this week, and I don't intend to start this weekend. But if we don't discuss this, we won't make any progress on preventable deaths. And that, my friends, is progress that has to happen. For the meantime, I am sorely tempted to suggest that if you want people to get mammograms, tell them they can't, and if you want to get people not to get flu shots, tell them they have to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/IsVmCt7G9H0/-Your-Abbreviated-Pundit-Round-up Sunday punditry. Read it early, talk about it late. Frank Rich on Sarah Palin: But no matter how much Palin tries to pass for "center-right," she’s unlikely to fool that vast pool of voters left, right and center who have already written her off as unqualified for the White House. The G.O.P. establishment knows this, and is frightened. The demographic that Palin attracts is in decline; there’s no way the math of her fan base adds up to an Electoral College victory. Yet among Republicans she still ties Mitt Romney in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with 65 percent giving her serious presidential consideration, just behind the 71 for her evangelical rival, Mike Huckabee. Maureen Dowd: Yet Democrats would be foolish to write off her visceral power. As Judith Doctor, a 69-year-old spiritual therapist, told The Washington Post’s Jason Horowitz at Palin’s book signing in Grand Rapids, Mich., "She’s alive inside, and that radiates energy, and people who are not psychologically alive inside are fascinated by that." No one should confuse winning the GOP nomination (which she can do) with winning the election (when 60% think you are not qualified, you can't.) Maureen goes to to say Obama's too intellectual, blah, blah, blah. Ron Brownstein via Ezra: "I'm sort of a known skeptic on this stuff," [MIT health economist Jonathan] Gruber told me. "My summary is it's really hard to figure out how to bend the cost curve, but I can't think of a thing to try that they didn't try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing." Gruber may be especially effusive. But the Senate blueprint, which faces its first votes tonight, also is winning praise from other leading health reformers like Mark McClellan, the former director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services under George W. Bush and Len Nichols, health policy director at the centrist New America Foundation. "The bottom line," Nichols says, "is the legislation is sending a signal that business as usual [in the medical system] is going to end." More of same from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: The health reform bill that Senate leaders unveiled yesterday meets two rigorous fiscal tests: it reduces deficits over the next decade and beyond, and it puts long-term downward pressure on health care costs. There are, however, still issues with affordability: The health reform bill that Senate leaders unveiled on November 18 makes health coverage more affordable for millions of households of modest means, as compared to the bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. The amounts that many families and individuals would pay for coverage would be less than under the Finance Committee proposal. For people between 134 percent and 154 percent of the poverty line, however — people with incomes around $25,000 to $28,000 for a family of three — premiums would actually be higher than the already significant amounts they would have to pay under the Finance Committee bill. Modifications are needed at some point as the legislation moves forward to ensure that near-poor families and individuals do not face insurance premiums and cost-sharing charges that many of them could have difficulty affording. David Broder does his own rigorous analysis, Beltway style: he asks "every expert" that agrees with him what they think of the new health care bill and ignores the CBO and the ones that don't. Via Jay Rosen on twitter, this: The job cuts at the Washington Post on Friday have produced a round of comments, broadly summed up by Steve Yelvington earlier today. They certainly begged the question that occurred to me as a former employee of both the Post and WPNI, its soon-to-be merged online operation: "What explains this kind of decision?" They've decided the dead tree paper is more important than the web site. CIDRAP: Health officials in Wales today announced the identification of a cluster of patients in a Cardiff hospital who are infected with oseltamivir-resistant pandemic H1N1 influenza. Also today, Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., reported that oseltamivir-resistant H1N1 viruses were found in four very sick patients hospitalized there over the past 6 weeks. A Duke press release said all four patients had been in the same hospital unit, but it did not specify how many were there at the same time. This is what we dread. Small numbers, but keep an eye on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
susiesplace_new | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://susiemadrak.com/2009/11/22/09/07/visionaries/ http://susiemadrak.com/?p=43669 In other words, no real health care reform at all and no relief for the voters for years. If this is how they roll, the Democrats have already lost the midterm elections:
After announcing her intent to support a health care debate this afternoon, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told reporters she thinks Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will soon have to choose between a triggered public option and no health care bill. She also says Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)–the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate one of its most fierce and vocal public option advocates–has been tasked as a point man on the issue.
“I believe it’s going to be very clear at some point very soon that there are not 60 votes for the current provision in the bill, and that the leader and the leadership are going to have to make a decision and I trust that they will figure out how to do that,” Landrieu told reporters.
Landrieu has been in negotiations with a number of centrist senators about a compromise that would eliminate the public option, except in states where insurance remains unaffordable. Interestingly, though, Schumer is playing a big role in that process.
“Senator Schumer’s working on that. He’s sort of been tasked as one of the point people,” she told me. “He’s been tagged as one of the point people to help negotiate that.”
Schumer’s involvement as a liaison between liberal and conservative Democrats puts the trigger issue in a new light. When Reid announced that he’d include his opt-out plan in the health care bill in lieu of triggers, many, including trigger-author Olympia Snowe, believed the compromise to be dead. But it now appears to be one of the central points of discussion between leadership and conservative Democrats as they try to find 60 votes for a reform bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) literaryquotes
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) xfericireax | |
|
|
|
|
The dog went to lie down at the door, blocking the entrance, he is a gruff, ill-tempered animal when he does not have to dry someone's tears. What's the world like these days, the old man with the black eyepatch had asked, and the doctor's wife replied, There's no difference between inside and outside, between here and there, between the many and the few, between what we're living through and what we shall have to live through. Who is that witch, asked the old man with the black eyepatch, these are the things we say when we do not know how to take a good look at ourselves, had he lived as she had lived, we should like to see how long his civilised ways would last. Jose Saramago, BlindnessCurrent Mood:  blank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
offthekuff | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=23831 Sheriff Adrian Garcia wants to take another crack at building a new jail facility. As was the case in 2007, when a referendum to float bonds for a new jail was voted down, this too would be voted on by the public. Garcia recognizes he has work to do to make it happen.
On Tuesday, Commissioners Court is scheduled to consider County Budget Officer Dick Raycraft’s recommendation that his office, the sheriff’s department and the Public Infrastructure Department tackle the jail problem. The result, Raycraft said, could be a recommendation to the court in June to put a jail bond measure on the November 2010 ballot.
[...]
Garcia pledged to be an active participant in the campaign by educating voters on the need for new facilities. In addition, he said, a new bond measure likely would come with the approval of the county’s new Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The council was formed earlier this year to bring together elected officials to find ways to alleviate jail overcrowding.
Garcia’s plan would establish a new booking center that could hold 2,193 prisoners. It would have about 1,200 beds and capacity to hold another 1,000 people for the processing involved in being booked into or released from jail.
Garcia said the current facility is stretched far beyond capacity.
“I’m concerned about the safety of my employees, as well as the safety of the people we’re processing,” he said.
My position on this has not changed. Rather than repeat myself, I’m going to reprint an email sent by Alan Bernstein, Sheriff Garcia’s Director of Public Affairs, to Carl Whitmarsh in response to a previous email that criticized the Sheriff for pursuing a new jail:
When it comes to the county’s long-range planning for its entire criminal justice system, this is not the time for critics to shoot first and ask questions later..
First of all, the discussion of the potential construction of a new Central Processing Center is being promulgated by County Budget Director Dick Raycraft, and Sheriff Garcia is glad the subject is being broached.
Second, what my friend David Jones refers to as a jail is a facility primarily intended to take in and release jail inmates for the city of Houston and the county. (Note the title of the facility). Taking over the city’s booking operation, and having the city reimburse the county for doing so, would eliminate duplicative efforts and spending for both governments. Yes, this facility would also include functions that most think of as jail housing functions, such as better facilities for mentally ill inmates and a separate housing area for many female inmates. But, as supporting documents show, the Central Processing Center will not, and is not intended to, solve the county’s jail population problem by adding new beds. Raycraft’s proposal actually states that the construction proposal would have to be interwoven with the efforts of the new Harris County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council to reduce jail population through policy changes at the prosecutorial and judicial level as well as elsewhere.
In other words, the sheriff hopes that the number of inmates sent to him will decrease, but we still need a new processing center.
Third, one of the problems with the bond referendum for such a facility in 2007 is crystal clear in David’s e-mail. It was widely understood to merely be another jail space. This was unfortunate, because the facility primarily is meant for something else, as explained above.
Fourth, the current inmate processing center at the county jail is woefully outmoded, including being cramped with incoming inmates. The sheriff has explained that this creates a potential safety problem for inmates and staff. These are conditions that David and others, I trust, would never condone.
So there you have it. Clearly, as noted in the story, there needs to be a much better effort to communicate what this facility is for. Showing real progress in reducing the inmate population through better bail and probation policies would go a long way as well. Note further that we are apparently headed in the direction of eliminating the city’s jail facility, which is in line with stated objectives of each of the remaining Mayoral candidates. That too will bear watching over the next year as the county readies this proposal for a vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
offthekuff | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=23808 Want to meet the candidates who are in the December 12 runoff? Here’s your chance:
You are invited to attend …
2009 Runoff Candidate Meet and Greet
DECEMBER 3, 2009 – 6:30 PM – The Upper Kirby Building
(details below)
CNU-Houston, Houston Tomorrow, Emerging Green Builders, and Citizens’ Transportation Coalition are proud to host a Meet and Greet event for the 2009 Houston Runoff Election Candidates.
We’ve invited the following candidates to come to this social event where they can get to know our organization members and friends:
Mayor: Annise Parker, Gene Locke
Controller: Ron Green, MJ Khan
District A: Brenda Stardig, Lane Lewis
District F: Mike Laster, Al Hoang
At-large 1: Stephen Costello, Karen Derr
At-large 2: Sue Lovell, Andrew Burks
Not only will this event be an excellent chance for us to get to know the runoff candidates, this will be a great opportunity for the members of these organizations to get to know each other better as well. We’re really looking forward to this unique event, and we hope that you’ll join us!
Please let us know you’re coming, this helps us plan our space and refreshment needs!Attend Event
For more information about the sponsoring organizations, follow the links below:
CNU-Houston
Houston Tomorrow
Emerging Green Builders
Citizens’ Transportation Coalition
Event Details:
Thursday, December 3, 2009 from 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
Here’s a Google map of the location if you need it. Hope you can make it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crooksandliars | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/sunday-morning-bobblehead-thread-51 Don Henley- Heart of the Matter
These times are so uncertain
There's a yearning undefined
...People filled with rage
We all need a little tenderness
How can love survive in such a graceless age
The trust and self-assurance that can lead to happiness
They're the very things we kill, I guess
Pride and competition cannot fill these empty arms
And the work I put between us,
Doesn't keep me warm
Remember my little snark to the producers of This Week a few months ago, over yet another booking of John McCain? Well, I had to do it again this week. Not because of McCain, but the bookings are nearly as egregious:
I'm sure that in the effort to have the show ideologically balanced (for, clearly, every issue is reduced to Democrat vs. Republican on This Week), it has completely escaped the producers' notice that they have booked THREE politicos against health care reform (Coburn, Nelson, Blackburn) to ONE in favor (Wasserman-Schultz).
Curious that ABC's idea of "balance" on an issue with OVERWHELMING public support is to tip the scale against health care reform. Does [your Senior Producer] feel he is serving his viewership well with such skewed bookings?
Sadly, This Week's producer doesn't really want to engage in any further tete a tetes on their skewed sense of balance, but taking a look at this week's schedule, certainly, they're not the only ones guilty. Look, for example, at the hacktacular framing on The Chris Matthews Show. Or the inclusion of Joe "Sucking Media Hole" Lieberman on Meet the Press. Personally, I think I'm gonna focus on the CNN foreign policy shows, rather than pollute my brain with any more of the health care nonsense.
ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Reps. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent; and Nancy Brinker, founder of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Joe Klein, Norah O'Donnell, Anne Kornblut, David Ignatius. Topics: Obama's Lost the Independents -- What Do They Want Him To Do Differently? Are There Signs of Carteresque Weakness in the Obama Presidency? Meter Questions: Will President Obama Sign a Health Care Reform Bill This Year? YES: 5 NO: 7; Will Delays Over Afghanistan and Health Care Hurt Obama's Image Longterm? YES: 5 No: 7.
CNN's "State of the Union" - Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Carly Fiorina, California Republican who's running for U.S. Senate.
CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - An exclusive interview with Maziar Bahari, the Newsweek reporter who spent 4 months in an Iranian prison. Plus, the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, gives Fareed his only television interview on his trip to Washington.
CNN's "Amanpour" - New Jewish Lobby: A new Jewish American lobbying group is angling itself as an alternative to the well-known pro-Israel AIPAC group. Could this change the way Washington approaches Israel? Afghan Exclusives: Former Afghan Pres. Cand. Ashraf Ghani calls the Afghan gov. a "looting machine," and calls Minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar's Interior Ministry "among the most corrupt in the country".
"Fox News Sunday" - Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Kit Bond, R-Mo., Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health.
So, what's catching your eye this morning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
new_pharyngula | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/scienceblogs/pharyngula/~3/4d0EKPN0mBo/you_shoulda_been_here.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/you_shoulda_been_here.php It's strange…I was offline all day yesterday. I've been at Skepticon II down here in Springfield, Missouri, and unfortunately, I had no internet access while I was in the meeting, which went on all day Saturday late into the evening, and then, once the talks were over, the socializing began. The party went on at a bar until 1:30am, then moved to a hotel room until sometime around 4am, and then DJ Grothe, Rebecca Watson, and I kept it going until 6am, at which time the lesser two beings conked out, and I was the last one left standing (Rebecca will seethe at that)…when I had to take off to the airport for my flight home. And that's where I am now.
I expect to be home by early afternoon, and back online full time again. Maybe I'll take a nap, too.
There will be a Skepticon III next year, and you should plan on going! Good speakers and a very enthusiastic crowd makes it an excellent event. The late night parties are a bit much for an old geezer like myself, but they're fun, too. Read the comments on this post...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
literaryquotes
thenewparish | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't get a wicked forbidden thrill Every time you let a policy lapse or forgot to pay a bill; You didn't slap the lads in the tavern on the back and loudly cry Whee, Let's all fail to write just one more letter before we go home, and this round of unwritten letters is on me. No, you never get any fun Out of things you haven't done, But they are the things that I do not like to be amid, Because the suitable things you didn't do give you a lot more trouble than the unsuitable things you did. Tags: author surname: na
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then
sick