Colorado Obamacare Enrollment Even Worse Than Worst Case Projections, Anti-Smoking Groups Oppose Obamacare Tobacco Penalty, Texas Man Still in Prison Despite Having Conviction Overturned in 1980: P.M. Links

-
Helga Weber/Foter.com Enrollment through Colorado's insurance exchange is barely half the projected worst case scenario, which officials say will make it difficult for the state "to deliver on promises made to Colorado citizens" and jeopardize the program's revenue stream. The American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society, both supporters of the Affordable Care Act, nevertheless oppose Obamacare's tobacco surcharge, arguing it will push smokers out of insurance policies and make it even more difficult for them to quit.
- National Security Advisor Susan Rice is in Afghanistan, where she is expected to meet with Hamid Karzai to discuss the post-2014 security pact between the two countries.
- The U.S. government reportedly turned a larger profit on student loans,$41.3 billion, than all but two companies worldwide, Exxon Mobil and Apple.
- State police in New York have acquired 32 SUVs so that troopers can more easily peer into cars to catch drivers who are texting.
- A Texas man has been in prison for more than 30 years despite having his conviction overturned and a new trial ordered in 1980.
- A couple in the Florida Keys were mistakenly shipped 11 pounds of marijuana to a rental property in Louisiana. They turned the marijuana in to local police in Florida, who say the couple could've been arrested had cops discovered the marijuana while the couple was unknowingly driving it back to Florida.
- Microsoft acknowledged a "very small number" of customers purchased Xbox Ones with serious disc reading issues. No blue screens reported.
Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.
Have a news tip? Send it to us!
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
National Security Advisor Susan Rice is in Afghanistan, where she is expected to meet with Hamid Karzai to discuss the post-2014 security pact between the two countries.
Hopefully no YouTubes come out.
Remember when you just had to vote for Obama because the evil Republicans were going to keep us in Afghanistan forever?
Well, those people were idiots, because this was always Obama's "good" war.
He didn't mean that. That was just stuff he said to keep the Republicans from calling him soft.
May be he meant, "If you like your war, you can keep it".
Hey remember when we were told that getting women out of burkahs was important enough to spill American blood?
11/25/13: Afghanistan 'plans to reintroduce public stoning as punishment for adultery'
This says it all.
The good news is that no one outside of Kabul in Afghanistan listens to or cares about the central government. The entire affair is a classic example of Americans not understanding strategy and internalizing the Marxist bullshit that hatred comes from poverty and oppression.
What we should have done in 2001 was invaded with everything we had and quickly had military tribunals using the establish rules from Nurmberg and within a few short months hanged everyone associated with the Taliban. Then we could have left telling the Afghans if anyone ever plans a terrorist attack against the US from there again we were coming back. We could have then left the Afghans to live as they want to secure in the knowledge that the next Arab who came over the hill talking war against the infidel would be hanged before nightfall.
The Pershing in the Philippines gambit?
Need to bury the corpses with pig's blood, for good measure.
That strategy would have probably been successful in AF, but would have really demonized us in the rest of the Islamic Countries.
Bush actually had the right idea in Afghanistan, but failed to pull all the way out after crushing the Taliban.
Obama doubled down on the Iraq strategy while ignoring the significant differences in the two situations.
That strategy would have probably been successful in AF, but would have really demonized us in the rest of the Islamic Countries.
Fuck 'em.
The mongols knew how to deal with those assholes.
John, you do understand that Arabs and Afghans are pretty much completely different, right?
What makes you think that he doesn't realize that.
OBL was an Arab asshole not from any ethnic group native to Afghanistan.
Microsoft acknowledged a "very small number" of customers purchased Xbox Ones with serious disc reading issues. No blue screens reported.
See, if Microsoft has rollout problems why can't Obamacare? //befuddle prog
A Texas man has been in prison for more than 30 years despite having his conviction overturned and a new trial ordered in 1980.
First you complain because his trial was too speedy, now you complain it isn't speedy enough. Make up your minds!
It is a very interesting story. Too bad Reason couldn't link to a news story about it or at least a court document.
Here
That's just fucked up. Just let him out. Even if he is guilty, he already has done his time.
It sounds like a law-school hypothetical come to life.
He was charged with capital murder and the jury sentenced him to death. The Court of Criminal Appeal, in 1980, found that a juror had wrongly been excluded because of scruples about capital punishment. In such a case, according to the *Witherspoon* precedent, the jury has been unfairly stacked in favor of the death penalty, BUT it can still be relied on to give a fair verdict on guilt or innocence. BUT, the state's rules of criminal procedure provided only one remedy if the jury improperly imposed the death penalty, and that remedy was a new trial. SO, the appeals court issued a mandate ordering a new trial.
Right after that, the governor of Texas issued a proclamation purporting to change the death sentence to life in prison. The guy has been in prison under that proclamation to this day.
Now, if the governor had acted sooner, before the appeals court issued its mandate, there would have been no problem. Since the only problem with the trial was with the death penalty, not with the underlying conviction, a commutation of the sentence would have solved the problem.
BUT - the governor waited too long. By the time he issued the proclamation the court had vacated the conviction and sentence, and there was no sentence to commute! (The Texas governor can only commute sentences *after* conviction). So his proclamation was meaningless, and there ought to have been a new trial. But there wasn't.
So the legal situation is that a person has been charged with a capital crime but not convicted - since the earlier conviction was vacated - and has waited for trial for three decades.
It's a speedy-trial violation, and the remedy is to drop all charges. The prosecution has to fish or cut bait.
They weren't *trying* to deny a speedy trial - they thought the governor's proclamation gave him a life sentence for a murder for which a fair jury had found him guilty. But for procedural reasons, the authorities were wrong.
Releasing this fellow is part of the price of the rule of law.
You know who ought to be *really* pissed? The victim's relatives. Because the prosecution couldn't be bothered to follow proper procedures, a guilty murderer could well be released.
This is why following criminal procedure is so important.
This dog can stack anything on its head
That's the most pleasant thing I've seen around here in a long while. Thanks for the chuckles!
We're going to find out its owner is a taxidermist.
That's the least pleasant thing I've seen around here this afternoon. Thanks!
That's what I'm here for.
I don't know if I could stack bacon on my head. That dog's a pro.
Microsoft acknowledged a "very small number" of customers purchased Xbox Ones with serious disc reading issues. No blue screens reported.
But are there red rings?
http://tinyurl.com/ky8alow
I brought this up in an earlier thread. I think what I like most is the ignorance about the concept of "investment."
Enrollment through Colorado's insurance exchange is barely half the projected worst case scenario...
Fire the person who set the worst case scenario bar so high! Or not high enough. Whichever.
James Cameron?
Spoiler alert: It was Clinton who lowered the bar. Cameron raised it.
Libertarians fiddle while Rome burns, says Objective Standard.
Can't we all just get along?
Going after Tibor is a bit harsh.
With Objectivists? They hate people more than libertarians. But anyone who starts from pre-Hobbesian ideas that there is nothing inherent in each human that belongs solely to him or her and cannot be stolen or sold (like this Mr. Brad Taylor) is never going to be able to have a discussion with me. They have already decided that force is the only thing that matters and that they hope they can toady to those with the force enough to enjoy some scraps from the table.
Suppose your city were on fire, buildings were ablaze, people were stuck in the buildings, and time was running out. And suppose the firefighters got busy?not manning fire trucks, fire hoses, and ladders?but inconclusively debating whether such tools exist. This, in effect, is what libertarians are doing as the Land of Liberty burns.
Yeah cuz libertarians have all the say in the world how the fire dept is run. Give me a fucking break.
If a libertarian picked up water bucket he would immediately be arrested for violating storm water regulations and the clean water act.
Wooo, that's a good story there Corning.
Don't get all serious in the PM Links now.
The inconclusive debate would be about whether the fire hoses shoot out water or gasoline. Seems like a pretty important discussion to have before manning the hoses.
Libertarians like Paul Ryan and The Economist are going soft according to The Atlantic
That is the most incoherent article I have read in a while. WTF does Paul Ryan, someone who doesn't even claim to be a libertarian, supporting anti-poverty programs have to do with helmet laws in Texas? It reads like that investment house commercial where they tell you how wool prices in New Zealand affect the Chinese auto industry.
He's a fan of Ayn Rand so therefore, libertarians are wrong! As best I could tell. And the idea that the Eurocrat-toadying Economist is remotely libertarian made me laugh out loud.
The Economist must have recently found religion?why else would it suddenly report that libertarianism can go too far and that rights may be bent to help the common good?
I think I missed something.
Someone doesnt know what the word "right" means.
The Economist has been firmly in the Keynesian/Monetarist Klown Kamp for at least a decade. What a joke.
Amatai Etzioni. Anyone remember when he debated David Kelley? That shows my Libertarian Age I guess...
Mr Communitarian???
Yeah...anything from him about libertarianism....it must be gospel!
The U.S. government reportedly turned a larger profit on student loans,$41.3 billion, than all but two companies worldwide, Exxon Mobil and Apple.
They'll need that money to cover all the defaults.
And isn't making large profits from middle class and poor young people trying to better themselves something leftist tell us is wrong?
Hard not to turn a profit when you can print the capital to lend in the first place.
Yeah, I was going to say to be fair to government incompetence, $41.3 billion seems rather small when you lent over $1 trillion.
...which officials say will make it difficult for the state "to deliver on promises made to Colorado citizens" and jeopardize the program's revenue stream.
If you like your solvency you can keep it.
61 year old Marine veteran saves woman who jumped from Oakland Coliseum deck
A woman was clinging to life after jumping from the third deck of the Coliseum following Sunday's Raiders game, authorities said.
But her life, as of late Sunday, appears to have been saved by a good Samaritan who pleaded with her not to jump and broke her 45-foot fall when she did...
"He saved her life quite honestly, at his own expense," Nelson said outside the Coliseum on Sunday night. "This guy 100 percent saved her life. She'd be dead now."
The tense, brief standoff began around 4:30 p.m., 15 minutes after the end of the game in which Oakland lost 23-19 to the Tennessee Titans, authorities said.
The 61-year-old Stockton man, a Marine Corps veteran, was on the second deck concourse level when he noticed the woman above, and repeatedly shouted, "don't do it," Nelson said.
But she jumped to the concourse below. The woman, who has not been identified, was taken to the hospital with critical injuries. She had gone to the west upper deck seating area in a section covered by a tarp, police said, and it appeared she was alone before she jumped.
The injured man was taken to the hospital with serious injuries, but was conscious and talking and is expected to survive, police said.
Even in suicide Raider fans are inconsiderate.
Even in suicide Raider fans are inconsiderate.
Are we even a tiny bit surprised?
Talk about inconsiderate, apparently he didn't bother to ask whether she had a good reason to jump or not.
Protip: Do not attempt to catch your own weight at approximately 2g. I mean, kudos to the guy for being pro-life, holy shit.
Theory: Miley Cyrus is actually a brilliant Dadaist performance artist.
Discuss.
I put this forward a couple of weeks ago.
Then I defer to your earlier wisdom on the topic.
I don't know. I liked SF's proposition that first you take all the "fuck you, dad!" money, then you move on to the concerned twink money. I assume after that you reconcile with your original audience and make mom-pop.
Either that or she is a no talent former child actor who is willing to do anything to stay famous after she can no longer play a child?
no
THIS
She's making absurdist anti-art for the sake of critiquing pop culture and is in the process trolling America. How is what she's doing different than Duchamp's "Fountain"?
The kitten WEEPS during the performance.
Duchamp did it on purpose. And had the talent to make whatever kind of art he wanted to.
Bullshit, Duchamp did it as a big fuck you to an art world that didn't embrace his painting, then instead of having the integrity to stand by his 'fuck you' and washing his hands of the whole thing, he played to the suddenly adoring art world and ate it up like the unprincipled hack he was.
That rather assumes that Cyrus isn't doing it on purpose. Did you watch the video? There's a weeping CGI kitten floating through space lipsyncing with her. Her outfit is completely awful. The terribleness MUST be intentional.
This is the Gay You putting a kitchy spin on what is in reality something drowning in a sea of its own existential awfulness.
Which can indeed be amusing in small doses. This is where some exposure to the Church of the Subgenius really pays off. The terribleness of EVERYTHING becomes far more entertaining.
Which reminds me... I sent them a check for something... and can't remember what...
oh well. Hey have you ever seen Whats Up Tiger Lilly? Its on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLU_-YMPX7I
Also, I havent' seen what the fuck you're talking about
This is the Gay You putting a kitchy spin on what is in reality something drowning in a sea of its own existential awfulness.
Shouldn't gay me be obsessing about her outfit?
Also, I havent' seen what the fuck you're talking about
The kitten WEEPS, GILMORE. Do not deny yourself the pleasure.
"This video has been removed by the user"
Catch it before someone pulls this one!
Or just search for "Miley Cyrus american music awards 2013"
Wow. That's like something from 'Robocop' (the original, obviously). Occam's razor still favors "do anything for attention" over "sly performance art".
Also: Miley, being young and not-fat is not the same thing as attractive.
Have you seen the Kanye West video? I has to be parody. No one is that tasteless, vulgar and insipid. No one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBAtAM7vtgc
Wait, THIS Kanye west could make something that tasteless, vulgar and insipid?
Apparently Mr. West interrupted a recent performance to go on a tirade about how the fashion world is snobby against him. I only know this because the local radio stations all break for celebrity news for 10 of the 20 minutes of my drive to work.
These two performances were foretold by the Mayans. They signal peak retard-apocalypse. Watching the videos consecutively immediately lowers your IQ by 30 points.
I haven't gotten around to watching 'Idiocracy' - I clearly need to make some time to do so, since Mike Judge must have some sort of news feed from the future.
Worlds worst neighbors.
Fox News: Pantsfan on front lines of liberal War on Christmas.
Don't they celebrate the winter solstice in June down there?
State police in New York have acquired 32 SUVs so that troopers can more easily peer into cars to catch drivers who are texting.
If i'm not mistaken don't texting crackdowns simply push people to text in their lap? So now instead of being simply distracted they're not seeing the road at all.
To be fair, the cops will also be making sure you don't put more than 7 rounds into a magazine.
In CA the fine for driving solo in the HOV lane is $471. The fine for texting while driving in $117. It made me chuckle a little when I noticed that this weekend.
If that alt text is supposed to be a double entendre implying the woman pictured is sexually desirable it fails miserably
The angle is a bit weird, but aside from the fact that she's smoking a cigarette she doesn't look half bad.
No not half bad. It's not like she's ugly or anything (well other than the cigarette which automatically costs any woman at least 2 points on the 1 - 10 scale, nothing worse than going down on a smoker, it's like licking an ashtray) but she is basically completely unremarkable looking.
WE DEMAND LOBSTER GIRL!
You have clearly never licked an ashtray if you are making that comparison.
It's funny how those perceptions work though. For me, the cigarette adds a point or two.
Same here. I also like girls with tattoos.
And Rasilio, I think you're doing it wrong.
Are you sure your licking the right hole?
Yeah, cigarette smoke makes your skin taste like an ashtray, all of it so it wouldn't really matter where I was licking
Yeah, no it doesn't.
They aren't supposed to be smoking them with their vaginas.
You've never been to Thailand, I take it?
Heh, several times. The first time I walked through Patpong was when I was 10 or so. My parents were incredibly strange about such things, no rated R movies till I was older but walking through a red light district with topless strippers and hookers lining the walkway, now that's just getting some culture.
What are you, twelve? "licking an ashtray" is something 14-year-old indoctrinates of public school say.
Um, that wasn't some sort of euphamism.
I literally mean it tastes like licking an ashtray.
My ex wife used to smoke even though she told me she didn't before we got together. Every now and then she'd start smoking at work and she could never get away with it because even of she showered and used mouthwash before she came to bed I could taste the smoke on her.
She finally quit when I told her I was not going down on her again if she didn't
Even if she showered? Bullshit.
I think there's more at play here. I've dated guys who could chain smoke for an hour and you'd barely smell it on them and guys that could smoke earlier in the day, shower and change and they still had that smoker smell. Maybe it's a personal biochemistry thing?
^^ This. ^^ Amazing how different people's body chemistry can be. It was a minor revelation, when I was younger, how the same cologne could smell differently on two different people.
And now I'm giggling about this
And now I'm giggling about this
I just passed that to my medical report editing staff. They are openly guffawing, which will probably get me in trouble.
"I love it when a hot guy passes by me and leaves his colon smell"
g'damn squirrels - "I get yelled at for that"
ohhh, topical: "your colon would smell amazing if you werent wearing the overwhelming scent of cigarettes too"
I'll have to take your word for it about the smell of that colon.
Either you are confused about what "going down" means, or your wife is confused about what "mouthwash" is for.
And her breasts felt like bags of sand.
My goodness, what was she smoking them with?
An Occurrence at Progtard Bridge
The latest polls on Obamacare are bleak. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that almost half of those questioned last week had an unfavorable opinion of the law. Just a third had a favorable opinion, even less than the 40 percent support for the law in the Nov. 14 Gallup poll.
But those poll numbers will change as more people like Bob Freukes of St. Louis and Donna Smith of Denver are finally able to shop for coverage on the new health insurance websites -- and find coverage that is surprisingly affordable.
Considering all the negative stories about the malfunctioning HealthCare.gov website and policy cancellations folks have been receiving, the steep decline in support for Obamacare shouldn't surprise anyone.
How do we know those quotes they get online are accurate?
As happy as she was to discover she will soon have affordable coverage -- and that it can't be canceled if her cancer returns, thanks to Obamacare -- she still believes a single-payer, Medicare-for-all type system would be better.
She has a point. The Affordable Care Act is far from perfect. But in the coming months and years, millions of us who have been unable to find affordable coverage will at long last be insured. Poll numbers will eventually reflect that.
So we're just going to ignore the substantial number of losers in favor of the subsidized?
But in the coming months and years, millions of us who have been unable to find affordable coverage will at long last be insured. Poll numbers will eventually reflect that.
This is where the lies they have told themselves are finally going to catch up to them. They actually believe that there were millions of people in America who couldn't get health care and hated the system. The reality is that most people were happy with their health coverage. There won't be millions of examples like this. There will be a few thousand if that. And whatever the number, it will be dwarfed by the number of people who will lose coverage they liked. Meanwhile Progs will continue to tell themselves and the country how great this thing is. So instead of throwing Obama and his plan under the bus and saying "we told you we needed single payer", they will die on this hill. Couldn't happen to a better bunch.
I do not think so John. The entire point of redistributionist measures is to redistribute. Some people will get something out of the ACA, others will lose. I think the problem for the Democrat Party is that the former group already consistently voted Democrat and the second group is needed to win elections outside the bluest of states. Barring an Akin-esque 'rape' comment or Steve King like insult to a major demographic group I think the Democrats have lost the White House for a while.
Sure it is. But that is not what they have been doing up until now. Until now most liberal programs have benefited the middle class. And to the extent they haven't, the costs have been hidden in the form of fungible taxes or debt. Never before have people actually seen their lives get worse to pay for someone else getting something. People are not altruistic. If they were, socialism would work.
The Dems are doomed on this. Everyone loves helping the less fortunate just as long as they think they are doing it with someone else' money.
I do not think so John. The entire point of redistributionist measures is to redistribute.
Sure, but you and a lot of libertarians and conservatives forget, or miss, that redistribution is only the sweetener to what progs really want --- central planning.
And sooner or later, the former will give way to the latter and Obamacare is that point for a majority of the people in the country.
Pretty much everybody will take free shit that's offered to them. Doesn't mean that they're going to accept busybody nannies in exchange.
Millions are now covered, and the costs just went up greatly for hundreds of millions who are paying for it. You're damn right poll numbers will reflect that.
Well, my CRM implementation went live today and handled 6 concurrent users. Would probably have handled a 7th if there were any. So, we've technically had a more successful integration go-live than healthcare.gov
Last time the government's CRM discriminator malfunctioned, we nuked Russia.
Congrats. And smart move doing a go-live on Thanksgiving Monday -- this is a good week for that sort of thing.
CRM114?
Catholic Manchester Diocese Statement Against Expanded Legalized Gambling in New Hampshire (Bingo Presumed Still OK!)
-Several bills introduced in the New Hampshire Legislature this session would legalize casinos and permit the use of "video lottery machines" (otherwise known as "slot machines"). Although the Roman Catholic Church does not view gambling as morally unacceptable in and of itself, games of chance "become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement (CCC, 2413)." Unfortunately, those expanded gambling bills would, if they pass, have terrible social implications and would harm our New Hampshire way of life.
http://www.catholicnh.org/publ...../gambling/
I think it just terrifies them that what is left of thier flock will spend their tithe at a casino.
And their bingo money too.
It's in the Bible: "thou shalt not horn in on thy neighbors racket".
They're worried it'll take away revenue from the Church's casino night.
To be fair if you go to the casino you have a small but significant chance of winning, which could lead to addiction.
When the church does it, the only winner is the house.
Yes, how dare a diocese of the Catholic Church point out unintended negative consequences of a proposed government policy!
I also noted how you disingeniously negelected to include this paragraph of the statement, you know, the one that puts the previous statement in context
Note: I live in Manchester and I am currently typing this under duress. The Tribunus Scantae Officii Inquisitionis Novae Hantoniae are holding my family hos....
I don't think this is a case of the Church protecting its bingo games. They've signed on to a campaign by the anti-gambling coalition, and I hypothesize they did it because of pastoral experience of members of the flock (including heads of households) ruining not only themselves but their families to satisfy addictive behavior.
It's one thing to say that these sorts of consequences are the price to pay for freedom in Libertopia, but jokes about "lol they want to protect their bingo lol" are utterly ridiculous.
It's one thing to say that these sorts of consequences are the price to pay for freedom in Libertopia, but jokes about "lol they want to protect their bingo lol" are utterly ridiculous.
And it just won't do to have jokes that are ridiculous! No, jokes are meant to be serious business.
As I understand it, the sentiment behind the jokes is that "they can't *really* have a genuine concern about gambling addicts among their flock, and in the general public - they must have some kind of angle."
...and? Posters here--pretty much all of us--routinely accuse politicians of arguing in bad faith and using concern for such things as "the poor" and "the planet" as covers for increasing their own power--"having an angle" as you might put it.
If characterizing activists and politicians is acceptable, why can't that same attitude be directed towards what has historically been one of the most corrupt and oppressive organizations ever founded, the Catholic Church?
"If characterizing activists and politicians is acceptable"
That would depend on whether the characterization is accurate.
So...is it accurate to say the Diocese of New Hampshire only wants the money of gambling addicts?
Diocese of Manchester
The larger point, that Bo misses, or chose not to acknowledge, is that what the Diocese is actually saying is that if the the State of NH plans on making revenue by gambling, it should also be prepared to have the social services in place to deal with the fallout from gambling addicts. So while, in the short run, gambling may seem to increase revenue, those profits will be lost by the increasing burden to the welfare state.
And that is a reasonable point, in marked contrast with Eduard's "how dare he!" huffery.
I'll repeat:
"So...is it accurate to say the Diocese of New Hampshire only wants the money of gambling addicts?"
Why should I defend a statement that was not made directly or indirectly by any party to this conversation?
"I think it just terrifies them that what is left of thier [sic] flock will spend their tithe at a casino."
"And their bingo money too."
"It's in the Bible: "thou shalt not horn in on thy neighbors racket"."
"They're worried it'll take away revenue from the Church's casino night."
I try.
Nut Consumption Reduces Risk of Death
The regular nut-eaters were found to be more slender than those who didn't eat nuts, a finding that should alleviate fears that eating a lot of nuts will lead to overweight.
So, you're good then?
"eating a lot of nuts will lead"
I shall have to tell my wife this
I was just chatting about this. A couple of radiologists told me a few months ago that my love for peanut butter is going to give me liver cancer by the time I turn 60. So who's right?
Are peanuts technically nuts?
Legumes!
I thought it was cashews that weren't really nuts. Maybe it's both.
Beans, lentils, peas, and peanuts. Cashews are nuts.
Depends on how technical you want to get. Peanuts are definitely not nuts. Nuts grow on trees.
FTA: Whether any specific type or types of nuts were crucial to the protective effect could not be determined. However, the reduction in mortality was similar both for peanuts (a legume, or ground nut) and for tree nuts ? walnuts, hazelnuts, almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, macadamias, pecans, pistachios, and pine nuts.
A more accurate name would be "nutpeas".
I have to laugh when someone says they have a "peanut allergy" then shies away from a real nut like a vampire avoids daylight.
... Hobbit
I know seven people with peanut allergy, including 3 members of my immediate family. All but one are also severely allergic to walnuts, cashews, etc. according to tests and bad experiences; including trips to the hospital. So I would not laugh, lest you be the cause of an untimely death. Urge caution, and confirming tests. And keep an Epi-pen at hand.
According to this, it depends on your peanut butter.
FTA:The bottom line when it comes to peanut butter and your health: Buy organic to prevent pesticide contamination. Refrigerate your jar to prevent fungal growth. And if you're particularly concerned about aflatoxins, buy from top-notch natural brands like Arrowhead Mills, which claim to be completely aflatoxin-free.
Thanks. This is my brand so maybe I am ok. I have definitely been concerned.
"Buy organic to prevent pesticide contamination."
Is this to get the manure contamination?
Or pest contamination.
Krugman: California proves Obamacare will work nationwide
At a time like this, you really want a controlled experiment. What would happen if we unveiled a program that looked like Obamacare, in a place that looked like America, but with competent project management that produced a working website?
...Ladies and gentlemen, I give you California.
This should be good.
California is, however, an especially useful test case. First of all, it's huge: if a system can work for 38 million people, it can work for America as a whole.
Flawless logic from the professor.
Enrollment is surging. At this point, more than 10,000 applications are being completed per day, putting the state well on track to meet its overall targets for 2014 coverage. Just imagine, by the way, how different press coverage would be right now if Obama officials had produced a comparable success, and around 100,000 people a day were signing up nationwide.
Yeah, just imagine if the Federal government was competent.
To work as planned, health reform has to produce a balanced risk pool ? that is, it must sign up young, healthy Americans as well as their older, less healthy compatriots. And so far, so good: in October, 22.5 percent of California enrollees were between the ages of 18 and 34, slightly above that group's share of the population.
Need more self-sacrifice!
Too bad austerity-sequester-nuclear option-Rethuglitransigence will kill ANY chance of this working nationally.
/Krugnuts
What is most shocking is someone has overtaken Krugman in being first to take a punch to the face:
From the comments:
So like most Californians that support Obamacare I am optimistic about its future, at least in my state. It's hard to resist that feeling of smugness that I know can be highly irritating to non-Californians. Sorry:)
Sometimes, I really just don't get Krugman's deal. He's a decent writer (in form, if not in content), and he is obviously knowledgeable about some things, so I really can't believe that he's just an idiot who doesn't know any better when he writes something like this:
It takes about five seconds of thinking that through to realize it doesn't make any sense since the exchange wasn't designed to attract enrollees whose demographics would match those of the total state--the very young and very old were already covered by Medicaid and Medicare, meaning that by design those groups will be underrepresented in the exchange relative to their share of the general population. Krugman's statement is just meaningless, in that it doesn't provide any actual, useful information about the performance of the exchange, only serious-sounding numbers glossed with Krugman's appeal to his own authority as an expert on everything.
I could see Yglesias writing something like that and just not knowing any better, but with Krugman, I don't buy it. I feel he could make arguments that weren't so totally shitty if he tried, so why doesn't he?
I keep waiting for Krugman's Joseph Welch moment. But it never comes.
Krugman really is a performance artist. He clearly understands that pretty much everything he writes is bullshit. I think he likes the attention and rationalizes lying so much by thinking that he is telling a noble lie that shows a truth only top men like himself can understand.
I'm not so sure. I think it's just partisan blindness.
Read his book "Peddling Prosperity" sometime. He wrote it in the late 1980s and it is an equal take down of both Keynsian and supply side economics. He knows better. I think he thinks he is telling a noble lie.
But for it to be a noble lie, he has to believe that his Keynesian/Yellow Dog Democrat shtick is truly effective in achieving in reaching that noble goal. I think he may have just changed his mind, probably partly from the social pressure of his environment, and partly because he was so traumatized by Bush v. Gore.
"in a place that looked like America..."
California does not look like America, so fail #1.
I thought we already had a "controlled experiment" - Romneycare. So we should totally not be opposed to Obamacare, since Romneycare already showed... something. The fact costs immediately ballooned far past expectations are are expected to continue to grow is, like, an irrelevant part of that experiment.
http://nhjournal.com/2013/11/2.....e-imagery/
New Hampshire Dems keep it classy. Remember sexist language and inferring that a woman is stupid because she is physically attractive is totally not sexist when liberals do it.
They're doing it ironically, so, you know, it's cool, man.
Sarah Palin, LOL!
/libtard
And Marilinda Garcia is a babe.
http://www.nhcornerstone.org/w.....arcia.jpeg
Hell yeah, that's what I call Smokin
She is smoking. And she has such a nice smile. She looks like a nice person in addition to being smoking. The people of New Hampshire owe it to America to keep her in public life.
Well, if she runs in that race against Kuster, I'll have an opportunity to vote for her. I know almost nothing about her at this point, though.
What do you need to know besides that face and that body? How much damage can one House member do anyway?
Yeah, it's probably worth the vote just to get a looker in there. If we are going to have an all female congressional delegation, we really should have at least one hot one.
And it is not like there is any chance of her opponent being a decent choice or anything.
What do you need to know besides that face and that body? How much damage can one House member do anyway?
TWO WORDS: Nancy Pelosi
She's almost as hot as Rose DeLaurio.
Unfortunately, I'm not in her district.
She got a good write-up by the NH Republican Liberty Caucus, if that means anything.
It should also be noted that Peter Sullivan is a reverse-carpetbagger from Virgina.
So, we'll just have to take this one on the chin, for now. But no others!
Carpetbagging is the American tradition. You move somewhere because you think the new place is better than the old place. That's flattering, and might get you some votes.
You might either think, "hmm, that could be good" or want to shower with Lysol: exhibit features cheese made from human sourced bacteria
http://www.gizmag.com/selfmade-cheese.....ria/29879/
Dubbed Selfmade, the cheese in question is made from human bacteria which derives from samples taken from people's armpits, toes, and noses. Each Selfmade cheese is created from cultures taken from the skin of a different person, and the process involves a strange combination of food preparation and microbiological techniques. This results in signature cheeses which are unique to each person ? such as a "Christina" cheese, and "Ben" cheese, for example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJXYMDu6dpY
Why? Does it really matter where the bacteria comes from?
I bet he doesnt drink lambics either.
Where did the yeast and bacteria come from?
Who knows!
I don't drink beer, period; doesn't matter how it's made. Can't stand the taste. I prefer rum or whisky.
In this case, I wouldn't eat it specifically because I do know where the bacteria came from...
realistically it shouldn't, what should matter is the taste. The problem is most people never really think about the fact that cheese is basically made with bacteria and this kinda rubs it in their faces.
That said if you could get people over the ick factor you could make a mint by partnering with celebrities and making a line of cheeses based of their personal bacteria with the price of the cheese being related to the marketability of the celebrity.
Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker.
Same with this stuff...
Oh yeah, who wouldn't want some Miley Cyrus Cheese? Or Lindsay Lohan Cheese? Or Angelina Jolie Cheese?
Rogue fermented a beer with yeast recovered from one of their brewer's beards.
If I were in possession of my foreskin, intact in its natural habit, I would harvest the bacteria from my dick-cheese to make dick-cheese.
fromunder cheese is still within your reach
The Southern Avenger speaks
But let's be honest: My commentary wasn't all that different from what more mainstream conservatives were saying?at the time and still today.
Look at some of the popular conservative arguments of the last decade. Is our border-security problem really part of a La Raza takeover of the United States, as some have speculated? As I once speculated?
President Obama is unquestionably awful. But is it necessary to call him a food-stamp president? What kind of message does that send?
Do we need to portray Obama as a secret Kenyan-Muslim-communist consumed by anti-colonial rage? Would his policies be more acceptable if Obamacare and gun control were somehow proven to be all-American in origin?
I believe that conservatives' limited-government arguments are the right ones. So why do we ever have to go there?
Most conservatives are not, and never were, racists. But many have displayed a disregard for minorities for a very long time and in a plethora of ways. I certainly did. Minorities think we don't like them. Not enough conservatives have tried to convince them that's not true. Some seem comfortable doubling down on the same old insensitivities as a matter of being more right wing-than-thou.
It's a problem. It's also a dead end for the GOP.
So let me guess, your radio show hit the skids you have now decided to make your career as a reformed conservative concern troll.
Coming soon, the Hunterton Post
Albuquerque district court judge declares city's vehicle seizure policy in DWI cases unconstitutional.
It's a few days old, so h&r may have covered it already, but it's nice seeing fairly pleasant news about New Mexico from time to time.
Fuck it. http://www.abqjournal.com/3073.....tures.html
Sf'd link.
Double SF.
Never go double SF.
You all may use your parlance if you like, but to me the term is indelibly skullfucked .
That is exactly what it is.
SugarFree is just a euphemism.
A riddle, wrapped in an enigma, dipped in saccharin and Warty juice.
A riddle, wrapped in an enigma, dipped in saccharin and Warty juice.
Wonder how cheese made from that would taste?
It all works, really.
Huh?
Insurance companies offer smoking cessation programs, which you can't be in if you're not insured.
Dear Prudence: Help! My wife hid her right-wing religious beliefs from me
I dated my wife for three years before we married. We were both in our 30s and had had all of the important discussions before we decided to marry (kids, religion, etc.). At the time, she told me she was agnostic, and not really into "the whole religion thing." Now, less than six months into our marriage, she tells me she's joined a church and expects me to join her for Sunday services. It's only now that I learn that she has extremely right-wing, religious views. After talking with some of her friends, they couldn't believe I didn't know this about her. I asked them why they wouldn't have mentioned this when they found out we weren't having a church wedding and they told me that was probably done for my benefit. Now, instead of our not wanting any kids, she wants at least five and maybe more. Instead of no religion, she wants strict adherence to her religion. I feel I've been duped and that she's lied to me about herself. Is there any way out of this short of divorce?
I like how, for once, Prudie says this must be a prank letter because no one could be that dumb, right?
What are "right wing" versus "left wing" religious views? I bet anything if she were going to the "First Church of Christ and Social Justice" dumb ass would be studying to be a deacon.
I think you answered your own question with "First Church of Christ and Social Justice"
Assuming it is not a prank why the hell would he WANT to stay married to her?
I mean if his story is on the up and up she lied to him and misrepresented everything about herself to make her seem more desirable to him and then 6 months after they were married she drops it on him like a bomb?
If this happened to me there'd be no question of whether or not we got divorced, the only question would be what I had to do to ensure that I would not be on the hook for alimony
I agree. But you have to be pretty stupid not to notice it was a lie. All of her friends knew her views.
I assume by right wing religious views, she belongs to a more traditional church. Which probably puts an emphasis on the woman being subservient to her husband... meaning that this sort of deception should violate her religious views and be anathema to her.
I just don't but this. I guess in a country of 300+ million there should be a couple of instances of any kind of weird two-facedness that a person can conceive of... but I am having trouble with my willing suspension of disbelief.
Of course, there is a solution:
Have her join Christian Nymphos!
I think an hour in church once a week could be negotiated in return for the right sexual favors. But something tells me this guy wouldn't find blowjobs and various other sundry acts sufficient for him to have to suffer Republicans or he wouldn't be writing for advice.
I believe this is called missionary dating. It's seriously frowned on by just about everyone (being "unequally yoked"). I have heard that some smaller culty sects engage in it, but I've never encountered them personally. He could be confusing "right wing" and "completely batshit" sects.
I wouldn't mind marrying a devoutly religious woman, even as an atheist, with the understanding that I'd not attend regular sermons (I don't mind making exceptions for Easter and Christmas). Also, no to creationism.
If its true why not look on the bright side? If right wing means what I think it does, she believes in wives being obediant to their husbands and doing icky womens work like changing diapers. She wont be nagging her tired husband to help with rhe housework. And in exchange his wife gives him multiple children to care for him when hes old. Dude, it could be worse.
First thing, make damn sure you don't get her pregnant.
I like how, for once, Prudie says this must be a prank letter because no one could be that dumb, right?
He was getting laid...lots of things get blurred out when you are getting laid...and they come better into focus after 6 months of the same thing.
Plus women who are good at lying are not exactly rare.
If this were me - assuming they were using condoms for birth control - I would tell her that I already had a vasectomy but was using condoms so she wouldn't catch herpes from me. Then I would watch how that news spins her reaction about the upcoming divorce proceedings.
Steve Chapman 2013 on the Democrat's elimination of the filibuster for judicial nominees:
"There is something to be said for promoting deliberation by impeding action. But that's what the Constitution did, requiring legislation to gain the approval of the House, the Senate and the president. It also required judges to win not only the president's nomination but the approval of a majority of senators
Under the established filibuster rule, though, a majority of senators often did not have the power to do what the Constitution says?namely, to provide "advice and consent" on presidential nominees. A minority of members could block them from even taking a vote."
http://reason.com/archives/201.....r#comments
Steve Chapman 2005 on The Republicans attempted elimnation of the filibuster for judicial nominees:
"Critics of the filibuster, however, say there are limits to Congress' authority over its own deliberations. In their view, rules may not impose a "supermajority" requirement that the Constitution doesn't provide (as it does for treaties and constitutional amendments, which have to pass by a two-thirds vote).
Nice theory, but where did they find it? Not in the Constitution. The "advice and consent" clause doesn't even say that a majority of senators is needed to confirm a nominee. The definition of "consent" is left to the Senate."
http://articles.baltimoresun.c.....l-nominees
"But none of those is as important as the oldest law of politics: Where you stand depends on where you sit."
Indeed, Mr. Chapman, indeed.
Wait, aren't those both anti-filibuster?
The way I read it he says in 2005 article the critics of the filibuster have no constitutional support, the Senate can define what is "advise and consent", The Senate is constitutionally empowered to require 60 votes to end debate on a nominee. So it is against eliminating the filibuster.
The 2013 is for eliminnating the filibuster.
The 2013 article says the filibuster is
The 2013 article for eliminating the filibuster.
What's the 2005 article in favor of?
The 2005 article is critical of the GOP attempt to eliminate the filibuster.
Nice. Derpman strikes again.
I love kicking around Chapman as much as anyone. But those two articles seem to be consistent.
How is "...a majority of senators often did not have the power to do what the Constitution says..." consistent with "...The "advice and consent" clause doesn't even say that a majority of senators is needed to confirm a nominee."?
Stay Classy, Winnipeg
Colorado Obamacare Enrollment Even Worse Than Worst Case Projections
LOL
I guess that ruins my, "Deal with Iran Purely an Effort to Temporarily Shut Down Parade of Headlines Declaring Even-Worse-Than-The-Darkest-Nightmare Details of Obamacare Fiasco"-theory
Star Wars is dead: Dispatches from a Star Wars open casting call
Here's why Star Wars is dead: First, because they made a huge mistake in not casting me. Second, because it's no longer in the hands of a bunch of nerds in California and because it's been entrusted instead to the kind of people who think eight-hour meet-and-greets are a good idea either as A) publicity stunts (or, giving them the presumption of good faith) B) a good way to determine who's going to be the next Luke Skywalker. It's because Star Wars ? a story that's profoundly anti-centralization, anti-bureaucracy, anti-depersonalization ? is being micromanaged and scrutinized by nameless bureaucrats who think that people who've stood in line for five hours will be satisfied with being directed to a website. And it's because a film enterprise that was initially about risk is now about bet-hedging. No one should need to be told that the seventh film in a franchise probably isn't going to be super great. But, you know, just in case, consider yourself warned.
As I headed out of auditions, I passed Josh and Kaylyn on the escalator, and I asked him how it went (Kaylyn wasn't trying out; she was just there to support her fianc?).
"Oh, all right," he said. He looked glum. "Over and done." If only we could say as much for Lucasfilm.
Alt text winner of the day!
Buddha: 100 years old than previously thought.
I don't expect the Buddhist world will change the reckoning of its calendar, which is currently 2556, but it's possible.
Buddha, Schmudda.
Jesus was born at 12:01am January 1, 1 like a proper figure of worship. You can't beat timing like that, hippie.
Craiglist DC apartment listing: $1 rent for naked roommate
The landlord decided to rent their Chinatown penthouse for just $1 per month.
The only catch? The new tenant has to be "very attractive" aged 26 or under and happy to be a "naked roommate," The Daily Dot reports.
"I'm a male looking for another male (straight or bisexual w/girlfriend preferred, but masc gay is cool too) to be my naked roommate," read the original ad, which has now been removed.
"Sounds crazy, but this is for real."
The ad went on to say the arrangement would be mostly "looking," but some "touching" will be required ? the legality of which is murky at best the Huffington Post reported.
As weird as this is of course it should be legal.
You need to read Jonathan Ames book, "What's Not to Love?"
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-No.....0375726497
Its a collection of his pieces as the 'sex columnist' for the NY Press. There are a dozen stories like this. All hilarious.
That said = D.C. has a 'Chinatown'? What, the Chinese Government doesn't own the whole place yet?
Angola bans Islam, begins tearing down mosques.
Angola Denies It Banned Islam, Destroyed Mosques
Yes, but the damage has been done. Angola is going to be flooded with thousands of shreiking Jihadis seeking martyrdom and vengeance over this perceived slight.
At least they didn't draw cartoons or write a novel about Islam. Then they'd REALLY be in trouble.
Why is this article (by PapayaSF) making me laugh?
"Angola has banned Islam!" --headline.
Angola--"Wait, what was that? What did you say just now?"
NPR is doing a report on 23andme and the FDA ban on it. So they're interviewing a medical ethicist who defends the FDA, but they didn't seem to have gotten around to interviewing anyone from the company. Maybe I missed it...
NPR (or Marketplace) says the public knew at the time that FDR was disabled. "his disability was discussed constantly, and he was very frank about it." Polio sufferers wrote to him. The March of Dimes used Roosevelt in its fundraising.
This isn't a pro-FDR point, it's about the mythmaking process and the tendency to denigrate previous generations. Isn't it bad enough they voted for this guy without accusing them of being in denial about obvious facts?
That was just stuff he said to keep the Republicans from calling him soft. i think that nothing