home

Friday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:26:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm racing the clock to get three more suppression motions filed by the midnight deadline.

Here's an open thread for you, all topics welcome.

Update 8/1: Our thoughts and best wishes go out to Sen. Chris Dodd who announced last night he has prostate cancer. It's in the early stage, he expects a full recovery and still intends to seek re-election.

< Bringing Sexism Into It | Some Saturday News and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Night Open Thread | 173 comments (173 topical)
    Anyody hear anything further about (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:49:10 PM EST
    the elderly woman (without a cell phone) who prompted Lucia Whalen to call the police:
    an elderly woman stopped Lucia Whalen on Ware Street earlier this month and explained that someone appeared to be breaking into a nearby home, Lucia Whalen used her cellphone to make the call that led to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and spawned a national controversy about race relations.
     
    Who was the elderly woman? What became of her? Just when I thought no stone was left unturned.

    I think she might also (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 09:54:40 PM EST
    not have a tv, so doesn't realize what is going on. OR, she does have a tv and she's praying she is never found. No good comes to the people who got involved in this mess :)

    Parent
    An elderly woman walking (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:59:11 PM EST
    (I presume) in the neighborhood, may very well have lived in the neighborhood (for some time?) and she would likely know who lived around there and vice versa. I'm not suggesting that anybody should track her down, or bother her in any way.

    I just find it curious that the chain of events is said to have originated with her and neither the authorities, nor the press, appear to have the least interest in who she is, or where she is, or what she actually saw and what she subsequently said to Whalen.

    Again it's just curious that there is no interest in a first hand account from the person who was, evidently, the only eye witness at the original scene of of an event that dominated the news for the entire week leading up to summer recess.

    Parent

    I completely agree (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:05:28 PM EST
    It has been a huge missing piece since they released the 911 tape for me, too. It's as though this entire story was put out in bits and pieces that would serve some purpose other than getting to the truth of the incident.

    Parent
    I think she was ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:23:57 PM EST
    a "gray alien" who briefly took human form.

    Y'know they're always messing with us.

    ;)

    Parent

    Well then, that explains it... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:25:17 AM EST
    I watched the Watergate movie "All the President's Men" late last night. Apparently, in a fugue state, I confused the Gatesgate phantom "elderly woman" with Deep Throat.

    The movie is so slow-paced it's like watching paint dry - but it's still riveting and resonant. Ahh, the olde tyme days of investigative journalism.

    Parent

    Lest we forget, no criminal complaint (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:40:52 AM EST
    was filed against Prof. Gates. If he files a civil lawsuit, his investigator will look for her.

    Parent
    yep, I know, no criminal complaint (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:15:57 AM EST
    was filed against Gates, but the press was still all over Lucia Whalen like flies on $hit - even though the poor woman was only acting as a go-between for that elusive primary witness.

    OK, I'll just have to chill and see if gates files a civil suit. What are the odds he will?

    Parent

    Prof. Gates or his colleague/attorney (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:30:55 AM EST
    sd. Gates won't file a lawsuit.  

    Parent
    flies on S**t (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:44:37 AM EST
    the media on a potential racist.

    a lot of things were resolved by the statements made yesterday, but no one.  not one soul ever explained why giving a thorough description of a human being makes you racist.

    but yes.  the press loves a pile on.  an no one ever received any negative consequences for incorrectly calling someone a racist.


    Parent

    I'm not sure all fat balding white women (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    slightly prone to challenging police authority would agree with you.

    Parent
    which means (none / 0) (#57)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:48:55 AM EST
    people should continue to call people racist knowing they will never receive any consequences for doing so incorrectly.


    Parent
    Pathetic what has become of Woodward (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:36:20 AM EST
    and Bernstein. And Bradlee.

    Parent
    And old-time movie-making (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:16:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Whenever I start to think of the various (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    ways that Jeff Sessions can be dealt with I have to watch the movie 'Last Supper' just to stay in focus :)  I watched that last night :)  Don't worry law enforcement.  You don't need to visit my house today.  I am making a joke.  I know it could be viewed as a tasteless joke but I still have the right to be tasteless the last time I checked.

    Parent
    You said it very well IG... (none / 0) (#15)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:22:40 PM EST
    BTW, are you involved with the legal profession? If you consider that a private matter just ignore the question.

    Parent
    No, my focus (none / 0) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:52:10 AM EST
    is not in the law...all career profiling surveys said it should be, but I have always resisted following the suggestion..."you know what you need to do....."  That leaning does keep me interested in what happens with the caption "justice" under it.


    Parent
    Not right, Fox, so was Whalen (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:15:23 AM EST
    She's not the only original witness, Whalen was, too, by her own account on the 911 call.  The elderly lady just drew her attention to what was going on at the house as she passed her on the street.  Whalen then stood on the sidewalk and called 911 from in front of or across the street from the house.

    Let's all please try to be really, really careful that we only say what we really know or have looked up about this whole incident.  It's difficult enough to sort out without wrong info getting into the mix.

    Parent

    I hear you Gyr, but I said (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:55:02 AM EST
    the "elderly woman" was the only eye witness at the original scene...

    To clarify, the "elderly woman" was the only known eye witness to the first part of the event, which occurred prior to the point when she alerted Whalen.

    Of course, Whalen was a witness to the remaining part of the event as she described in the 9/11 call. But Whalen was also quite clear that she was calling as a consequence of the other woman's concerns.

    From the transcript:

    LUCIA WHALEN: I just saw her from a distance and this older woman was worried thinking someone's breaking into someone's house. They've been barging in and she interrupted me and that's when I had noticed otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all to be honest with you. So I was just calling because she was a concerned neighbor. I guess.


    Parent
    Whalen also decribes (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:23:06 AM EST
    in another part of the 911 call, which was very lengthy, watching the men on the porch, and specifically being unable to see everything that was going on or what the men looked like because her view was partially blocked by a bush (er, shrub...)

    It is simply wrong to say that Whalen did not see what was happening as the two men tried to push in the door.

    From Gates's own account, after tring and failing to get the front door open, he went around to the back door and turned the alarm off, then returned to the front door, whereupon he and the driver shoved at the door repeatedly and finally got it open.

    Whalen may have missed the first part, but she clearly saw the second part where the men bashed the door open and went in.

    Parent

    I have no disagreement with you Gyr... (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:33:30 AM EST
    about anything you're saying in your latest comment. Perhaps you are wondering about my motives. So, again, to be clear, in no way do I intend to impugn Whalen's integrity - she appears to be a thoroughly well-intentioned bystander. I don't at all dispute that Whalen said she saw:
    what was happening as the two men tried to push in the door. [etc.]

    However, in her 911 call, Whalen stated that if the elderly woman hadn't alerted her she (Whalen): "probably wouldn't have noticed it at all".

    In view of that remark, it is odd that there has been no media interest in the whereabouts, nor the identity, nor a first hand account from the initial, pivotal witness who set it all in motion.

    I'm just sayin' (where in the world is Carmen San Diego). Peace.

    Parent

    Hey Foxhole... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:58:30 AM EST
    to answer your question from the previous thread...I get insulted and have been impacted as a member of a marginalized group, recreational drug users.  People I identify with (or any people) getting arrested and denied their inalienable rights insults me greatly.  But I don't mind the stoner jokes, I can even laugh at them.  They're jokes...its a matter of taste.

    The rather lame beer joke with varied targets was not meant to dehumanize or objectify anybody, imo, you and others are free to disagree of course, as I am free to disagree with your disagreement.  Free speech rocks.


    Parent

    Do you understand (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:07:52 AM EST
    that there is a difference between choosing to be part of a group vs. being born into a group, based on your genitalia or complexion, that then will result in profiling -- stereotyping, presuming to be able to project expectations, etc. -- of you?

    Parent
    Of course... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:26:58 AM EST
    I understand its a group I chose to join, and not one I was born into.  But being denied inalienable rights is being denied inalienable rights.

    Though it is a group that is stereotyped and profiled Cream...when I piss in a cup to get a job, is the employer not prejudging and profiling me?  Making an ignorant assumption on whether I can perform the tasks required based on the contents of my urine and the lazy stoner stereotype? Is that not just as wrong as making an assumption a woman can't do a job because she is a woman, or a minority?

    Foxhole asked if I identified myself with any marginalized group and that was my answer...I didn't mean to stroke up a stoner pity party..I can go the GNC and beat a piss test easy, a woman can't hide her womanhood or a minority the color of their skin.

    Parent

    It is not quite a crime (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:30:50 AM EST
    to be a woman or of color; it only means those of us will be stereotyped as suspected of some crimes.  So that does configure, to an extent, likelihood of being hired.

    Unfortunately, as well you know, it is a crime to do some drugs, and some also affect work skills.  So it is a different thing for potential employers to screen for those who could affect costs, especially liabilities in court suits.

    Do you understand that difference?

    Parent

    News Report of the Day: Pelosi to allow floor vote (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jawbone on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:00:30 PM EST
    on single payer!!!

    Per The Hill. No further information as to when.  

    Let's hope it's referred to as Medicare for All, much easier sale.

    People just call and say, "I want my Medicare. Now!"

    Better be after August break--we need time to whip this big time.

    And suggestions as best way to use our time?

    While I am genuinely interested (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:15:08 PM EST
    on who will end up voting for this, and shame on anyone who doesn't, I think we have to concede that it will not pass.

    So IMO the best use of time is to press for increased subsidies for people to pay the premiums on insurance that they will be mandated to buy. I don't know what's being offered right now, and if there isn't enough help, there WILL be a backlash.

    Parent

    You aim for a C ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:27:18 PM EST
    you might end up with a D or an F.

    Parent
    When you're starting from D-, it's worth it (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:29:07 PM EST


    Parent
    I think I'm for ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:30:25 PM EST
    dropping the class.

    Parent
    Too late :p (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:32:41 PM EST


    Parent
    My college allowed you ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:01:07 AM EST
    to drop a class after you'd taken it.

    Weird but true.

    The only catch: You couldn't be on Dean's or President's list if you did it.

    Parent

    Quite lenient (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:06:26 AM EST
    Did you get a "W" on your transcript?

    Parent
    No ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:12:06 AM EST
    just in the White House.

    Parent
    When you call for the increased subsidies, please (none / 0) (#200)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:16:37 PM EST
    at least ask them to VOTE YES on single payer, Medicare for All. (Thanks in advance!)

    30 page bill, everybody who works already contributes to the Medicare fund. Easy peasy paperwork to get the rest signed up.

    And, yes, let the keep their parasites, if they so wish. Mayo Clinic, a large co-op, is world famous.

    But, somehow, I bet the vast majority will go with the affordable, dependable, transparent option: Medicare for All.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#4)
    by bocajeff on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:08:42 PM EST
    Why is wasting everyone's time and money and good thing. This has zero chance of becoming law this year or any year soon.

    Parent
    Important, IMHO (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:18:40 AM EST
    that it not go down to ignominious defeat with only a handful of votes.  You're right, it has no chance of passing, but all the more reason for the more enlightened Reps to vote for it symbolically.  It would be just fantastic if it got a big vote, even if it doesn't pass, which it won't.

    There's clearly enough pressure from somewhere, or Pelosi wouldn't agree to a vote at all.  Let's add to the pressure.

    Parent

    Rep. Weiner also offered an amendment (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:20:52 AM EST
    to allow the Republicans the opportunity to vote to abolish Medicare since it is a government run program. It was shot down in flames. I'm google challenged. Does anyone have a link to the roll call vote on that amendment?

    Rep. Weiner's speech prior to the vote is a great example of how Democrats could and should be approaching health care reform. Here is a link for anyone interested.  

    Parent

    I have given up hope (none / 0) (#10)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:02:42 PM EST
    that any real reform will happen this year. The democratic leadership are a bunch of wusses unable to keep their own caucus in line. Time for new democratic leadership in both houses. I certainly hope my pessimism is misplaced, by the way.

    Parent
    Wussiness is not the problem (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:01:28 AM EST
    The sizable insurance industry campaign contributions to Democratic members of both houses is the main reason for the lack of real health care reform.

     

    Parent

    I do NOT want medicare (none / 0) (#21)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:40:59 PM EST
    My friends who have it complain about it all the time.  I couldn't honestly tell anyone that I want medicare.  

    Parent
    You must have a fairly unique set of friends (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:45:11 PM EST
    because Medicare is one of the most popular government programs ever.

    And if I had no insurance at all, I would be very much interested in Medicare.

    Parent

    As I head towards (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:22:46 AM EST
    eligibility myself in the next few years, most of my friends are already on it.  I've heard ZERO complaints.  It doesn't pay for everything, but it's far better than private insurance, unless you have the Congressional Cadillac-type version.

    The only real problem with it is that the reimbursement rate for health care providers is so low, there are diminishing numbers of them who are willing to take it.

    Parent

    Do you actually know people who (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    have experienced the problem of providers refusing to take them because they are on Medicare?

    I ask because I wonder how prevalent this is. Could it be regional?

    All of my many medical providers take Medicare and Medicaid patients. Because of my recent illness, I belong to several groups where the group members are now ill or at risk for future recurrence and I've never heard any of the Medicare people say that they are experiencing any problem. Numerous complaints from non-Medicare people about their insurance companies not wanting to pay for care but nothing about Medicare patients not being accepted for treatment.

    Also, I am in the process of gathering detailed information to determine which Medigap coverage I need as I soon will be on Medicare. The data provided by one carrier stated that Plan C, which does not cover Part B excess charges (provider charges above Medicare approved reimbursement), is their most popular plan. They do have another plan that for 1.50 more per month will cover provider costs above what Medicare will pay. It just seems logical to me that the plan that covers amounts in excess of Medicare would be the most popular if this was a wide spread problem.    

    Parent

    There are doctors who do not accept Medicare. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by caseyOR on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    I don't think the problem is as widespread as we are lead to believe. The only people I know who have had trouble finding a doctor who takes Medicare were trying to find a psychiatrist. The Medicare payment for mental health services is ridiculously low. Given the move toward mental health parity I don't see how Medicare can continue their current practice.

    Medicare payment amounts are not standardized across the country. The formula is an antiquated one based on local costs and population distributions from decades ago, and on the efficiency of the local health care system. The more efficient the local health care delivery system is, the less money the docs and hospitals get paid.  This leads to significant differences in the dollar amount paid for the same service in say New York and Oregon. So far, all attempts to equalize payments have been shot down by congresspeople from the big states.

    Here in Oregon we are hearing that if the current plan to cut payments to doctors passes, we could see a rise in the number of docs who don't take Medicare patients because their rate of payment is already so low that any cut would disproportionally affect Oregon and states like it. I have no idea how many doctors would really refuse Medicare patients if this happens.

    Parent

    So it is up to your state (and ours) (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    and our governors and legislators to fix this problem, as I understand it?  That's what I have seen here, in a state with great disparities in costs of health care, and in my city with the highest costs in this state -- and, according to some studies, among the highest in the country.  So I have heard that some providers here in the high-cost area are problematic in terms of Medicare, but there also are so many physicians and others who stay or come here to benefit from the out-of-sight costs that people here always can find someone.  However, I have not heard of a problem in other areas of this state in terms of Medicare.

    I do know, though, that in our state's program for coverage for children with out it, there has been a real problem in rural areas of too few or even no willing providers in some counties.  And now that the program just was expanded to cover some more adults, it will be worth watching.

    Parent

    Cream! Have you read the Outliers? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:15:26 PM EST
    Gladwell does a very good job on the disparities you mention.

    Parent
    Maybe because there just aren't (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    all that many physicians willing to practice medicine in rural areas.

    Parent
    There's a weird Medicare problem ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:04:29 AM EST
    in regards to nursing homes.  In short, they won't pay for them if you have assets.  You have to go through your life savings before it kicks in.

    The only solution is to transfer your assets to your children.  But this has to be done some period of time prior to needing the care.  So an elderly person has to guess that they'll need a nursing home and transfer their assets at the appropriate time.

    For obvious reasons, many elderly people aren't keen on doing this.  And their children are often afraid to bring it up.

    I don't know if the reform legislation does anything about this.    

    Parent

    Very interesting, Robot (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    We're planning my dad's assets right now. He's been diagnosed with the onset of Alzheimer's and my mom died just a couple of months ago. He won't be able to stay independent in his house once his illness creates an unsafe situation for him.

    Moving his assets to our names now would create a situation where we'd have to pay gift tax, though. He saved his money to secure himself in the event he would need enhanced care during his later years, so that's what it will be spent on. In the off-chance it all gets spent, he's a disabled veteran who is eligible for 100% care through the VA.

    We've been exploring these places lately, and I'd sure like to know how they justify the prices. Nice enough apts, but "buy in" of over $400,000 PLUS more than $3,000 a month in rent...and, that's withOUT needing the "assisted living" services.

    Parent

    Start moving assets, anyway (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    at least up to the level that gifts are taxed, or maybe a bit more to the level that heirs can handle.  If he has a car, have him give it away.  I have watched the ex help his mother do this, give him her house and car and gift him and the kids after they watched her late sister and spouse's kids get killed on elder care costs because the late sister and spouse still had such assets.  Basically, everything was gone by the end, after those elders had worked hard all of their lives, in part in hope of being able to leave something to heirs.

    The ex's mother is nearly 100 now, so that she gave away almost everything has made it possible for her in recent years (she was fine and still in her own home! -- that is, his home now by law -- until a recent fall)to go into good rehab homes after illnesses, broken bones, etc., as well as get good home visit care under Medicare when she comes home -- to his home.  

    She has a good son and grandkids, so I know that it is not an answer for those who cannot trust their heirs.  But you're not one of those. :-)  

    Parent

    There are always pros and cons (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    My parents had all their assets designed to be managed by two of my siblings. One died a year before my mother did, the other had a heart attack. Although he survived, he's kind of a ticking clock.

    There is never a guarantee that people are going to leave in the same order they arrived. So, had mom and dad turned all assets over to those siblings, their financial protection could have gone to the heirs of my siblings who are not in a position of feeling the same protective, proper use of what rightfully belongs to my parents.

    Every situation is unique and probably has a variety of solutions to consider. I'm so glad my dad is brilliant and willing to sit with my brother and I to discuss the smartest way to handle his future.


    Parent

    I don't know what state you live in (none / 0) (#177)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    but we recently visited some friends who moved to Oregon from VA to join  Rogue River Manor, an incredible place.  Sign in for 250K, $3000 per month for everything and no matter what no add ons.  They currently reside in a nice 2 bedroom bungalow (beautiful place) and have 2 meals a day, gym, medical, pool, programs, shuttle and much more.  They said that they looked all over and this was the best deal they found.

    Parent
    It is my understanding (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:45:48 AM EST
    that the so called problem of providers not accepting Medicare is for standard care rather than care in a nursing home. That is the issue I was addressing.

    In regards to your comment, I think the Republicans with the help of some Democrats made it more difficult to transfer funds prior to needing care . If IIRC the legislation would require that not only would your assets need to be completely depleted prior to Medicare kicking in a person would be required pay out of pocket for any transferred funds including gifts to grandchildren for college.

    The problem with nursing home care has existed for a long time. If married, and only one person is in the nursing home, there is some division of assets. Of course the current solution to this problem, is to purchase additional insurance to specifically cover nursing home care. IOW the affluent have many ways to protect their assets. Poor hard working people who have managed to accumulate some savings, not so much.  


    Parent

    Medicare does not pay for nursing homes. (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by caseyOR on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    Medicaid pays for nursing homes. Medicaid is government health insurance for the poor. And that is why people are forced to spend down their assets. They have to meet those very low income levels.

    It is outrageous that people are forced to impoverish themselves and their spouses to get the needed care. Congress change the rules as they apply to transferring assets to family members. Congress also made it harder for people who divorce so that the healthy spouse will not be spent into poverty. As I understand the current rules, a divorce must take place some amount of time before any care is needed or the now ex-spouse is still on the hook for the cost of care.

    Parent

    Yep. What I have seen (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    to be crucial is for the physician, hospital, etc., to say that the patient is being discharged to a rehab home -- although some are rehab wings of nursing homes as well, so it can be confusing.  The difference is temporary vs. permanent care.

    Parent
    THX for the correction. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:20:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Things may have changed since my mother (none / 0) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    needed nursing home care in the early 1990s. At that time, I was informed that Medicaid would kick in after X %  or dollars of assets were depleted. IOW my father who did not require care would be able to keep X% or dollars of their combined assets and my mother would still qualify for Medicaid. IIRC it wasn't a generous amount that my Dad could retain. My mother died before Medicaid would have kicked in under any scenario so I have forgotten the exact parameters.

    You are correct that Medicaid is the vehicle that covers nursing home care and it is outrageous that people are forced to impoverish themselves and their spouses to get the needed care.

    Parent

    Robot (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    the government Web site, I think it's medicare.gov, has a search function for physicians and Medicare providers by zip code or county.  Those of us in rural areas with an insufficiency of providers of any kind are particularly hard hit by the Medicare issue.  When I went to find one who would accept Medicare within 50 miles of my home, I found two small practices, both of which are probably overwhelmed with patients.

    Parent
    The lack of medical providers in rural areas (none / 0) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:46:18 PM EST
    definitely needs to be addressed as this has been a problem for some time. If the Medicare formula is antiquated and does not provide fair compensation to providers in all areas, then that also needs to be addressed. Fair compensation across the board should be the objective rather than giving every provider increased amounts even if they are being compensated enough already.

    Parent
    Here in (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:37:38 PM EST
    Ga there has been a shortage of rural providers for quite a while. The legislature tried to rectify the situation by allowing Nurse Practioners to pick up the slack but they hit a brick wall the doctors. So here in Ga the doctors dont want to go to rural areas BUT they are keeping others from going there too.

    Parent
    Re rural areas, to be fair (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    I applaud those in Congress who worked to get a lot of federal funding -- our taxes -- into programs that provide financial aid to medical students willing to sign on to serve, at least for a while, in rural areas.  It has helped in my state, somewhat.

    And it's just one of the tradeoffs people make in choosing where to live.  We pay a lot more for housing and property taxes and other givebacks to the government at all levels by living in a city.  But we get a lot more in municipal services and a lot more choice in medical care, education, etc.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    I just want good quality affordable health CARE for everyone regardless of their financial situation or where they chose to live.

    I am a little confused as to why more doctors in rural areas (if that is the case) would refuse to take Medicare patients since I would think their outstanding loans for education and their cost of living would be much less than their city colleagues.    

    Parent

    I know ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:56:53 AM EST
    I went a little off-topic.

    Parent
    No problem (none / 0) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    I'm just interested in how wide spread the issue of providers not accepting Medicare REALLY is? I don't see any evidence of it being a problem in my area. Not saying that there are not providers who won't but would be interested in some statistics (by a reputable source) on whether they are 1% or under of the total provider population or 50% and how the the percentages vary between regions or urban vs rural. IOW is this a real national problem or just a few instances that are blown out of portion to defeat real health care reform.

    Unfortunately, I am google challenged and if good information is available, I have been unable to locate it.

    Parent

    That's MediCAID you're talking about.. (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:12:10 PM EST
    My mother had Medicare in the nursing home and her assets well exceeded $1.2 million.

    Medicaid is a different story. They do make you spend down your assets before they'll cover you.

    Parent

    Medicare never pays for long term (none / 0) (#176)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:22:39 PM EST
    nursing care, only medicaid, which is being severely curtailed in states like California where the admissions have increased dramatically.  In California one must have transfered assets at least 5 years in advance and an attorney is best to advise the family.  Parents have often been abandoned by the children once the ink is dry.  Difficult situation.  In California, one third of all medicaid dollars are spent on nursing home patients who have spent themselves down. However, California allows the suviving parent to remain in the home until death of both spouses, and allows the surviving parent some personal wealth and a car, so it isn't as draconian as it has been in the past.

    Parent
    It's not that providers (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:24:23 PM EST
    won't take them at all but that they won't limit their fees to what Medicare pays, socking the patient for the overage.  If you have enough income to afford a decent Medigap plan, that usually takes care of most of that extra, but if you're low income to begin with, you're up ** creek.

    Parent
    Some physicians are either (none / 0) (#143)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:23:57 PM EST
    threatening to, or are, in some instances, declining  new Medicare patients. Or, costly fill-in the gap plans are emerging to meet the growing need.  Whatever the current situation really is, it is likely to be on the rise with the plan to finance much of the new legislation with "reform" of Medicare.  Ad hoc  reform examples, such as lab test coordination, or apple pie pronouncements of "we need to stop paying more for less care" are substituting, at present, for specifics.  Many of the reforms are obvious, such as discarding the Bush giveaways to Big Pharma and elimination of failed managed care, but the savings  are needed to bolster Medicare itself.  The big money is in reductions to providers.  Since the new legislation, as it is shaping up,  is really an "assurance for health insurance", a linkage between Medicare and the extended health insurance program should be made, wherein, provider participation in Medicare is required for participation in the other components of the government supported health insurance plan.

    Parent
    I definitely agree with you on this (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    Whatever the current situation really is, it is likely to be on the rise with the plan to finance much of the new legislation with "reform" of Medicare.

    If a real problem exists with the Medicare reimbursement rate to medical providers to the point that they won't accept Medicare patients, we need to fix that problem before we even think about reducing the Medicare budget.

    On the issue of discarding the Bush giveaways to Big Pharma, it is my understanding that any negotiations on drug prices will be restricted to people dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. For the Medicare only people, nothing would change.  

    Parent

    Yes, the potential (none / 0) (#162)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    problems seem to be underestimated and/or overlooked. While anecdotal,  another tact is to discourage the frequency of office visits of Medicare patients.   With a new pool (maybe 40 million) of insured health insurance users, it will be tempting for some providers to focus on "greener" pastures. Even the"public option" of the Waxman compromise (should it survive) has been decoupled from Medicare reimbursement rates so as to give an equal footing to the more expensive private insurers.

    Parent
    Your phrase ... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:08:36 PM EST
    "equal footing" should be in quotes.

    Because it decidedly will not be.

    Parent

    Yes, quotes needed. (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:18:30 PM EST
    the concern is that the "public option" will be a runaway success, leaving the private plans in the dust.  Therefore, much work has been expended to jettison it,   doom it, or at least, hobble it; removing the Medicare reimbursement linkage is among stellar ways to do that.  

    Parent
    Or they've hobbled it so much ... (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:13:42 PM EST
    already that they're pretty sure it will be a failure.  They just want to guarantee it.

    Parent
    The high hopes for the "public option" (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 07:51:19 PM EST
    were understandable.  Being told that a Medicare for all program was politically implausible, a combination consolation prize and affordability check was embodied as a "public option". As we know, the "public option" was, at first,  set forth as a mini- Medicare-- for anyone who might want it;  and then it morphed into  a micro- Medicare-just for some and under defined conditions. And, of course, then it seemed to disappear altogether  or became an "equivalent" co-op/exchange.  The Waxman compromise presented renewed attention, but, to me, it represented only premature exultation, based not so much on the goodness of the resuscitation, but on the potential for stealth achievement of  original and noble goals.  But, in my view, this type of "public option" may well be worse than none at all.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    My spouse and I have used it for 6 and 5 years respectively and it works fine.

    Parent
    If you do not want Medicare, I hope (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    you follow your principles and not sign up for it when you reach 65. I'm sure that you will be willing, based on your principles, to purchase private coverage regardless of costs to cover your health care needs.

    Parent
    Your friends must be whiners.... (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:06:22 PM EST
    all my friends and my sister, with whom I live, who have Medicare LOVE it.

    Complete freedom of doctors, far broader choice of medicines, most prescriptions free, and far better coverage for procedures such as endoscopies (upper and lower) and, for instance, Reclast, the once-a-year infusion for osteoporosis that helps bones in several more areas than the pills (her copay: $0, my copay: $850.

    You do the math. Much better than my (generous) Aetna benefits thru the Ohio employees' retirement system.

    Not much to complain about, imo.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:15:39 PM EST
    most prescriptions free,

    Drugs are covered under Medicare Part D and you must purchase if you want it. And they are not "free."

    Parent

    Medicare covers more drugs than you (none / 0) (#193)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:02:14 PM EST
    might think.

    The Osteoporosis drug referenced in the comment above is probably covered under what they call "outpatient prescription drugs."

    Other drugs that are covered include:

    • Drugs infused through an item of durable medical equipment, such as an infusion pump or nebulizer if considered reasonable and necessary.
    • Some Antigens
    • Erythropoisis-stimulating Agents (such as Epogen®, Procrit®, Epoetin alfa, or Aranesp®, Darbepoetin alfa)
    • Blood Clotting Factors
    • Injectable Drugs: Medicare covers most injectable drugs given by a licensed medical practitioner, if the drug is considered reasonable and necessary for treatment.
    • Immunosuppressive Drugs
    • Oral Cancer Drugs
    • Oral Anti-Nausea Drugs


    Parent
    My neighbor gave a celebration party when she got (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:22:17 PM EST
    onto Medicare. She loved it.

    When she had insurance from her employer, they were changing carriers almost every year. Every year she had to find new doctors, and, as she had diabetes and heart problems, it was very stressful to have to change doctors. She'd just begin building up a relationship and--gonzo.

    So, while I'm sure there are problems, the vast majority like Medicare. And if the Congress Critters were on a nationalized Medicare plan, I bet those pesky wrinkles just might be ironed out!

    And, sure, you're happy with your parasite? Keep it!

    Parent

    Universal System (none / 0) (#89)
    by CommonGroundPolitics on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:02:36 AM EST
    I'd prefer a single payor system of Healthcare for the USA but it will NEVER happen here!

    Parent
    It could happen if people demanded it (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:37:07 AM EST
    If enough people told their Congresscritters that regardless of party affiliation they would vote against them if they did not adopt a single payer system and followed through with their promise, it would happen.

    The biggest deterrents to this occurring are IMO:

    1. A corporate press too willing to repeat lies to keep the insurance system in place.

    2. Too much emphasis on party loyalty by voters.

    3. A public willing to settle for crumbs rather than demanding what they need.  


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    And the secret ingredient to really make it work is millions of dollars in advertising to educate the public as to how single payer will improve their health care for less $$..

    Parent
    Blue Dogs support Big Pharma (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:09:18 PM EST
    instead of their constituents. The House Energy and Commerce Committee chooses Big Pharma over saving people's lives.

    In the run-up to final approval, the panel handed the drug industry a victory, voting 47-11 to grant 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. The decision was a setback for the White House, which had hoped to give patients faster access to generic versions of costly biotech medicines like the blockbuster cancer drug Avastin. AP
    Actually it is for all new drugs (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:12:58 PM EST
    be they for toe fungus or cancer.

    Is 12 years too long for a company who spent millions developing a new drug to be protected? Instead of time, maybe we should allow them to get a 400% return on their investment and then open it up for a generic copy.

    And what does the current law allow?

    Parent

    The danger is that... (none / 0) (#67)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    ... this could become like the term of copyright protection, which started as 17 years is now about 100 years largely due to corporate pressure on congress for extensions.

    What does the current law allow?

    Parent

    Best I can tell it is 20 years (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    The extensions don't come from Congress but from the patent office.

    Parent
    Hideous, kinky - again (none / 0) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:17:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Corazon Aquino died today (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:37:48 PM EST
    Such a brave woman.

    Incredible lady (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:26:03 AM EST
    She got into trouble eventually, I assume from naivete and trusting people she shouldn't have since she never had the tiniest bone of corruption in her personally.  But she had just amazing courage.

    RIP.

    Parent

    Female President (none / 0) (#90)
    by CommonGroundPolitics on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    She is very popular & well known in many parts of the world. Hillary Clinton yesterday acknowledged CA's passing.

    Parent
    My guess, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:07:06 AM EST
    Is that a lot of the birthers are just looking for any reason to dislike Obama and are jumping on the back of the birthers as another way to express their dislike. Sort of like swift boaters - or Bush going AWOL or being behind 9/11 like the truthers or Vince Foster being killed by Clinton or George Bush invading Panama to keep Noriega from testifying against him or even JFK being killed in order to keep Vietnam going. Remember, there are people who don't think McCain was legally qualified to be president because he wasn't born in the U.S. I don't look too much into it because I'm not sure of the motivation behind the answers.

    BTW, I do recall some HRC supporters down here who spoke openly about Obama's birth certificate. My guess is that you can have video evidence of Obama's birth being presided over by Pat Robertson and MLK and there would people questioning it -

    McCain is different (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:28:54 AM EST
    That was a highly technical point about whether Panama Canal is U.S. or not.  The "birther" thing is premised on Obama being a flat-out foreigner by birth.

    Yes, there was a bit of lefty subscribing to the Obama birth issue, but that evaporated when the details about Hawaii's changeover from paper to electronic birth records became clear.

    Parent

    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:14:41 AM EST
    And not to mention that Bristol Palin is the real mother of Trig and not Sarah...My point is that stupidity has no party loyalty...

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CommonGroundPolitics on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:00:57 AM EST
    Ignorance/stupidity is not party specific.

    Parent
    Birthers would do better (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:19:08 AM EST
    -- but they won't, but others of us can -- to seek a bill that would protect children from having their citizenship altered or allow them as adults to undo such steps taken for them.  Perhaps that is possible now, but I'd like to know it's so for their sake.  And not that school records have the status of birth certificates and such.  But that a stepfather, who apparently was not a very nice one, anyway, possibly could alter a child's citizenship was worrisome.  It is related, it seems to me, to the problem in this country of parents who are "illegals" being deported and separated from children born here as citizens -- or children who are citizens here having to go with those parents but without the language skills and other cultural skills to succeed in schools there.  We have cases in my city of widows of U.S. citizens who did not themselves become citizens in time -- some with citizenship in process until their spouses' deaths -- and in danger of deportation, leaving the children who are U.S. citizens in limbo, too.

    The entirety of our immigration laws is just a mess, and the status of children and widows . . . well, it has been an education to find out that we didn't fix this enough after the cases of Emma Goldman, et al.

    Krugman Calls Atrios Silly (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 10:35:53 PM EST
    Krugman:

    "Basically, if you want to question Larry's judgment, we can have a discussion; but calling him dumb and/or ignorant is just silly."

    Atrios:

    "I know it's accepted conventional wisdom that Larry Summers is a very smart guy, but that doesn't make it true."

    I'm with Krugman (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:24:32 AM EST
    Atrios has just drifted off a cliff in his cynicism, IMHO.  I don't bother to read him anymore.  It was amusing during the Bush years, but now it's just unhelpful.

    Parent
    The Return of jim Rockford... (none / 0) (#30)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:50:28 AM EST
    Has been announced by NBC. David Shore (creator of House) will be producing it. A bit off politics, but it has always been one of my favorite shows and a very unnecessary remake.

    No man can take the place of James Garner (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:54:51 AM EST
    At least, not in my heart.

    Boo, hiss on the remake.

    Woo-hoo on House! (Brilliant show.)

    Parent

    He's one of my favorites, too (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:02:13 AM EST
    Did you ever seen the movie, "Murphy's Romance" with Sally Field?

    Parent
    I LOVED Murphy's Romance (none / 0) (#138)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    Waaay back in the 1980's....

    It was a sweet, funny and smart movie. A really interesting way to tell the story of a love triangle.

    Garner has the same ageless quality as Cary Grant, in the way that both can play love interest to a much younger woman and make it seem right. Not creepy at all.

    Parent

    Living on Kings and Queens (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    Maverick was his name...

    I bet the remake doesn't last but a single season....

    Parent

    Inflation (none / 0) (#32)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:03:14 AM EST
    Are they going to have to change $200 a day plus expenses? Absolutely loved the show...leave it alone...

    Parent
    The answering machine (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:46:50 AM EST
    messages at the beginning of the show are the most priceless part.....

    How are they going to replicate those with the new-fangled telephony voicemail?

    We currently have about 47 Rockford Files episodes recorded, saved for a rainy day....

    Parent

    As I read those numbers... (none / 0) (#33)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:06:51 AM EST
    ... it looks like seven per cent of democrats either don't believe that president Obama was born in the United States, or aren't sure.

    Maybe our national level of cynicism has turned public opinion poll process into nothing more than a trivial parlor game.

    right (none / 0) (#53)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:52:02 AM EST
    National level of cynicism - my original point. I believe that if Obama were a republican president then you would see something similar in reverse. Conspiracy theories make it easy for some people to deal with things they don't like. I don't know why - but it does seem that way.

    Remember during the primaries and HRC was asked about Obama's religion and she said she had no reason not to doubt that Obama was a Christian and people jumped all over her for not making a more forceful denunciation of the charge? That wasn't coming from right wing nuts -

    Parent

    Several who use to comment here (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:17:23 PM EST
    believed that Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11's targets and that the second tower's destruction was an inside job....

    Do I believe? Believe what? My only comment is that he could produce the original and make a lot of Righties look totally foolish..

    Parent

    You will all be happy to learn Prof. Gates (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:49:12 AM EST
    sent flowers to Ms. Whalen.  See Huff Post.

    Why happy? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:41:56 AM EST
    The men all got a place at the beer table.  The woman gets?  flowers?

    Almost demeaning.

    Parent

    Why do we even know Prof. Gates (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    sent Ms. Whalen flowers?  Just do it, man.  

    Parent
    Yes. It would be different (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:32:33 AM EST
    if she had so informed the media.  But from what I've read, he did so.  We had a name in high school for guys like that. :-)

    Parent
    The AP Story (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    only quotes comments from Whelan's lawyer.

    Did you see where Professor Gates disclosed this to the media?

    Parent

    I jumped to a huge conclusion. Huff Post (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    had a photo of Prof. Gates along w/a headline about him sending the flowers.  link

    Parent
    Prof. Gates's website, The Root, (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    has the AP story posted:  The Root

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:08:41 AM EST
    I looked there.

    So he's reporting what hew atty. reported...round and round...

    Parent

    Let's Face It (1.50 / 2) (#105)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:39:36 AM EST
    With this crowd any friend of Obama's is guilty, wrong and to be derided. Sending flowerer, makes him an a$$.. lol

    THat is the PUMA way.

    Parent

    One huge leap for mankind. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:43:06 AM EST


    Parent
    It's (2.00 / 0) (#120)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    okay with me if you think the little woman should get her little flowers.

    Give me a really great reason why she wasn't invited to the White House...she's still a victim, the rest have moved on.

    Parent

    A Really Great Reason (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    might be that POTUS didn't refer to her actions as stupid in a press conference as he did with the Cambridge PD.

    Having stepped into it that way, he invited the two men involved for a beer and a photo op.

    You're certainly entitled to your POV if you think that was a reward for them and a slight of her. I think it was a CYA for POTUS and not a whole lot more. (And, for the record, I'm fine with it.)

    Ms Whelan was 'victimized' by whoever released her identity to the press and then by pundits near and far interpreting her actions and speech.

    Oh, and that was furthered by Officer Crowley apparently misrepresenting her in his official report.

    Maybe Officer Crowley can take her out for a beer...

    Parent

    He has a record (1.00 / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    of using sexist language.

    Of course the MSM ignored it.

    Parent

    Officer Crowley? (none / 0) (#152)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    Ohhh, back to the primaries.

    Yeah, You're probably right.

    The POTUS should have included Ms. Whelan in the beer bash invite after calling a reporter 'sweetie' last year.

    Parent

    I did earlier (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    but can't find it fast now.  No matter to me, as it does not alter my opinions of all involved, but I'm glad to retract it, if it makes you feel better.

    Gates did do well several days ago to say, after the attacks on Whalen, that she did what she was supposed to do.  I think that helped calm the storm against her.

    But it has been two weeks since the incident.  The flowers now seem odd -- and after he went to the White House, while she had to go before the media to continue to defend herself . . . well, he could at least have invited her to his house for a beer.:-)

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:36:57 AM EST
    She heard....

    Parent
    I'm so glad (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    If I was Ms. Whalen, having Prof. Gates think I had said something that led to his arrest for nonexistent charges would be my greatest sorrow in all of this.  I do what I can to respect my neighbors.  On some levels whether I like it or not we are all in this neighborhood together....and there are some of them that I actually don't mind having around.

    Parent
    Attention MT: see DK diary on (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:35:44 AM EST
    living in Alabama.  You could do this much better!
    diary

    Parent
    If I were her, I'd want flowers and a pony... (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:08:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Horse story in New Orleans (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:33:57 AM EST
    I've always been afraid of horses, except on Bourbon Street, on New Year's Eve, 2003. Huge boisterous crowds, all in good humor, mounted police mingling among the throngs on the most profoundly exquisite animals. There was an enormous white horse, named Lugar, ridden by an African American Police Officer named Parker, surrounded by a group of awe-struck girls. All of it too beautiful for words.

    One particular horse had been sidelined and hitched to a post near a corner. She was motionless but wild-eyed, her fear so palpable. I went up to her, without thinking, took her face in my hands, and laid my cheek on her forehead - until I felt everything melt away and it was pure bliss.

    Somebody later told me the horse could have reared her head and broken my neck - but she didn't.

    I still wonder how Officer Parker, and the horses, fared during Katrina.

    Parent

    Nice (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    Horses read people and will respond accordingly. Obviously the horse did not feel any threat from you and welcomed your affection. Speaks well of you, imo.

    Parent
    Yes, horses bite (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    My Dad taught me how, when they turn their head while being harnassed or saddled, to hit them smartly on the end of the nose.

    We'd both would probably be arrested for animal cruelty today.

    Parent

    Horses Don't Bite (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    Unless they have been seriously abused by people beating them. No need to ever hit a horse.

    Besides horses natural action of their teeth is to grind. Biting is not in their vocabulary.  

    Monty Roberts developed a training system for horses that is totally non violent. Gentle horsemanship, worth a look for anyone who is involved with horses, or wants to be.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    I can see you never actually was around work horses and mules.

    Go read another book.

    Parent

    Or (none / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    What is obvious is that the horses you have been around have been beaten, by your own admission.

    Parent
    Hitting the nose "smartly" (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    is not beating. It does get their attention. Which is what you want. And since the farmer's ability to survive depended to a large degree on the health of his animals the last thing he wanted was for them to be harmed.

    And yes, horses bite.

    They will also kick you if you get behind them.

    They will also decide to lay down and roll over as a means to dislodge you.

    They will also expand their stomach when a saddle is being put on causing the green horn to not tighten the saddle belt enough. After a bit the stomach contracts and the saddle slides sideways and the rider falls off... If lucky clear. If unlucky a foot is tangled in a stirrup and the rider is dragged to death..

    They are also very smart. We had a team that I could whistle up, harness and hitch to whatever implement I needed to and never have to strain myself.

    Really squeaky you should stay in NYC. You are not equipped to live in the outside world.

    Parent

    I'm sure squeak would do just fine (none / 0) (#173)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:03:34 PM EST
    outside the city. Just because she chooses a non-force method to train animals does not mean she's incapable of working a farm. Many farmers choose the same methods.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:38:05 PM EST
    I am quite comfortable with horses, I learned to ride using the amazing techniques of Monty Roberts, coupled with almost 20 years of tai chi.

    There is absolute no reason to use violence to train an animal. Animals have an incredible memory and will look to bite you in the a$$ if your way of dominating them is by using violence.

    The only animals I seem to have problems with are PUMAS.

    lol

    Parent

    Have you ever met one? (none / 0) (#192)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:54:44 PM EST
    A Puma that is ;)

    I've had the pleasure of holding/feeding a couple of large cats when they were young. O.M.G. I could do that for a living!!! A Tiger and a Leopard. The Leopard actually cuddled me under the neck {sigh}. 8-9 wks old . . .

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    Sounds sweet.

    Parent
    I'll be the first to admit (none / 0) (#195)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:08:29 PM EST
    never thought I would have the opportunity. And twice was extra sweet. The tiger had paws to die for or fear, and the lil' leopard was just such a baby . . . .  

    Parent
    First of all (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 07:51:49 PM EST
    draft animals were usually purchased after they were full grown.... Riding horses for ranch work were also usually purchased full grown....from people who specialized in that.

    Training draft animals was mainly done through repetition usually paired with an older horse or mule that was already trained..

    That is not a "force" method.

    Speaking as a share cropper's son who has been there, the animals were often taken better care of than the sharecropper himself, again for the simple reason that they were an absolute requirement for survival as a farmer.

    So until you city boys and girls have walked a mile in my plow shoes all I can do is laugh at the demonstrated ignorance.

    Betcha don't eat meat, either. If you do, try some horse. Very lean.

    LOL

    Parent

    First of all (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:40:18 PM EST
    I bought 2 "spare" freezers. One for my pet meats and one for mine. So yes, we do eat meat in these parts. My animals were designed to and frankly, I like meat. I feed my pets a natural raw diet. Cats had turkey meat, bones and organs tonight and the Dot will be eating goat.

    Age makes no difference in training methods. Smacking a horse or any other animal on the nose is a force method. You can take great care of your animals and still smack them across the face. Doesn't make it right.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 07:08:08 PM EST
    must've been pretty bad at picking out your horses or breaking in your horses. The only horses we had that bit were Shetland Ponies with their horrible disposition. You knew if they were going to kick you by the way they were positioning their feet. We never had a horse lay down and try to roll over with a rider on it's back. Run into low branches, yes, but lay down? You must have had some especially bad tempered horses.

    Parent
    I bought my kids a Shetland that had been traded (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:20:59 PM EST
    so much he almost jumped into the pick up... That should have been my clue... soon as I put a saddle on him he laid down and tried to roll over...Didn't keep him long enough to see if he would bite.

    My descriptions were from the farming community, not to ourselves exclusively. We had a young horse that would try to bite, but a smart rap on the nose soon taught him better. I saw a horse kick a man walking by behind him at a sale barn. Caught the guy on his upper outside thigh. Didn't break it but sure put him down... I experienced the saddle trick myself.. If we had a young horse that wasn't completely broke we'd pair him with an older horse, hitch'em to a heavy sled and let him dance and prance with something he couldn't hurt until he was use to the harness and then move up to a wagon and on to a cultivator or breaking plow.

    Politics aside I find that too many people give animals human attributes.

    You didn't mention if your experience was with actual working animals or as a hobby...

    Parent

    Well there you go . . . (none / 0) (#191)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:44:08 PM EST
     
    I bought my kids a Shetland that had been traded so much he almost jumped into the pick up... That should have been my clue... soon as I put a saddle on him he laid down and tried to roll over...Didn't keep him long enough to see if he would bite.

    Yeah, that should have been. A clue to work with him correctly.

    Parent

    Since he was about 8 years old (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:12:58 PM EST
    I wasn't interested in trying to correct his problems. Especially since my children were involved.

    Of course I am sure to you a "man is a dog is a cat is a fish is a bird is a boy..."

    Parent

    What did POTUS send her? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    I sure hope Wendy Murphy took this case just for the publicity. It would be a shame if she ended up with nothing more than flowers and a $10,000 legal bill.

    Parent
    What should POTUS send her? (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:25:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Don't know, or care (none / 0) (#132)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:09:46 PM EST
    but, he included Biden in the beer summit. Just seems everyone involved in this is having press conferences and hoping for something :)

    Parent
    Oh come on. You can do better (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    than that!

    Parent
    :) Probably (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:18:25 PM EST
    but, I believe I've reached total burn-out on this event.

    Parent
    There is a TL sidebar (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:19:41 PM EST
    headline about Palin divorce.  If accurate, that will probably consume the weekend here.

    Parent
    Good Move (none / 0) (#92)
    by CommonGroundPolitics on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    Pesonally, I think it was a good move for him to send her flowers, regardless of his motivation for doing so. I understand, however, not everyone agrees with me!

    Parent
    Greenwald Reminds Us (none / 0) (#58)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:41:40 AM EST
    why we don't watch cable news any more.

    He dissects a NY Times piece about MSNBC and Fox News that also reminds us our scorn for Olbermann and Matthews and our contempt for O'Reilly might just be an amusing distraction from the ones we really should be training our fire on.

    Not that I'm advocating giving up our scorn and contempt for the on air help...

    He also smacks down the sainted Charlie Rose while he's at it.

    Reminds Me (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:53:21 AM EST
    of the 'Money Speech' from the film Network where Ned Beatty as, I think, the CEO of the network corporate owner delineates for Howard Beale that there are no nations and ideologies any more, just corporations and currencies. (This was the '70s so yeah, they were still thinking in terms of currencies.

    Parent
    One of TL's commenters frequently (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:43:58 AM EST
    refers to the corporate owned press.  I discounted that. Sounds like that was a mistake.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:07:25 AM EST
    'Pay no attention to the m[e]n behind the curtain.'

    Maybe living long enough to know how the press once was (not perfect by any stretch of the imagination) when ownership was a bit more diverse and journalism actually entered into it makes it harder to believe how really bad it has become in many ways.

    I remember how farcical "Network" seemed when it came out. And yet...like Chayefsky's other masterpiece, "Hospital" how accurate his predictions...

    Parent

    Hospital (none / 0) (#139)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    What a great movie. The first time G.C. Scott played a character with whom I could sympathize.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:26:39 PM EST
    Though the rape 'seduction' scene with Diana Rigg turned me way off.

    But at least they had him acknowledging he raped her (in a fit of'suicidal rage').

    But then her saying that when he did that was how she knew he loved her. So maybe that was what bothered me.

    Hoo, GC Scott and Diana Rigg...talk about your odd couples...

    Parent

    Agreed on all points (none / 0) (#147)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:26:03 PM EST
    That, to me, is the true artistry of a great performance -- making us care about a character who is seriously flawed.

    Diana Rigg was marvelous. I was still young enough at that time to believe she could only be Emma Peel. Then I saw "The Hospital".

    Parent

    Emma Peel! (none / 0) (#150)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    YES, an early icon for us little spy-girls.

    Even Stefanie Powers was too girly from U.N.C.L.E.

    Loved watching Mrs. Peel toss those smirky bad guys around.

    I enjoyed Rigg in the later "Evil Under The Sun", an Agatha Christie/Poirot mystery with lots of great character actors madly chewing the scenery.

    Introduced me to the marvelous Jane Birkin too.

    Parent

    Well.. per my blog handle (none / 0) (#203)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:35:27 PM EST
    You must realize that Get Smart was my favorite TV spy. How could he miss with scripts written by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry?

    But I was such a spy TV addict I even loved Honey West. Had the mini-doll (same size as Barbie) with the interchangeable hair and outfits.

    A lost generation: Television's Cold War spooks.

    Parent

    Violator? (none / 0) (#84)
    by CommonGroundPolitics on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    It's an open thread isn't?

    See site rules here (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    on sending people to sites, considering your sig is the same, and/or on need to embed links if they are allowed.

    Parent
    KUSC FM is NOT broadcasting (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    opera today.  Instead:  Musical theatre sung by opera singers.  Mucho nostalgia.

    That could be teriffic... (none / 0) (#110)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    Hopefully.

    What's the vintage of the music?

    (And what's the vintage of the singers?)

    Parent

    Oklahoma, West Side Story, (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    Music Man, Kiss Me Kate.  Wonderful.  Renee Fleming singing songs from Sweeney Todd.  Right now Jose Carras is singing "Tonight" from WSS.  I'm loving it.  But I call it musical comedy, not musical theatre.  I am waiting for Ezio Pinza in South Pacific.

    Parent
    That sounds like a great show. (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:41:28 PM EST
    If they manage to slide a Kurt Weill song or a Harry Warren tune into the mix, it would be probably be perfect.

    Parent
    Some can carry it off, most can't (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    Bryn Terfel's rendition of the soliloquy from "Carousel," which made me so angry, I threw a book at the TV.

    There was a fascinating, hair-raising documentary some years ago about Bernstein's struggle with recording sessions for the West Side Story recording somebody persuaded him to do with opera singers.  Carreras was Tony, and his utter inability to deal with the jazzy style of the music was painful to see and listen to.  This was just before he was diagnosed with leukemia, so no doubt he wasn't totally up to snuff.  But still-- oy!

    Parent

    Many classical players (and singers) (none / 0) (#140)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    have difficulty with jazz. It's the rhythym. They can't play behind the beat or feel true triplets and odd-meter time signatures... which are found throughout the WSS score. (But jazz singers can't sing opera either, so there you go.)

    Parent
    Now Domingo singing from Man of La Mancha. (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    Beautiful.  Just heard Jan Pierce singing from Fiddler--in Yiddish.

    Parent
    Legitimacy? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:44:55 PM EST
    Have you forgotten the Bush era and the supreme court decision that had many people questioning his legitimacy to be president?

    ah yes (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:15:37 PM EST
    A supposed TV comedian as a fountain of knowledge.

    Figures.

    Friday Night Open Thread | 173 comments (173 topical)