The wife and I today got our new Medicare cards in the mail, showing Part B effective 3/1/2015.
We have each had Part A since we turned 65.
Next step, sign up for an advantage plan effective that same date in March.
It is I, an atheist, who cry out to thee, oh Lord!
Progressivism is about taming capitalism for the public good.
But it has always drawn for leaders and activists on pigheaded, self-righteous, authoritarian do-gooders and their hypocritical and sometimes criminal allies, frequently banded together in extremely annoying, essentially crank causes.
To that extent, only, Williamson has it right.
O chose to pay part of the costs of Obamacare subsidies for not well off buyers out of the hides of retirees on Medicare.
Recall that during the whole summer of debate on the financing of Obamacare it was pretty much a given part of the cost of those subsidies was going to come by taxing "Cadillac plans," EGHPs providing the best coverage, often plans hard won by decades of union effort, given a disparaging name in Republican and Obamaphile propaganda.
And this time O was attempting to finance his junior college free tuition plan in part by taxing college savings of people contributing to tax sheltered education funds, 70% of which belong to families making less than $ 150,000.
On all three occasions O has chosen to finance benefits for poorer, blacker folks among the traditional beneficiaries of Democratic Party policy partly by taking it out of the hide of better off, whiter folks among the traditional beneficiaries of the Democratic Party.
If the claim is made that he had to do these things as concessions to the GOP I point out that it was the GOP that blew the whistle on all these moves and joyfully took the opportunity to use the wedges he had provided to split into traditional Democratic support.
And note that the proposal concerning the 529 was all his own.
Absolutely nobody pushed him into it and the GOP has laughed at him over it since the first day.
This sort of thing is not the result of GOP pressure.
So, is it just him, or is this what we can expect in the future from a Democratic Party far less interested than in the past in protecting benefits, much less expanding them, for the white working class, whether while young, while of working age, or while retired?
Judging from the attitudes of liberal bloggers I think it's by no means just him.
Liberals have been the enemies of white labor in the Democratic Party since 1968, if not earlier.
They have been pulling the party away from white working people ever since that time, slowly but inexorably.
And of course it is and has been all along impossible to neglect the interests of the white working class without neglecting those of the entire working class, and that is exactly what they have done.
Such race-targeted moves as the above do not make up, for their non-white beneficiaries, for that neglect.
That doesn't make the Democrats the greater evil of the two major parties for the working class, white, black, or all.
But they are a hell of a lot less good than they could be.
It's interesting that, though it may not be Chait's view and it may not be Sullivan's that the value of free speech stands of falls with this claim, they both insist on making it and they both insist that it's a defining belief of liberals or liberalism that free speech can advance justice as liberals understand it, specifically in connection to issues of race and sex and identity, and has done so in living memory.
But I think he hit gold when he explained that defense and honoring of the rights of one's political opponents is the very thing to which the PC movement is per se opposed and at the same time a key, defining value of liberalism.
For liberals, free speech is not only, necessarily, or essentially a means toward reaching a better world; it is integral to the very nature of what that better world would be.
(More an infection or a takeover, but never mind).
And an essential point is that such enemies of the PC movement as Chait and Sullivan are not attacking the freedom of speech of the PC police, hypocritically demanding they STFU.
The objection they make to PC is that it aims at winning through political thuggery and subversion of the liberty of thought and speech essential to a regime of liberty, to political democracy.
The enemies of PC are attacking that and defending freedom.
The tu quoque defense of PC is a blatant and shameless fraud; that is the hypocrisy.
Btw, the idea that America or any country in the Occident or the zone of Christian predominance is a patriarchy, homophobic or not, is nonsense.
What you have here is a predominance of men in positions of power, but those positions and their holding them have nothing to do with being Patriachs, which none of them are.
None is even so much as a Roman paterfamilias, no man in Christendom having had such literal life and death power over his family in centuries.
None of them is even a good bourgeois paterfamilias, as would have been possible only a little more than half a century ago.
But actual patriarchy, the real thing, can be found in some parts of the world, even today.
The most notable among them are in the Muslim lands most committed to the harsh desert ways and mores of the medieval origin of that religion.
BBC says the average wage in Greece is just under $700 a month.
That sort of poverty would be much worse in America.
If you are that poor in America you live among the shitiest people imaginable.
Evidently, if you are that poor in Greece you live among ordinary, decent people.
The Greeks vote today in what could be a critical election.
Good luck to them.
Perhaps Nabokov was out to prove that a profoundly immoral book, by the standards of the time that supported morals censorship across the whole Christian world and the whole civilized world, could be written without a single recognizably unchaste word.
A book soiled from beginning to end that even contains frequent passages describing especially repulsive sexual encounters.
As its early publication history makes clear, the authorities of his time generally took that view.
He divorced Jennie to marry Meiling at 40.
She later said that on their wedding night he told her he believed in sex only for procreation.
As he had already fathered all the children he wanted (a son), there would be no sex between them.
Jonathan Fenby, Chiang Kai-Shek.
Oddly, the cover of this Carroll and Graf paperback has his name as "Jonathon," on the front and spine.
The back cover, copyright page, and title page have "Jonathan."
After the saving death of Charlotte Haze, HH drove Lo all over the country for a year, wheddling, cajoling, and bullying her into satisfying him, despite her indifference and sometimes repugnance, apparently sometimes two or three times a day, and certainly every day at least once.
But he could get her to read nothing better than comics and pop girls magazines, he says.
He says he was torn between the thought of abandoning her when she entered her teens and marrying her so as to have by her a daughter he could start sexual relations with at eight or nine.
He even fantasized a similar relationship with an eventual granddaughter, Lolita the Third.
the NASA press release failed to mention…that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree—or 0.02C.
The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C—several times as much.Pause for a moment to digest that. The margin of error was plus or minus one tenth of a degree.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted NASA thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.
However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.This is not exactly a high point in the employment of the scientific method.
Wahlberg plays his role as you would expect a felon convicted of multiple vicious assaults motivated by racial hatred to.
He should have done more time and never been allowed in Hollywood.
Stanley Tucci is the best thing in this movie because he is kidding all the way.
Kelsey Grammer is perfectly serious and does a fine job in his new career as an action movie hard guy.
It's a real turd, folks.
Generally, communists have made the greatest butchers.
Hitler, I think, is the only exception, the only dictator of the right anywhere near as awful as the great reds, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
Some of the minor reds were pretty awful, too, like Pol Pot.
The flunky red dictators of eastern Europe, perhaps, and maybe Tito compare with that other exception, Castro.
Their regimes seem actually to have been better, in some ways, for the lower orders than capitalist regimes in the same countries were or would have been or would be.
It is safe to guess that Russia, China, and Cambodia would have been better off without the reds.
Likely Spain dodged a bullet with Franco's victory.
Not sure about Chile.