Fair enough, Pamela. In fairness, I didn't say she emptied it completely, I said she emptied it of $9M.

But that's splitting hairs. My overall point was that she's giving a lot of cash, and based on the comments here, doesn't seem to be getting much credit for it.

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Posted at October 19, 2006 12:38 PM in response to Should the 2008-ers Lend a Hand?

Maybe someone mentioned this already, but Hillary emptied her war chest of $9 MILLION to Senate and House candidates this quarter:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/10/hillary_clinton_2.html

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Posted at October 17, 2006 9:01 PM in response to Should the 2008-ers Lend a Hand?

Nathan,

I think what you're saying is that it's politically easier to force employers to provide health care (i.e., a regulation) than it would be to tax them into paying for a government-based system. Even though both are a kind of "employer responsibility."

I see your point. But while the former might be politically more advantageous, it still has the problem of tying health care to employment. How do we solve the problem of losing your health care when you switch jobs or become temporarily unemployed?

It seems like this should be part of an ideal health care system. How do we make that happen?

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Posted at August 18, 2006 10:02 AM in response to Health Care: Why Employer Responsibility is Needed

I was of the same mind on the "tangential" stuff, until i was set straight.

See, it's not fair to compare The Sopranos to, say an 80-hour movie or a long novel. It's a TV show at heart, and a TV show will contain certain self-contained, non-serial episodes (Tony taking Meadow on college tour in Season One is the best example of this), along with episodes and scenes that relate to the longer story arc.

I think Sops is trying to break some ground in this regard. Look at, say, X-Files, where you had an episode that was EITHER about some random sci-fi stuff OR it was about the main arc (Mulder and his sister and the cigarette smoking man, etc.). But Sopranos integrates the two types of storytelling in a more nuanced, interesting way. You're never quite sure if something's going to be relevant or tangential, and that's kinda the point -- sometimes there are dead ends, like Meadow's character (though I still maintain that it would fantastic if she came back in Season 7 -- sorry 6.5 -- to take over the family!).

And what to make of those Arab guys who hang around the Bing? Anyone else think the show will end with a massive, bay-of-pigs style firefight between Agent Harris, the FBI, and the Sopranos on one side and the local al Qaeda cell on the other?!

A man can dream...

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Posted at June 8, 2006 2:43 PM in response to Sopranos Partial Walkback

Not to be a downer, but this is all I can think of after watching that clip:

"Charley didn't get much USO. He was dug in too deep or
moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and
a little rat meat. He had only two ways home: death,
or victory."

- Willard, Apocalypse Now

-- Bruno and The Professor: Progressive Talk Radio

Posted at May 17, 2006 10:58 PM in response to "Lazy Ramadi"

Jane Jacobs, R.I.P.

It's interesting that Jacobs' original idea -- that mixed-use neighborhoods can help prevent crime -- has morphed over the years to mean that mixed-use neighborhoods look prettier (coffee shops and converted loft apartments).

Mr. Baer is right: crime rates must drop first, lattes can come later.

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Posted at May 8, 2006 3:51 PM in response to Latte or Livability?

Forget the body armor and the helmets, Matt... the heat drives the Iraqis wild, too. Remember that the U.S. hasn't been able to sustainably restore pre-Saddam electricity levels, so they don't have air conditioning.

Turn off the A/C in Phoenix, AZ for a summer and see what kind of craziness the locals resort to. :)

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Posted at April 22, 2006 2:00 PM in response to The Summertime Blues

Mark Schmitt is damn smart. This is a great post.

As to The Other Steve's comments on the absolute number of House members, I don't think we really want to increase them threefold -- 1200 congressmen! That'd be a mess.

We have to acknowledge that even though congressmen are representing 10 times as many constituents, communication has vastly improved. Sending my congressman an email is far easier than getting in my horse and buggy to go meet with them. :)

Since we're talking big, crazy ideas here, I'd much rather see the States consolidated from 50 down to 20 or so, and give them more control. That's where the redundancies are!

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Posted at April 19, 2006 10:13 PM in response to False Symmetry

I'll buy the idea that incrementalism is preferable in theory. But in practice, what does this do to costs? I could be totally off base here, but it seems to me that universal health care is only more efficient than the current system when everyone buys in.

Expanding existing government programs like Medicare and the VA is well and good, but it will only increase overall spending. It's only when you get the healthy, wealthy, young, and voluntarily uninsured people to buy in to a publicly financed system that you really see the efficiency, right?

Otherwise you're just bringing more and more of the high-risk patients into the public system, which increases the overall costs and makes public health care seem less appealing to those who might otherwise support it.

Am I wrong?

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Posted at March 4, 2006 5:45 PM in response to The Case for Cowardice

Agreed 100%.  If they want to make tons of cash, fine.  I'll just drive less and that'll be that.  But for the love of Mike, don't make me subsidize it!  $7B over five years.  And after we fought tooth and nail against $40B in cuts to Medicare over 5 years.  AND after another round of tax cuts. Oh, and after reading the article, I have to say that "royalty relief" is one of the most amazing Newspeak phrases I've heard.  I think even Lakoff would be blown away. -- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Posted at February 14, 2006 1:18 PM in response to Call Me Crazy...