health care!

finally. i was almost starting to like mccain. thank god he unveiled his new health care plan. give consumers a tax break to purchase insurance? 5000 whole dollars? without putting pressure on insurance companies to offer affordable coverage to lower middle class families with chronic disease? sa-weet!

2 salient quotes:
"Democrats had said that his market-driven plan, by not compelling insurance companies to cover people with health problems, would ignore the plight of people who have trouble getting coverage."

"Unlike Mr. McCain, of Arizona, Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would make it illegal for health insurance companies to deny an applicant because of health status."

honestly. just expand the public health care plan and make larger business cover employees, and eliminate health-status based discrimination. seriously.

duh. other thoughts for this morning:
- facebook scandal implicates a prominent new york school. what do we really think about public vs private education?
- the new yorker takes on the hills???!!!
- will the red sox ever hit well and pitch well at the same time? come on!

quick links

podcasts i like:
the bugle: awesome political humor with john oliver, one of my favorite guys on the daily show
the b.s. report: the sports guy is a homer for boston sports, but his friends are funny (especially JackO)
this american life: yeah, i like this, like everyone.

blogs i like: fire joe morgan, freakonomics blog

today's link: dummies eating blowfish

today's link/thought: stupid gas taxcut im sorry but stupid cuts resulting in nominal savings for consumers to make it seem like you're looking out for the working class is L-A-M-E. its more defensible for a republican like mccain than for clinton, but in all honesty not defensible for either. and clinton's rove-ian campaign ads "calling out" obama for calling support of this cut what it is (a marketing ploy) is even more lame. and, fyi, i actually like hillary, but in this case, i give her 5 groans out of 5.

music reviewish

Sort-of-Reviews: Portishead's Third vs. Band of Horses' Cease to Begin

i happened to acquire these 2 albums at the same time so im psuedo-reviewing them at the same time. here's the good thing: they're both good. here's the over-extrapolating thing: whether you like one more than the other depends on why you listen to music (dun dun!!)

its been 12 years (i think) since portishead's last album, and I guess not much has changed in their world. Portishead still sounds like Beth Whatshername singing dolefully (never more appropriately used than here) over meticulously prepared trip-hop beats combined with sparse, sort-of-amelodic backdrops. that she sings stuff like "im always so unsure" is just a bonus for me.

countering that sort of rainy day insularity is band of horses, who have a peacefully inspired sound to them. the lead singer has a pretty pleasant southern twang, and the fuzzy guitar harmonies bolster the vaguely bluegrass vocal harmonies. and if im riding my bike through central park, that's what i want on.

but i guess it depends on how you listen to music. im fine with pleasant (even uplifting!) scenery-music, but i want music that feels like it keeps playing when you take your headphones out. and that's what the first listen to portishead was like. which, since its kind of an unnerving album, made me a little jittery, but hey, we all make sacrifices.

thoughts?

empty promises

holler,

so, in my tradition of doing things 5 years after they are cool (example: i just started listening to yoshimi battles the pink robots), im starting a blog. its basically going to be links to topics that intrigue me along with solicitations for more information on things that interest me.

first link: a nytimes article that reveals the truth about our ability embrace diversity

thoughts?