The Occasional Observer

This story is fascinating.

Steve Levy, Suffolk County Executive, has defected from the Dems and is planning a run for Governor against the mighty Cuomo (why is it that NYS residents seem like electing litigators?).

I was happy to hear this for a few reasons: (1) Levy is already a powerful incumbent; (2) he said he wanted assurances he could have the GOP line for County Exec if he loses the Gov. race, so he's planning on sticking around; (3) I've been impressed with his spending cuts and willingness to offend interest groups that often feel protected to get spending under control; and (4) Lazio is a dud.

I'm basing #4 on the thrashing he took last time he ran and the fact that he's been trailing other potential GOP candidates in primary polling. Cuomo kills him as well in early polling. A lot could change, this is going to be a GOP year--but Levy strikes me as a much more likely candidate to win, as long as the party switching and opportunism don't kill him.

However, Levy is a little late to the game. Lazio has already lined up a lot of support within the state GOP, including Rudy. Lazio's fundraising to date has been terrible, however.

In other news, I used to go out of my way to vote on the Conservative line (I actually carried my registration there at one point). No more. I'm sick of these guys deep sixing electable candidates b/c they don't want to be pushed around by the state GOP. Get in line and lets do something meaningful to help taxpayers, guys.

textsfromlastnight.com

Here are some real gems (note: the number in parenthesis is the area code the text was sent from):

(301):

the majority of my texts from you are at 3 AM & consist of either "I'm drunk", "you're asian", or "bratwurst"

(907):

There's a guy at this party taking all the unfinised beers and pouring them into a pitcher so he can drink them tomorrow.

(425):

He yelled "HERE COMES THE WARMTH" before he pissed his pants. In front of the whole party.

(306):

I woke up laying in alphagetti with the message "I'd go get checked asap" written out in the letters.

(256):

dinner with the girl I motorboated last semester wasn't as awkward as I thought it would be

(912):

I woke up with a flask of whiskey and a mason jar full of sausage in my tux jacket. south georgia is where i belong

(616):

This was worse than the time that I shot a bald eagle.

(206):

I feel like im in a tornado of daylight savings, tequila and death

Since it's not the start of the regular season yet, and since other than Santana the rest of the Mets look poor so far (see Reyes, Beltran, Maine, Ollie, ...), I figured I'd take the time to post about the Jets.

Specifically, the LT deal. I'm scratching my head about this one - they basically signed LT to the same deal they would have had to give Jones to keep him. Granted, LT is a better receiver and gives them different options, but no more options than a healthy Leon gives them. Since Jones is still in good shape (better than LT), has a well-regarded off-season workout regimen, and he's very popular in the clubhouse for his character and skill, I'm not sure I see the upside to LT over TJ. I'll reserve judgment on this one and give Jets mgmt the benefit of the doubt, but this move is curious at best at this point.

Let's for a minute, like the media, Democratic Party, Gore acolytes and many other, take for granted that there is a climate change problem, that it's caused by human carbon emission, and there is something we can and do about it. We've been led to believe that wind turbines are great way to produce energy without carbon emissions. How come they've actually caused an increase in fossil fuel use in Denmark and Germany?

"Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines
generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant.
It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s
unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36%
in 2006 alone)."

The full article has more.

I see big things in this young man's future. Wonder if he wants to be a Bison?

I don't know the origin of this, but it is one of the funniest interviews you'll ever see. Got to love dry Brit humor!

Will Paterson just resign already? First Aqueduct, then the domestic abuse aide case, and now these Yankees tickets--his latest ethics scandal du jour.

Between Spitzer, Paterson, the farce that is the state legislature, Wall St. scandals, enormous property taxes, and an incredible deficit, it is harder and harder to be proud of ties to NY. The state could use a massive restart button and a return to its heyday of the middle of the 20th century when NY basically had a monopoly on anything that was great, whether it was athletes, singers, actors, businessmen, etc.

Another move in the right direction - Rangel no longer chair of Ways and Means. I guess it depends on who suceeds him though.

I'll lay it right out there - I haven't put a huge amount of thought or background research into this topic, so I'm not the most knowledgeable person in this area. While thinking about it the other day though, it was apparent to me that the only way to really reduce the cost of health care is to push more of the burden off of insurance and onto the individual. I used an example of car insurance. Car insurance covers unexpected breakdowns, but not routine maintenance like oil changes, gas, and new tires. Why then does health insurance cover routine things such as physicals, pregnancy, etc? Shouldn't that be covered by the individual?

Interestingly I just came across this article from the Cato Institute with a similar view (although he used home insurance).

No one is suggesting that people shouldn't have [health] insurance. But insurance is ultimately meant to spread the risk of catastrophic events, not to simply prepay your health care. Your homeowners insurance covers you if your house burns down. It doesn't pay to mow your lawn or paint the fence.

You can also envision a scenario of product differentiation if you moved away from insurance and towards individual responsibility. For example, maybe doctor's office "X" maintains a large staff so that you don't have to wait, and they have the latest and greatest in technology. If you want that kind of platinum service, you pay more for it. Or, if you don't, you go to no frills doctor "Y."

The bottom line is I don't see an obvious way to seriously reduce costs unless individuals have a greater responsibility to cover them. Am I missing something? Is there really a silver bullet answer?

I couldn't believe this story:

PITTSBURGH – With her boyfriend in severe abdominal pain, Sharon Edge called 911 for an ambulance in the early morning hours of Feb. 6. Heavy snow was falling — so heavy it would all but bring the city to a standstill — and Curtis Mitchell needed to go to a hospital.

"Help is on the way," the operator said.

It never arrived.

Nearly 30 hours later — and 10 calls from the couple to 911, four 911 calls to them and at least a dozen calls between 911 and paramedics — Curtis Mitchell died at his home.

Horrible. 10 freakin calls? I mean, I can see how the ball can get dropped once or twice. But by the time 5 hours and 5 calls went by, I'd think this would've been escalated, no?

I was reading this story aloud to a co-worker when I came to this statement, made by the head of public safety in Pittsburgh, who summed up his department's performance thusly:

"We failed this person."

As the Sheriff of El Paso once said (sort of): That don't hardly say it.