Re: Elizabeth Warren’s health care plan.

She won’t answer questions about raising taxes on the middle class, so obviously taxes will be increased. The trade-off, according to her, is that health care costs in our budget will go down more than the taxes will go up.

That may be true in general. I don’t know because I have not done the math.

But my question is this. How does this affect me? I still have income, but I also have Medicare already. So if I understand her correctly, my personal taxes will go up, but I will get absolute zero in return. In essence, I will now have to start paying for something that I already have, which was earned with a lifetime of labor.

Other working people who use Medicare for their health coverage seem to be in the same boat, and a lot of seniors still work.

Is that right, or does her plan include a tax exemption for the working elderly?

View this post on Instagram

💜 ANGELS! My brand new album Charli is out now. Of course, I am so proud of this body of work and I am so happy you can now listen to it in full! Link in bio! This is my most personal album yet. I discuss love, relationships and partying – as usual – but this is the first time I’ve really opened up about my mental health, my insecurities and my need to try and find connections with people whilst at the same time continuing to feel so isolated. Through my friends and my collaborators I’ve found a way to connect and communicate. So thank you to every producer, artist and mixer on this album – Charli would be nothing without all of you. Thank you for sharing your talent, your words and your visions with me. I truly believe this collection of artists and producers have something to SAY. they are powerful and bold and anything but vague. I adore you all. Thank you for trusting me. The best way to listen to this album is LOUD. Ideally driving in a car at night or at a house party (but really – make sure it’s LOUD)!!! Ok, before I end this epically long caption – I just wanna say, thank you so much to all of you guys reading this – the angels, the fans, my supporters. Thank you for allowing me to grow into the human and artist I truly am. Thank you for understanding my quirks and oddities. Thank you for allowing me to be me. I couldn’t have got here without you. I love you all. Finally, I would like to dedicate this album to @billy_clayton. We love you forever billy. 💜

A post shared by Charli (@charli_xcx) on

We’re not saying the trend in the UK is any more pronounced than in any other English-speaking nation. The article just references the UK because it’s from one of their tabloids. I’ll bet the percentage would be even higher in the USA.

Most popular: Jasmine, Rex, Belle

  • I believe Jasmine and Belle, but …. Rex??? Sounds like a Brit thing.

Least popular: Dopey, Goofy, Donald

Just out of curiosity, I looked this up in the Social Security database:

  • Jasmine experienced a surge in the 70s and was a top-50 girl’s name for two decades (1989-2008), but has steadily been dropping in popularity since then. It is now at 136 and has fallen in each of the last four years.
  • Rex has never been popular, but has experienced a very slight uptick since 1996. It is still unpopular, and is not among the top 500 male baby names.
  • Belle was essentially non-existent for eight decades (1935-2015), but has experienced a slight resurgence in the past three years. It’s important to recognize, however, that the name is still profoundly unpopular and has not yet cracked the top 800 female baby names.

In general, Americans are not naming their children after Disney characters. There was one exception about a quarter of a century ago, as far as I could see. The name Ariel experienced a tremendous surge in 1990 and 1991. The Little Mermaid came out in 1989, so that seems directly correlated.

Could you have won any of these wacky bets on last night’s debate?


Will any candidate say a curse word or be bleeped?

  • Yes +500


On a more serious note: Here are the odds to win the Democratic nomination.

  • Elizabeth Warren is now the favorite with the bookies.
  • How bad are things for Cory Booker and Beto? They have worse odds than Hillary Clinton. In comparison to other candidates from the Golden Age, they are still slightly ahead of FDR.
  • Andrew Yang is still low, but surging. He has pulled into a tie for fifth with Pete Buttigieg.
  • DeBlasio has worse odds than Oprah, Michelle Obama, and the hippie chick. As he well deserves.

Obviously, those odds are based on more than the polls.

(SIDEBAR: Tulsi Gabbard, who did not qualify for the debate, is polling better than two of the people who did, Klobuchar and Castro.)

He has also said, on the same topic, but perhaps a bit less truthfully:

I’m not a vain person. … But I look better under an incandescent light than these crazy lights that are beaming down”

The stable genius at his Fayetteville rally

Yup, he’s commenting on the type of lighting that makes him look better – precisely what a guy would say if he wasn’t vain!

Falwell’s argument is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, he accuses the article of lies. On the other hand, he says that the e-mails which form the basis of the article are his property, which means he acknowledges that they are genuine. (If they were fakes, he could not claim to own them.)

When it comes to the legal basis of Falwell’s argument, an expert the AP spoke with called Falwell’s assertions “totally insane.” 

NOTE: forwarding an e-mail could be criminal for some reason other than personal ownership or copyright. It could be construed as an act pursuing a criminal conspiracy; it could violate privilege; it could offer information on insider trading, etc. In that regard, it is no different from any other form of communication, and there is no precedent to claim that you own your communication, written or spoken. Falwell’s argument is tantamount to saying, “You can’t quote what I said to you, because I own those words.”