Probably just complain loudly about how he pays his premiums and he shouldn't have to put up with that kind of ideologically-compromised healthcare.

There is a reason I work from home, generally. Hanging out in the coffee shop, I get caught up on conversations about the fire, I have a hard time blocking out the surrounding conversations, and it is kinds chilly. At home, I can control the temp and the noise.

There is a table in front of me with three generations of women. The kid is adorable but feinding for mom's coffee drink. There is a table behind me where two business partners are having a very calm but forceful arguement. Then there is the couple across the way who need to go get a room.

I just know if I head home, as soon as I get comfy there, the boys will call for me to go pick them up.

To create natter, I am happy to announce that I bought two coats yesterday. I am going to our Minneapolis office at the end of the month and a week later to stay with my mom, so I thought it was time to replace my 15-year-old winter jacket and long coat. Got a pretty fake shearling coat and a plain black down jacket for $150, thanks to Burlington Coat Factory, Friend to Cheapskates.

I'm finally going to break down and buy some more clothes. I'm tired of the ones I have, and some of them are starting to fray in places that aren't easily repaired, which doesn't really go over well at work, even in my birki-tastic office environment. J. Jill has a few tunics and sweaters that look nice.

I am really unhappy with my looks right now, A big part of it is weight and part is just, I dunno, not gracefully accepting that I am 56 years old. After seeing myself in the mirror while trying on coats, I was in a bad bad BAD mood. It resulted in my asking my DH, "When I get older,likein my 60s, are you going to find me attractive?" It's the kind of gotchya question I think is unfair to ask, but it just kinda popped out. Of course he told me he would, but it didn't help and I felt like a schmo for even going there.

You could read this, which I thought was from the onion, but in fact, is not;

I wonder how his followers are going to avoid government assistance if they divorce their Obama-voting spouses and quit the jobs provided by Obama-voting employers.

You look great, Scrappy. Never believe the thoughts that come to you when you're forced to look at yourself for a long time in mirrors with bad lighting.

Probably just complain loudly about how he pays his premiums and he shouldn't have to put up with that kind of ideologically-compromised healthcare.

Or else he'd complain - loudly - about all the deadbeats getting free health care and being treated before him.

A good number of the people who shop at my grocery use WIC and assorted subsidies to pay for food. Now ... I do get irritated when I have to wait when one of them is trying to buy something that isn't allowed on their program, but on the whole ... it's a good use of tax money.

My theory is that you pay for things now or you pay - and pay more - later. Roads - if you don't maintain them, you'll have to do a major rebuild. People - if they, especially children, aren't well nourished, they're not going to reach their potential. If you don't have decent public education, children are again not going to reach their potential. So pay for this stuff and maybe they'll be able to pay into Social Security to pay into Social Security for you and me.

(gets off soapbox)

It looks like FL went to Obama. 332 to 206.

[link]

If you don't have decent public education, children are again not going to reach their potential. So pay for this stuff and maybe they'll be able to pay into Social Security to pay into Social Security for you and me.

I heard a fantastic podcast from Planet Money last week, about the returns on putting kids in preschool. Two sets of kids from the same neighborhood, born into the same socioeconomic circumstances: one set goes to pre-school where they get socialized, learn their letters, get read to, etc. The other set doesn't. The rest of their educational experience is roughly the same.

Twenty years after the fact, the difference between the two sets of kids is clear. The pre-school kids are significantly more likely to have finished high school or college, significantly less likely to be on unemployment or welfare, to have gotten pregnant as a teenager, to have gotten arrested. Pre-school kids earn more over their lives, pay back more into social security, produce more for society.

It was an amazing report, because the differences were so clear, and the other factors were controlled for. The difference for these lower-income kids was the pre-school.

And did you hear the TAL about sneaking universal pre-K into Oklahoma? It was amazing.