Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Light Rail Derails! | Sheriff in Phoenix Turning Immigrat… »

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

News The Morning News: Elizabeth Smart Trial Finally Begins, Costco Fights with Coke, and Levi Johnston Doesn't Show His Johnson

Posted by Megan Seling on Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:47 AM

Teamwork: President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao promise to work together to "tackle climate change, nuclear disarmament, and other global troubles."

Good News!: After a night of serious wind, the expected windstorm is calming as it moves inland, and isn't going to kill us after all. Probably.

Bad News (But Not Really): Levi Johnston "did not go full-frontal" in Playgirl shoot.

Spain's Prime Minister Said They Did What They Had To Do: 36 hostages are free after Spain paid the $3.3 million ransom.

The Story Gets Sadder: The body of the missing five-year-old-girl has been found.

What a Dick: A Scottish man is facing charges after causing a flight from Philly to London to land early in Boston due to his "belligerent and disruptive" behavior.

What an Asshole: A Harborview employee is being charged with molesting a patient.

But They Still Haven't Found the Shooter(s): The two men and one woman who were shot in SoDo yesterday are all expected to live.

The Big Boob Debate: The government is now recommending that women get fewer mammograms, and many experts think that's fucking crazy.

Finally: The woman involved in the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case will enter a guilty plea today, after years of being deemed too incompetent to stand trial.

Fight! Fight!: After a feud with the company, Costco is no longer going to sell Coke products.

This Will Be a Made-For-TV Movie Soon, I'm Sure: The co-founder of Clearly Lasik has been charged with murder-for-hire, for his alleged plot to kill his business partner.

Look at the goats trying to get on the bus! Like they're people! I bet they don't even have bus fare... Dumb goats.

Comments (35) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

If the government's new recommendations regarding mammograms isn't evidence that insurance companies are running the show I don't know what is.

Posted by tacomagirl on November 17, 2009 at 8:01 AM

In other news, Colorado will begin taxing medical marijuana "beginning immediately."
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13804046

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on November 17, 2009 at 8:17 AM

Do they make movies for TV anymore?

Posted by Olo on November 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM

That video is a fake. It's part of a Richard Conlin viral marketing campaign.

Posted by DOUG.

on November 17, 2009 at 8:21 AM

I was so sad when I heard about Levi Johnston. Now I'm back to square one on Christmas ideas.

Posted by Aislinn on November 17, 2009 at 8:25 AM

No cheers for Colbert last night?

Posted by DavidC

on November 17, 2009 at 8:27 AM

Kinda sad about the Coke thing. I used to buy the Hench en Mexico Coke for my "coke" parties.

Posted by The Amazing Jim

on November 17, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Really, nobody wants to see a barely-legal little boy naked anyway.

Posted by LovesChoad on November 17, 2009 at 8:38 AM

@1: The goverment is preparing to become the most infuriating, restrictive, and also biggest insurance "company" of them all.

Posted by raindrop on November 17, 2009 at 8:54 AM

@1: Nothing to do with the insurance companies. But in fact there is plenty of evidence that the amount of screening we do in this country for not only breast cancer but many cancers is a gigantic suckage of money for relatively little reward.

Read up on the science behind the recommendation. It's very interesting.

Posted by bigyaz on November 17, 2009 at 8:55 AM

You all want lower health care costs? We'll this is how. Fucking idiots, don't you realize your insurance is so high because the COSTS are so high. It's why non-profit health insurance is as expensive as for-profit. Time to start eliminating waste, over-testing and excessive medicine. Time to make doctors think about costs.

Posted by Donald Bradmans on November 17, 2009 at 9:06 AM

It took that girl 1:02 to pay her f-ing bus fare. She wasn't even dealing with the goats. That makes me unnecessarily frustrated.

Serenity now.

Posted by Cochise. on November 17, 2009 at 9:11 AM

@10
"relatively little reward"
Tell that to the 40 year old woman who's life gets saved because of early screening. Better yet...tell it to the 49 year old who's dying because she was waiting for 50 to get a mammogram.
The science behind the recommendation doesn't change the fact that early screening saves lives. Maybe only a few lives but how many is too few? Your sister's? Your mother's? Your wife's?
Funny the recommendation regarding prostate cancer screening hasn't changed.
The only reason to change this recommendation is to save money. And, who's holding the purse strings?

Posted by tacomagirl on November 17, 2009 at 9:17 AM

13
everybody is willing to spend
WHATEVER IT TAKES
(of SOMEONE ELSE's money)
to cure anything and everything
and then we wonder
why healthcare costs so much...

Posted by NEWSFLAH--- EVERYBODY DIES. eventually. sorry. on November 17, 2009 at 9:25 AM

@ 13, it's not like saving money isn't a legitimate concern when it comes to recommendations like this. One of the few things the insurance companies are right about, is that too much testing and screening drives health care costs up. (Their motive is to keep more premiums in their pockets, natch, but that doesn't make it any less true.)

Ideally there will be some way to profile women who are more likely to get breast cancer than others, and put them on a more frequent scanning regimen. Might that mean that some people slip through? Yes, that's a distinct likelihood. But it would do our society and economy some good if our efforts were not designed to try to save everyone.

Posted by Matt from Denver on November 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM

I would have liked to see Levi Johnston's penis.

Posted by Gus on November 17, 2009 at 9:35 AM

The Costco thing is going to suck if that affects the Mexican coke they sell. $19 a case is not a price I expect to see anywhere else; better research that.

Posted by Matt from Denver on November 17, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Funny about the screening, mamograms don't work- unless combined with genetic testing and consultation. My Grandmother died from breast cancer and my mother survived. I was tested- by genes. I have four out of five markers for breast cancer. I have huge (normal) cysts in my breasts that swell with hormones- aka ovulation. However, these water swelling cysts make it impossible to detect tumors in a normal mamogram. Breast cancer has huge issues, because it is more then often inherited. If you want to combat the problem- start with gene screening at 30.

Posted by KT-Kat on November 17, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Really, nobody wants to see a barely-legal little boy naked anyway.

One member of the Palin family did.

Why doesn't the bus driver just shut the damn door. The goats keep trying to get on the bus, nad he keeps the door open. Shut the damn door.

Posted by gttim on November 17, 2009 at 9:46 AM

@19

Yeah. She was a twit, and her mother is a twat. And now they have a cum-quat.

Posted by LovesChoad on November 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM

@19: Exactly! Shut the door! And pay your fare quicker, stupid girls.

And yeah, I want to see Levi's peen.

Posted by baconpussy on November 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM

@13 Actually, they are changing the prostate cancer screening guidlines as well, and for the same reasons. All these screenings have found a lot more early stage cancers, but haven't reduced the rates for advanced cancers. Which means they are probably treating a whole bunch of cancers that never would have caused a problem, and still missing the ones that really are dangerous. http://tr.im/F9Tx

Posted by stacy on November 17, 2009 at 10:26 AM

@22 is correct.

Unless you have a certain type of breast tissue, getting mammograms before 50 has no correlation with living longer. Unless you have a family history of breast cancer genes and have them yourself.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on November 17, 2009 at 10:32 AM

You don't have to go to Costco to buy your Mexican coke. I'm sure there are Mexcian groceries all over the city, e.g. Greenwood, White Center, etc.

Posted by Rose on November 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM

I love all the progressives here. Screaming about how healthcare is unaffordable to many Americans but take one small, tiny step to reducing those costs and they shit.

Posted by Donald Bradmans on November 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM

@ 24, here in Denver King Soopers (which is our version of QFC, both Kroger-owned and operated) carries Mexican coke - in single bottles at roughly double the price. The actual Mexican stores have around the same markup and no one but Costco (that I know of - as I said, I have to do some research or else stock up) sells the cases for as much as they do.

However, I have a feeling that imported Mexican coke is a separate business than Costco negotiating with Coca-Cola in Atlanta. I'll have to ask...

Posted by Matt from Denver on November 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM