Olbermann Pre-Empted, Howard Kurtz Hardest Hit
— Slublog

Like DrewM, I enjoy watching the Winter Olympics. Unfortunately, the broadcast rights to those games were given to NBC, whose network coverage has been...less than ideal. Fortunately, NBC has two cable channels that have picked up the slack. Both MSNBC and CNBC have almost proven their worth by covering, with limited inane commentary, some of the best events - curling and hockey.

This evening, Sweden and Great Britain faced off in curling. The epic match was covered on MSNBC, and preempted much of their prime time schedule. The half-dozen Olbermann fans out there were outraged by this programming decision, chief among them totally objective media reporter Howard Kurtz, who wrote the following on Twitter:

Keith Olbermann has been preempted by...curling? Don't they realize there's a health care summit tomorrow??

What, exactly, was Kurtz expecting on the health care debate from Keith Olbermann? Keef is nothing if not predictably partisan and outrageously outraged by any Republican who dares disagree with The One. No serious media reporter should bemoan the preemption of Olbermann, who is really nothing more than a carnival barker for the left at this point.

Don't feel bad for Kurtz, though. The curling match ended with a Swedish win, and the restoration of outrageous outrage to the airwaves:

Olbermann back in action. Curling ran long on MSNBC. Whoever made this programming decision should be Worst Person in the World.

I hope, for Kurtz's sake, that the delay wasn't too stressful.

Howard Kurtz, this long-distance request and dedication is for you, pal. Was the Special Comment good for you? I hope so, because your pining for Olbermann shows your... more...

Posted by: Slublog at 05:09 PM | Comments (147)
Post contains 325 words, total size 3 kb.

Obamacare Summit: Rumble or Snoozefest?
— Dave in Texas

The bully pulpit has become digital "Punch and Judy" theatrics.

Odd that a leader who considers himself a persuasive orator would resort to surrounding himself with stage props, lights, and the cover of his Democratic colleagues whose infighting and outright fear have stalled the very centerpiece of his agenda.

So the opening salvos have been fired at insurance companies by team Obama, to soften the beachhead, while they simultaneously offer pretense at readiness to listen to "alternatives".

The White House offered an olive branch to wary Republicans, saying the healthcare plan Obama released on Monday was not the last word on the issue and promising to work to find common ground at the televised summit.

"It is important to understand that this proposal isn't meant to be the final say on the legislation," Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said in an e-mail.

But Republicans, who have demanded Democrats scrap the bills and start over, criticized Obama for signaling he would consider ramming the bill through Congress using a procedure that would bypass the need for Republican support.

I mentioned last week I'd just as soon the Republicans in Congress had told Obama to stuff his summit, there's nothing here to negotiate. The problem I have with their move on this is the underlying premise that requires them to cede ground (Americans want "some" kind of healthcare reform).

I'm also concerned about ace's thoughts that faced with severe electoral pain either way, Democrats will simply choose to pull the bandage off hard and move on because it's in their best interests to put this behind them by passing a bill and taking the hit now.

Well, they're in. All I can hope for at this point is that Republicans recognize they have overwhelming public support to spit this thing back at O and stiffen their spines further. I say that with some appreciation that they have been spitting it back already.

On a side note it would go a long way toward pulling me back into the R fold. Not that I strayed far. I just would like to know we're moving in the right direction. I'm really just talking about opening my checkbook again.

The game is afoot. Or a toe. A big toe.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:11 PM | Comments (167)
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

Paper hanging in the digital age - deposit checks by taking an iPhone pic of them
— Purple Avenger

What could possibly go wrong with this idea? I'm all for it. I promise to send everyone a postcard with pics of my new mansion in Tahiti.

In the near future, you might not even have to visit a bank or an ATM to deposit a check. You'll simply snap a couple of photos of it with your cell phone.

Applications to do just that are already available for Apple's iPhone and other gadgets from USAA, a company that provides insurance and banking mainly for military veterans. Chase, Bank of America and Citibank are among the banks planning to release similar applications this year.

Although the technology, known as remote-deposit capture, promises to save consumers time, it adds a new wrinkle to concerns about fraud and the privacy of financial data...

I'm not the slightest bit "concerned" about fraud and privacy here. Indeed, I'm wildly enthusiastic about the wonderful new technology and await its PERVASIVE DEPLOYMENT with bated breath.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 03:37 PM | Comments (168)
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

CNN Poll: 73% Say Either Start Health Care From Scratch or Stop Work On It Completely
More: GOP Asks Obama to Invite Abortion-Dissenter Stupak to Health Care Kabuki
— Ace

I had earlier thought a 60% level of opposition would do it.

Some Democrats seem determined, however, such that I'm not even sure a nearly-three-quarters level of opposition is enough to stop them.

How does CNN play this finding? As evidence America wants itself some health care reform:

. An overwhelming majority of Americans, 73%, prefer that Congress either start from scratch (48%) or stop work completely on health care reform (25%). ObamaÂ’s Health Plan contains essentially the same policies as the bill passed by the Senate, with the addition of price controls for health insurance premiums.

CNN buries the lede in its article accompanying the release of its findings, never mentioning that an overwhelming majority (73%) of the American public disapprove of passing a bill similar to the one before Congress, including four in ten Democrats who want the President and Congress to start over. CNN does manage to state that “nearly three quarters” of Americans want some kind of reform, including in that figure the 48% who want Congress to start over in that grouping in a somewhat dishonest fashion...

They have their Narrative and they're sticking to it.

The Stupid Party Not So Stupid? Invite Joe Stupak, Minority Leader Boehner asks.

The CentristNet blog is a bit overly sanguine on the political helpfulness of this:

Obama faces a difficult choice in whether to agree to the GOP’s desire for Stupak’s attendance. If Obama denies the request, part of the narrative over the next twenty four hours will be the White House’s exclusion of Stupak. If Obama accepts the request, than Stupak’s “unacceptable” comment and likely more comments from Stupak about abortion will be part of the media reporting. As Obama has already denied the request for Governor attendance, our guess is that Obama will simply ignore this latest GOP demand regarding Stupak and hope the issue of abortion funding via Obamacare gains little traction in the coming days.

It won't be part of the media reporting either way, except for an obligatory reference.

Posted by: Ace at 01:40 PM | Comments (239)
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

NYT: "First Tea Party Terrorist?"
— Ace

I won't even link it. It's "The Opnionator" at the NYT if you care.

Let me just quote his defensive reaction to criticism:

Postscript (added after reading a few dozen angry comments): Just to clarify a few things: 1) When I said in this column that you could in principle follow my logic to conclude that Joseph Stack was a Tea Party terrorist, I should have added the explicit reminder that this logic depended on accepting the somewhat squishy definition of “Tea Party” ideology that, I argue, is appropriate given the still-inchoate nature of the movement; 2) I’m of course not saying that Stack has much in common with the average law-abiding Tea Partier (any more than Osama bin Laden has much in common with the average law-abiding Muslim or law-abiding Islamist) — even though I do think that intense rage, which Stack evinced so violently, can be found on the movement’s fringes; 3) I’m definitely not, as some commenters seem to think, saying that Stack is a conservative terrorist. Indeed, my point is that the Tea Party movement is still undefined enough to accommodate ideologically eclectic people. However, I think commenters who take the Stack manifesto’s closing reference to the Communist Manifesto as a sign of communist sympathies are misreading his intent; and I suspect his closing characterization of capitalism isn’t meant as a rejection of free-market economics but rather as a complaint that capitalism has become corrupted in America. I think the overall point of those two references is that capitalism, as it’s being corruptly practiced, is no better than communism, and may be worse. But there will never be any way of knowing for sure what he meant.

He has no evidence at all for the bolded crap -- he wants the guy to be a Tea Partier, therefore he is a Tea Partier. (Despite having never once attended a Tea Party meeting nor attempted to join the local Tea Party.)

Contrary evidence -- all the leftist cant in the suicide note -- is just dismissed as a not-entirely-right-wing sort of Tea Party populism, and the explicit praise of Communism is dismissed as meaning something other than it clearly does.

They've got their Narrative and they're sticking to it.

The lying bastard Robert Wright takes a page out of the leftist playbook, too, by not even mentioning the endorsement of Communism. As the entire media did. He mentions it in the chunk I quote above, but that's only in a postscript to his original hack-work, and he only mentions it because his gross deception was made very public in the comments.

This is what they do -- Wright has no evidence, or even any argument, that the endorsement of Communism is being "misread." The ipse dixit nature of his postscript claim demonstrates that. So, having no good way to spin the quote, he simply omitted it.

As the media does again, and again, and again, and again. Facts which are damaging to the Democratic Media Party, but which can be slanted, get reported, but with spin.

Facts which are damaging to the Democratic Media Party, which cannot be slanted, are simply embargoed altogether.

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (149)
Post contains 536 words, total size 3 kb.

USA-Switzerland Olympic Hockey. Final
— DrewM

UPDATE:

US Wins, 2-0. US played well against a pesky and defensively sound Swiss team. It's like the NCAA's, survive and advance. US plays the winner of Finland-Czech Republic on Thursday.

Now onto Russia-Canada.

Still scoreless after 2 periods. The US is out playing the Swiss in every area of the game, except goalie. Miller's doing fine but he's only faced 8 shots. Jonas Hiler however has stopped 32 shots.

I hate games like this. One team is clearly out playing the other and yet the inferior team is just hanging around. I mean, it's entertaining but one bad bounce and the US could be out.

Original Post:
Because you asked for it. Well, maybe not you but that other guy, over there, he did.

End of the 1st period, no score

Theoretically you can watch it online here but I haven't been able to get it to work.

As much as I love me some USA ass kicking, this game is really a warm up for Canada-Russia. That should be a great game.

A little late but here's tmi3rds preview... more...

Posted by: DrewM at 11:51 AM | Comments (205)
Post contains 1042 words, total size 6 kb.

School Board To High School Faculty: You're Fired. All Of You
— DrewM

Central Falls, Rhode Island...Hello!

The school board fired every teacher in the high school due to the school's poor performance. Not surprisingly the teacher's union is outraged. Very surprisingly, the Obama administration supports the district.

The stateÂ’s tiniest, poorest city has become the center of a national battle over dramatic school reform. On the one side, federal and state education officials say they must take painful and dramatic steps to transform the nationÂ’s lowest-performing schools. On the other side, teachers unions say such efforts undermine hard-won protections in their contracts.

“This is hard work and these are tough decisions, but students only have one chance for an education,” Education Secretary Duncan said, “and when schools continue to struggle we have a collective obligation to take action.”

Duncan is requiring states, for the first time, to identify their lowest 5 percent of schools — those that have chronically poor performance and low graduation rates — and fix them using one of four methods: school closure; takeover by a charter or school-management organization; transformation which requires a longer school day, among other changes; and “turnaround” which requires the entire teaching staff be fired and no more than 50 percent rehired in the fall.

... (District Superintendent Frances )Gallo and the teachers initially agreed they wanted the transformation model, which would protect the teachersÂ’ jobs.

But talks broke down when the two sides could not agree on what transformation entailed.

Gallo wanted teachers to agree to a set of six conditions she said were crucial to improving the school. Teachers would have to spend more time with students in and out of the classroom and commit to training sessions after school with other teachers.

But Gallo said she could pay teachers for only some of the extra duties. Union leaders said they wanted teachers to be paid for more of the additional work and at a higher pay rate — $90 per hour rather than the $30 per hour offered by Gallo.

It's all about the students money for the unions and their members. I don't begrudge people wanting more money for more work but when your work is producing substandard results, well, welcome to the world of accountability.

Is this fair? Probably not but there's not right to fairness. I'm sure there are good and dedicated teachers in the district but the unions don't want them singled out and risk exposing the mediocre or bad ones (see the uniform opposition of teacher unions to merit pay). Suddenly unions also don't like the idea of all teachers being treated the same, at least when it comes to facing the consequences of their work. Funny how the bottom line is always more money for teachers, no consequences.

I tend to think the decisions we make as a society about education are far too focused on resources. It seems the greatest predictor and influence on a child's academic success is the family environment and the value parents place on education. While resources are necessary to support that, no amount of money is capable of replacing a strong family foundation to any great degree.

Still, it would be nice if this action spread and put teachers and their unions on notice that accountability is a concept they need to become familiar with.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:53 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

"This Is a Career Ending Vote:" Reconciliation Tough in Senate, But Even Tougher in House
Update: 15-20 Votes Shy?
— Ace

I feel a little better having read this.

I keep wondering if the reconciliation threat is genuine or kabuki for the we-need-a-win hyperpartisan superfans in the nutroots -- who view this as basically nothing but a sporting event in which their quarterback hero Barack Obama needs a comeback.

This article suggests it's the latter. Many Democrats truly want reconciliation -- but not, hopefully, enough for a majority in either house.

Worth reading in full.

In Monday's blueprint, the president made the decision -- certainly audacious and perhaps foolhardy -- to press for the comprehensive, near-trillion-dollar package. Getting there would require two steps. The Senate, using the majority-vote process of reconciliation, would tweak the measure as suggested by the president. The House would pass both the tweaks and the underlying Senate bill.

The arithmetic of this approach is unforgiving. Even before the shock of losing the Massachusetts Senate seat, there was no margin for error in either house. Now the politics in both chambers have become that much harder.

The House wants the Senate to lead, for a change. For parliamentary reasons, this is unlikely. But no matter what the order, getting even 50 Senate votes will be a challenge. Some Democrats are reluctant to take this divisive step. Assuming enough can be brought along, Republicans will be able, even under reconciliation rules, to bring the Senate to a virtual standstill.

That would be the easy part.

In the House, the only way to cobble together a majority will be to secure votes from moderate Democrats who balked at passing the bill the first time around. These are the lawmakers who are most rattled by the Massachusetts vote -- with good reason. For a Democratic House member in a swing district, the politics counsel against voting yes. "This is a career-ending vote," one Democrat told me -- and this was a lawmaker who voted for the original bill.

Specifics on the House follows. Only 220 votes passed the bill originally, and due to resignations, deaths, and defections, five votes from that tally have been lost. Five or more votes will be lost with Joe Stupak, who calls the Senate bill's abortion language "unacceptable." There are hard-core liberals who voted against the bill initially -- for not going far enough -- who might be induced to vote for it since their boyfriend Captain Wonderful so desperately needs to give his socialist agenda some momentum, but not enough.

Leaving it to the Blue Dogs -- two of whom are retiring and may be persuaded to stick it royally to their constituents of several decades on the way out. But what about the rest?

I think triangulation comes into play -- some of these guys are going to figure out they need to triangulate against Obama if they want to stay in office.

Update: At least 15 down, according to Stupak and Cantor.

NBC's official "First Read" blog -- which last week indulged in a bit of hero-worhip by screaming at Democrats to just do what Captain Wonderful wants, so Democrats could win in 2010 or something -- continues cheerleading for Obama, but Allah calls that stupid:

NBC is keeping hope alive, noting that Blue Dogs who voted no on the House bill last time because it had a public option and raised taxes may be wooed by Obama’s more “moderate bill.” But that assumes that (a) no progressives will walk away from Obama because he didn’t include a public option, and (b) that the political risk to Blue Dogs in voting yes now is the same as, or even less than, the risk they faced when voting on Pelosi’s bill in November, which of course is insane. In fact, Jason Altmire, one of the Blue Dogs whom NBC cites as a potential flip, told the AP that he’s highly skeptical that there are enough votes to pass anything. The nightmare for The One is that any Democrat, left or center, who’s eager to find an excuse to not vote for this thing can find something in the compromise bill to latch onto as a “dealbreaker.” And that being so, given the current political climate, why would anyone think Pelosi’s likely to get more people flipping yes than flipping no?

One thing that worries me, as it worried me before, is that once Democrats realize they are doomed in November no matter what they do, they might decide they might as well stick it to the American public as hard as they can.

The other thing that worries me is this: It wouldn't necessarily be crazy to do just that. You might say, "But that will doom Democrats!" Well, maybe, but bear in mind here they are looking at several bad options, all which lead to results which differ merely on degree of calamity.

Pushing this through against the public's wishes is a horrible option -- but then, so is keeping this issue live on the table every day, every week, with the public continuing to fear the Democrats will push it through, and the liberal base screaming in anger they haven't pushed it through yet.

Given that, they might desire it's better to at least end this as a live issue and take the damage they're destined to take and at least move on to their next unpopular initiative.

As I've said before, this is a wedge issue that divides their liberals from the independents, and they need both to win elections. They're going to lose one group. And they're going to choose to lose the independents, because while independents vote, liberals vote more and do something independents don't -- donate to campaigns.

As horrible as pushing this through against strong public opposition is, I can make the case to myself that this is the least-bad option for Democrats.

I hope I'm wrong on that, or at least they don't see it that way.

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 AM | Comments (208)
Post contains 1019 words, total size 6 kb.

The Left's Newest, Stupidest Smear: Yoo and Cheney Argued President Could Lawfully Order "Massacre" of Entire Village of "Civilians"
— Ace

Note that last word -- "civilians."

See if you can spot it in this exchange:

At the core of the legal arguments were the views of Yoo, strongly backed by David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel, that the president's wartime powers were essentially unlimited and included the authority to override laws passed by Congress, such as a statute banning the use of torture. Pressed on his views in an interview with OPR investigators, Yoo was asked:

"What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? ... Is that a power that the president could legally—"

"Yeah," Yoo replied, according to a partial transcript included in the report. "Although, let me say this: So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief's power over tactical decisions."

"To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?" the OPR investigator asked again.

"Sure," said Yoo.

The word is used in the second posing of the question. The first time the question's posed, however, a different word is used: resistants. That is, enemy combatants.

They're not talking about passive resistance here. They don't mean Gandhi-like dead-weight people-chains.

They're talking about active, forceful resistance. In the context of our lawful and justified invasion (Afghanistan) with a lawful and justified purpose (hunting the terrorists and their enablers and protectors who caused 9/11). And those terrorists taking refuge in a village, and those villagers deciding to resort to force to repel a lawful, justified sweep of the town.

So the argument seems to be whether the President can order the destruction of a village comprised of enemy combatants who are "civilians" in the unlawful sense of not being part of a regular army with clearly-visible markings.

And of course he can. What would the rule be otherwise? That we can kill lawful, regular, uniformed combatants but not unlawful, irregular, un-uniformed ones? What the hell kind of incentive is that?

You'll be happy to know that Andrew Sullivan calls this This Era's Hiroshima. Something that didn't actually happen -- something that was argued was within the President's power to order. And he could -- if a village of Taliban opens fire on our soldiers and will not permit them to come inside and arrest the terrorists they're looking for, of course the president can order airstrikes. Neither Bush nor Obama is doing that, of course, but they could.

The Geneva Conventions, by the way, permit just this. The rule is against excessive civilian casualties when attacking a legitimate military target. If the target is legitimate and the civilian casualties "not excessive" (vague, to be sure, but how the hell else can you frame it?), the much-vaunted Geneva Conventions bless this.

And of course they do. How else could war be conducted?

Oh, and Sullivan then he compares this all to the Nazis' Lidice massacre and of course My Lai.

It's not just that Sullivan is shrill. And tedious.

It's also that he's ignorant. He postures as learned, but in fact he's not; I'd bet dollars to donuts he just picked up the Lidice reference from another leftwing blogger or in a Google serach. He was probably looking for the Katyn massacre and came up with this one and figured it was better, and made him seem a little smarter. Or more likely, he didn't even remember the Katyn massacre; he just knew he wanted to go full Godwin for the sixty-three billionth time and googled "Nazi massacre."

And I say that because that's his stock in trade; he tarts up shrill, hyperpartisan nonsense with the thinnest, shallowest veneer of Oxbridge book-learning and calls himself a genius for doing so.

Thanks to EdwardR.

Posted by: Ace at 08:38 AM | Comments (159)
Post contains 644 words, total size 4 kb.

Jobs Bill That Garners GOP Support Lauded by The Hill as "Democratic Victory"
— Ace

Good news/bad news here. The bill is relatively tiny in the scheme of Obamanomics -- a mere $15 billion. The bad news is that the pitiable tax breaks it includes are too small to do a damn thing, and the worse news is that it needs to be reconciled with the $154 billion House bill. The $15 billion figure was just, I trust, to get it past the first filibuster. I imagine it will end up a lot closer to $154 billion than $15 billion.

And what will Scott Brown do then? Note he was joined by four other GOPers in voting to end debate.

The Senate voted 70-28 on Wednesday morning to pass a $15 billion jobs package, giving Senate Democrats their first legislative victory of the year.

Thirteen Republicans joined 55 Democrats and two independents to vote for the bill. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the only Democrat to vote against it.

Final passage of the bill was made possible by the support of Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.) and four other Republicans who voted Monday to cut off a GOP filibuster.

If 11 Republicans voted for it, isn't that "bipartisan"? Bear in mind three Senators and one Representative voting for ObamaCare made that bipartisan. So why exactly is this a "Democrat... victory"?

The media sure is desperate for some good news for the Democrats and Obama supporters, by which I mean themselves.

It also seems a bit early to be clinking the champagne glasses -- the bill will have to be pass the hurdle of filibuster again after it's reconciled up to over $100 billion.

Posted by: Ace at 08:13 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.