A "lean" bill, Ben Nelson pronounces.

The result is known-- except for how many squishes go along with this boondoggle.

By the Way: It's even more expensive now. It's up to $829 billion, ten billion more than the House bill it was "slimmed down" from.

Squish Bellwether? I haven't heard all the names and I'm not familiar with who's who among the freshmen senators, but the Republican senators I recognize are voting no. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for example, is plainly a squish, but she voted no.

61-36. Final vote is 61-36. Not sure if we lost yet another squish yet or if Ted Kennedy cast that 61st. Three senators didn't vote -- I guess Gregg (abstaining), the undetermined senator from Minnesota, and one more. If it was Kennedy who was absent, we lost another one. If Kennedy voted, someone else abstained.

Another possibility is that someone like Mitch McConnell voted "aye," just to preserve some or other procedural right to ask to reconsider or that kind of thing. That happens a lot, and may have happened here.

Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM | Comments (111)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Parenting, Christian Bale style. Pretty funny.

Content Warning, of course. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:33 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Allah, the technojunkie, is swooning over the new improved Kindle. I'm not, and I don't think most will.

For one thing it costs $360. Quite an investment.

For another thing, books are not precisely difficult to carry around, especially on the places where you'd read a book outside your home -- subway, airport, Starbucks, park. The Kindle is a bit thinner and lighter, but who's sweating the weight of a book?

For yet another thing, books are intrinsically pleasurable as objects. People like books -- the feel of paper, the smell of them. Kindle is not going to replace that attractiveness anytime soon.

But here's the big reason Kindle will never catch on, as a friend explained to me:

"How do you know what to read?"

By which he meant -- without the pleasant ritual of going to a book-store, browsing the stacks, picking up a book and reading its back cover and first few pages -- how the hell do you know what you want to read in the first place?

Netflix has the same problem -- It's a pretty convenient service. They certainly get your movies out quickly. But I have trouble figuring out what movies to rent based on their interface. For whatever reason, the video store stacks continue to be a much easier way to find movies I'd like to see. The Netflix interface offers lots of pictures of from the video boxes, but still, I never know what the hell to order from Netflix. Mostly I order movies I've already seen twenty times just because I can't think of anything else.

Netflix is great, but they need to improve that interface so that -- somehow -- it's more like browsing the stacks at Blockbuster. How? I have no idea.

And Kindle, one would imagine, has the same problem. Sure, there's a huge collection of books you can buy. Sure, you can book-covers and probably read a few sample pages. And yet it's still going to be difficult to buy a book without actually getting to see that tangible thing and hold it in your hand.

Kindle solves a problem which is not in fact a problem -- no one ever really says "Crap, I'd like to read a book but I'd sure like to avoid all the hassle and unpleasantness of a book store." A lot of times people will go to bookstores with no real intention of buying anything -- they just want to browse.

So what is the point? Yes, immediate delivery-- but you can have immediate delivery, pretty much, by driving twenty minutes to a book store, too.

Well Here's Something I Know I Want to Read: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the classic book of romance, now with a zombie apocalypse to make it awesome.

Thanks to MattM.

In Defense of Netflix: Dan-O writes:

do you rate the movies? If not then you should, their user interface kind of relies on that. Once you start rating movies (you need to do a few hundred of them), then the "suggestions" and the movies that it puts in front of your face start getting much better

Nope, I didn't. Netflix never suggests I rent anything I want to rent. I rented a few action movies earlier and now Netfix seems to think I have a hard-on for Steven Segal and Vin Diesel. I guess that's because I don't rate them. I'll try that.

Posted by: Ace at 01:12 PM | Comments (109)
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.

Obama continues the Bush Administration policy The Bush Administration invoked the State Secrets Privilege to refuse providing information to those suing third-parties for their roles in extraordinary renditions.

And Obama concurs.

The case involves five men who claim to have been victims of extraordinary rendition -- including current Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, another plaintiff in jail in Egypt, one in jail in Morocco, and two now free. They sued a San Jose Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

A year ago the case was thrown out on the basis of national security, but today the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal, brought by the ACLU.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

The MSM will defend this-- as they should. But then, they should have defended Bush, too. It is only now when Obama's in office that they feel comfortable being serious and adult about national security.

On the other hand, there's Andrew Sullivan, who is a bit petulant, but still in full swoon.

When you're in love with somebody, even their imperfections seem cute.

Thanks to Gabriel Hussein Malor and Jack Hussein Straw.

Posted by: Ace at 01:01 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

After four days without feeding.

Backstory here. Constitutional crisis averted. As the patient conveniently died. (Sarcasm, there.)

Posted by: Ace at 11:33 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

With Benny Hill music.

DrewM. sent the pic a while ago. I didn't post it because, well, we can laugh but it's the laughter of those who know not enough will be joining in laughing. Without the Obamaized Media pushing laugh-at-Obama memes, this won't even make it to the Jon Stewart show.

See, actually, Obama demonstrated his grace by recovering so quickly from the clumsiness.

Plus he's got those diamond-cut pecs. Yummmmmm.

Yeah, I Know: Watcher says:

Where did he bump his head? Speeding it up like this makes it kinda hard to see.

It is hard to see, especially when spend up. He does bump his head but, admittedly, he kinda slips out of the bump into a ducking of his head to almost disguise it.

Part of the reason I don't really want to go bananas on it. It's pretty minor, alas.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

My biggest fear about a President Obama was that he has a totally flawed view of what to do about our two ongoing wars. He was spectacularly clueless about what to do in Iraq and had we followed his bad advice we would have lost there. His continual demand that we "end" that war is symptomatic of his misunderstanding of the gravity of having US troops on a battlefield.

It is just this simple Mr. Wannabe Commander in Chief, and I say wannabe because while you hold the title you haven't earned it or the trust of the troops yet. The first SF team room I walked into had a sign over the Captain's desk that said "Shut up sir, we'll throw you a pen when we need you to sign something". That sign stayed up for every new Captain assigned to a team of seasoned NCOs to serve as their Detachment Commander, and it only came down when he had gained the trust and became the Team Leader. Well so far Mr. Obama you can hang onto your pen for a while yet. You have a choice to make about your BS 16 month withdrawal from Iraq campaign promise. It was BS when you first came up with it and it's BS now. Your military leaders came to you and told you this and we'll see if you listen to them or play politics. You, Reid, Murtha and the rest of the defeatocrats did your level best to lose that war and if President Bush wasn't a real leader you might have prevailed. I hope you have learned from that but you still seem to be lost as far as what the job of CinC entails. Well as a courtesy from this NCO to a new Commander, I will give you a very important lesson.

You can't end a war, you either win it or lose it.

Did you hear me sir? There is no endgame, no exit strategy, there is victory or defeat. President Bush knew that when he sent our troops into both Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. He also had the intestinal fortitude to stay and win in Iraq, when you were counseling retreat. more...

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 09:25 AM | Comments (82)
Post contains 775 words, total size 4 kb.

Surely in these troubling economic times we cannot demand the able-bodies at least seek work, or enroll in job training, to collect their benefits.

No, we cannot. Indeed, we must expand welfare funding so as to encourage the states to add more people to their welfare rolls.

But it is part of a larger liberal campaign** to use the recession to weaken work requirements and let millions of non-working single mothers back on the welfare rolls. Specifically, it would apparently reward states that expand their welfare caseloads--even if the increase is only the product of loosened work requirements rather than a worsening local economy.
Nothing wrong with helping states avoid anti-stimulating cuts in a recession. Nothing wrong with targeting money to the poorest, who are most likely to spend it quickly. But why use the aid specifically to encourage expansion of welfare? This isn't "welfare" as only conservative Republicans would define it--i.e. any means-tested assistance. This is welfare as everyone would define it--cash assistance to able-bodied single mothers (or fathers) who may or may not be working, as in the old, despised AFDC program. Better to use the money (and more) to create public jobs*** for these would-be recipients if private sector jobs have dried up, even if that upsets municipal employee unions (which don't want welfare recipients doing jobs their members might do). Don't revive the old AFDC principle that if you have a child, you can count on the government to take care of you with cash aid even if you don't work.

And of course the New York Times expressly calls for "rolling back work requirements."

Kaus thinks Republicans can (and should) make an issue of this, and back Obama and the liberals down.

Posted by: Ace at 09:23 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Awful numbers I wish I could spin but I can't.

Even assuming some liberal sampling here -- this is a huge edge, and will spook the squishes.

The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, while the Democrats and, in particular, the Republicans in Congress receive much lower approval ratings of 48% and 31%, respectively.

These findings, based on Gallup Poll interviews conducted Feb. 6-7, underscore the degree to which Obama appears to be maintaining the upper hand over his opponents from a public opinion perspective as he and congressional leaders wrangle over the precise form and substance of a new economic stimulus plan. (Recent Gallup polling also shows that a slight majority of Americans in general favor the idea of passing a stimulus plan of around $800 billion, a sentiment that has stayed constant over the last several weeks.)

If I were to spin it, I'd say the public is just expressing its typical crankiness at seeing political disputes of any kind, and Obama is "winning" simply because he's refusing to show leadership and really engage the issue. Preferring to let Congress fight it out.

Even so, his spineless strategy is still working for him, and Congressional Democrats, who are fighting too, still enjoy a better approval rating than Congressional Republicans.

This is not to suggest that Republicans shouldn't continue to fight this monstrosity -- just an alert that we will, as is often the case, get no political benefit from doing the right thing. Quite the opposite.

Via Hot Air's headlines.

TARP II Will Probably Be Bigger Than the Stimulus: I'd say cross out "probably" and replace it with "easily."

As Lindsey Graham noted, how the hell are you going to get the public to buy into this when you just pissed away a billion and a third on dog parks?

The Meatballs Postulate: "It just doesn't matter if we win or lose."

But it’s all much ado about nothing. In policy terms, to be sure, Republican critiques of the stimulus are important: We’re engaged in an extraordinary experiment in whether Keynesian economics works, and whether it works more effectively through spending or tax cuts. But politically, the critiques are irrelevant. The Obama stimulus will pass. For a while, the economy will almost certainly remain bad. If by 2011 and 2012, it starts to markedly recover—as the American economy did in 1983 and 1984—Obama will get the credit, no matter how many Republicans voted with him. Blue states and districts will grow bluer, and many of the Republicans who represent them will lose, or else retire before they can. (See Gregg, Judd). Republicans in safe conservative states and districts will keep their jobs, and watch Obama’s triumph in brooding insignificance.

If, on the other hand, the stimulus fails, and the economy is no better when Obama begins campaigning for re-election than it is today, all Republicans will benefit, whether they backed the stimulus or not. (Although by that time the country will be so desperate and irate that we could see serious independent candidacies, latter-day Francis Townsends and Huey Longs promising all manner of populist rescue schemes.)

So relax, Republicans. ItÂ’s out of your hands. The other team is at the foul line with no time left on the clock. If they hit the shots, you lose. If they miss, you win. Whether you offer words of encouragement or jeers of disapproval, it doesnÂ’t really matter. YouÂ’re spectators in someone elseÂ’s game.

Indeed. If the economy recovers -- as it usually does -- within a couple of years, Obama "wins," even if he did nothing but undermine and forestall that recovery.

This is what gave me the heebie-jeebies about him winning the election. I saw this nightmare scenario as likely.

It's kind of weird, when you think about it, that the large questions of foreign and economic policy are never actually voted on and decided by the voters. The election almost always turns on the pure happenstance of how the econom is faring six months out from an election. And based on that happenstance, we either get a conservative economic policy and muscular foreign policy, or a regime of socialism and surrender.

Also from Hot Air's headlines.

More: Sanford on the "disastrous" spendulus and other cheery thoughts.

Posted by: Ace at 08:59 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 770 words, total size 5 kb.

Specter in the Washington Post:

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater -- or it may be too late.

Like TARP advocates, Specter simply takes it on faith that the federal government must do something or it Will Be the End of the World as We Know It. Of course, try as he might, the evidence points the other way. For example, the CBO thinks that even without a spendulus package, the recession will be over by the end of the year (PDF).

Wave after wave of bad economic news has created its own psychology of fear and lowered expectations. As in the old Movietone News, the eyes and ears of the world are upon the United States. Failure to act would be devastating not just for Wall Street and Main Street but for much of the rest of the world, which is looking to our country for leadership in this crisis.

It's not just bad news. It's bad press. This is the most highly anticipated recession in history, with cheerleaders from roughly half the political spectrum. President Bush, Secretary Paulson, President Obama, and many in Congress have spent the last five months telling the country and the world that we stand on the brink of a Second Great Depression. Did they think that their continuous fear-mongering wouldn't greatly influence the economy, and not for the better?

When the president, who unfortunately wears the Economist-in-Chief hat, tells you to start putting your money in mason jars rather than banks, or that you shouldn't buy that house this year, or that there are no jobs to be found, he has, in great part, created a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is good for him, since he now has something to do and something to pat himself on the back for. But it's not so good for the economy.

Our $780 billion bill would save or create up to 4 million jobs, helping to offset the loss of 3.6 million jobs since December 2007. The bill cuts some $110 billion from the $890 billion Senate version, which would actually be $940 billion if floor amendments for tax credits on home and car purchases and money for the National Institutes of Health are retained.

Specter wants to be thanked for saddling us with slightly less debt than desired by his colleagues. Thanks, Senator, for nothing. You could have stuck with Republicans and left us much better off.

Your bill spends $195,000 for every job saved (I will charitably assume that your numbers are correct). What a waste of money. How out of touch do you have to be to think that spending $195,000 on a job is a good idea? Much better alternatives have been proposed to stimulate the economy, like a one-year payroll tax holiday. I understand, Senator, that the problem with alternatives is that they would make money available to taxpayers, rather than Congressfolk, something that you do not want.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the proposed cuts "do violence to what we are trying to do for the future," especially on education. Her objections are a warning to conservatives that more cuts would be unlikely to win House approval. They are also an admission of the high price that moderates have been able to extract for their support of stimulus legislation.

More self-congratulation. Color me unimpressed with anyone trying to win House approval of the spendulus. You are a fool, Senator, and you are doing violence to my future. Particularly the part where I and the rest of the taxpayers have to pay for your mistakes (literally). I don't thank you for that. Not at all.

If a stimulus bill doesn't pass, there won't be any money for Title I education programs. The moderates' bill provides marginally less money for Title I than the House and Senate bills. But while it's less than supporters want, this proverbial half a loaf beats no loaf by a mile.

He means, there won't be any more money for Title I, which will be funded this year just like every year. There's no requirement that we do that in the spendulus. Is Specter really so stupid that he thinks we don't know the difference? The man is an embarrassment and his explanation is an insult.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:53 AM | Comments (130)
Post contains 784 words, total size 5 kb.