First time ever, eh? That would be ummm...unprecedented.

...The number employed in the private sector is still about 900,000 below where it was even a year ago, and about 8 million below where it was in 2007. And remember, it has to keep growing just to stand still, because the population is growing.

"There's practically no growth in private sector employment," says Gluskin Sheff strategist David Rosenberg. Jobs growth was anemic even in the parts of the economy allegedly leading the recovery, such as manufacturing. And now, he says, many leading economic indicators have started to turn down again.

The jobs growth is so slow, Rosenberg says, that by his calculations "it is going to take years, probably five to seven years, before we recoup the employment (lost) from the Great Recession," he says. Five to seven years? "There's a significant chance," he adds, "that for the first time ever we will go into the next recession without having seen a new peak in employment."...

Old and busted: Recovery, The New Hotness: Endless Recessions

A job seeker wandering the streets aimlessly

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 03:59 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Markets had a rare up day yesteday,with the Dow finishing 123 points higher and closing at 9939.98. We'll just treat that as good news and forget that the market was sitting at 11,200 back in April.

Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel are still waging war against "the speculators" who had the temerity to point out that Euorpean finances were a God Damn mess. A spokesmen for the holders of European sovereign bonds warned the leaders that they were "teasing the gorilla in the monkey-house". Sarkozy was heard to say that he farted in their general direction and that their fathers smelt of elderberries. Chancellor Merkel only muttered darkly, "I will break you!"

Interbank loans at Spanish banks are drying up. This tightens credit and leads to busted bond auctions. "Fitch can kiss my ass!", said an unnamed source at Banco Santander who blames the problems on Fitch's recent downgrade of Spanish debt. Just to show how not-broke they are, Santander bought back their stake in their Mexican unit from Bank of America for $2.5 billion. When asked if this was a wise move given their weak balance-sheet, a Santander representative lowered his trousers and mooned the press-pool.

US debt will climb to 19.6 trillion by 2015, according to a Treasury report to Congress. Tim Geithner assured everyone that, in true Keynesian fashion, every dollar of debt translates directly into GDP growth. Somehow. When pressed on the issue, Mr. Geithner began to cry and had to be excused to the lavatory to pull himself together.

In the latest financial craze sweeping the nation, parents who have ruined their own credit can take Junior's unblemished credit record and shit all over that as well. The best part? It'll be years before Junior finds out, and by that time Pops and Mimsie will have decamped to Costa Rica. Said parents will still express surprise and sorrow at the fact that Junior rarely visits or calls.

Markets are primed for a higher opening, as hope once again triumphs over experience.

This report brought to you by that strange old lady who sits next to you on the bus and smells like cat pee.

Posted by: Monty at 03:11 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

Close so far between Lowden and Angle.

UPDATE [DrewM.]: Fox News says the AP is calling it for Angle.

Reid is on the ropes and the Nevada GOP just nominated the candidate he wants to run against. She better not screw this up.

Posted by: Ace at 06:58 PM | Comments (348)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Good evening all M&Ms.
Also don't forget about the job bank at the AoSHQ yahoo group.

Lost Video: The US Navy of 1915

Here's a restored 11 minute clip from a long believed to be lost 1915 documentary on the US Navy. It was commissioned by Secretary of the Navy, Joseph Daniels, who believed that the newly invented technology of motion pictures would convince isolationists of the importance of building a strong American navy. The filmmakers were allowed full access to the ships and captured sailors in their day to day activities. All copies of the documentary were thought to have been lost until this fragment was discovered in Australia.

Unfortunately I couldn't figure out how to embed it so you'll have to click on the picture and watch it on their site. Maybe one of the morons can put me some knowledge here.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:27 PM | Comments (702)
Post contains 494 words, total size 6 kb.

Update: According to Gabe and AP she's won the run off.

50.2% to 48% -- And she can really afford a deeply divided caucus!

Posted by: Ace at 06:04 PM | Comments (109)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

The White House staff has nightmares about having to right a check and specify an address for delivery.

Posted by: Ace at 04:27 PM | Comments (274)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

With 90.7% in... Haley is thisclose to 50% +1, at 48.9%. But she'd have to get over 90% of the last 10% to make it up to 50% +1 vote.

It's unknown to me if absentee ballots could make up this gap.

Correction: I wrote it was a Haley/McMasters run-off. It's Barrett who placed, not McMasters.

Update: It is early -- 8.5% in -- but Haley's pulling 40% to McMaster's 28%, which will not be enough to avoid a runoff.

Update: But her lead is growing... now up to 43-25. Hmmm...

Urrrp... 45%, now. Guess the Ace of Spades Decision Desk pulled a "network news" and called it too early.

Zoooinnkss... 46%.

Ummmm... 47.7%. Boy, looks like I got a little ahead of myself on saying she'd be stuck in the low forties.

Larry Marchant just emailed me to say Nikki Haley is rising faster than the chandelier in Phantom of the Opera.

Surge Halted... Now she's slipped back to just under 46%.

Okay, I guess we're not going to know tonight.

Politico has results along the top, selectable with a tab-click. Right now Nikki Haley is in a shootout with Andre Bauer, all knotted up at 0.0% to 0.0%, but I expect that will probably change.

Allah runs down all the links and stuff you need to know.

Blanche Lincoln, a centrist (kinda) from Arkansas, is set to lose (probably) to true-blue fire-breathing liberal Bill Halter, despite Bill Clinton endorsing her and telling Arkansas the unions were "manipulating" them by flexing their power to push out anyone who ever crosses them.

And, of course, I need hardly tell you the MFM did not and will not portray this as an evil purge of "centrist bipartisan compromisers" by a radical, dangerous fringe extreme, but instead, just a feel-good Cinderella story we can all enjoy.

To be fair, Politico does mention this angle, but note too how positively they portray the left's power-play:

Sure, this race is about ambition — no one has ever described Lt. Gov. Bill Halter otherwise — but the real story of the runoff is in its implications for Democratic centrists across the nation.

Fueled by progressive support, HalterÂ’s campaign accelerated from zero to 60 in almost no time, rapidly closing the gap on a well-funded, scandal-free two-term incumbent who carried the White House imprimatur.

Whether Halter topples Lincoln or not — he had a slight edge in the most recent poll — the lesson many moderates will take from Arkansas is clear: Don’t mess with the left.

Don't mess with the left, because they're powerful and they remember. No hint whatsoever that this exercise of political power is brutish or dangerous or bad for America.

Whenever an upstart, conviction conservative upsets an establishment Republican, of course, the story line is not, as Politico has it for the left, "Don't mess with the right," but rather "What the hell is wrong with the right? Why are they evil?"

Ah! Fantastic! As I Was Just Saying!: Here's the WaPo on Blanche Lincoln's likely impending defeat.

Do they blame the unreasonable, hyperpartisan, overly-ideological left for her troubles? Do they cry out about the lack of moderation and openness to ideological compromise this "purge" represents?

No, of course not. They blame Blanche Lincoln's "missteps" -- her deviations from party orthodoxy.

Right in the headline, in fact.

Sen. Lincoln's missteps put her at risk in today's Ark. runoff

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 8, 2010; 1:52 PM

Blanche Lincoln's predicament in Arkansas can be attributed to any number of factors: an angry electorate determined to shake up the status quo; a sense that she has spent too much time in Washington and lost touch with her farming roots; the fact that moderates just aren't in fashion these days.

But some of Lincoln's deepest wounds are self-inflicted. After years of cautious maneuvering, the Democratic senator committed a series of blunders that riled labor unions and other liberal groups and that added new obstacles -- creating an opening for primary challenger Bill Halter in Tuesday's runoff -- to what already was shaping up to be a difficult general election battle for a third term.

Lincoln's first mistake came in April 2009, when she reversed herself on the Employee Free Choice Act, the "card check" bill that would make it easier for workers to form unions. For labor groups, the act was a top priority, and they were counting on Lincoln's support to secure the 60 Senate votes needed to break a filibuster. But the senator turned against the measure, saying the economic downturn had caused a change of heart.

Then, as President Obama's health-care overhaul moved through the senate, Lincoln ran into the buzz saw of the public-option debate. Liberal groups had rallied around a government insurance option as the litmus test of a loyal progressive. At first, Lincoln seemed to be on board, writing in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in July: "Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals as those of a public plan."

But by Sept. 1, Lincoln had changed her mind. "I would not support a solely government-funded public option," she said at an event in Little Rock. "We can't afford that."

There were other missteps, less obvious but duly noted by Lincoln's colleagues in the Senate and by competitors back home in Arkansas.

So Blanche Lincoln attempted to navigate a centrist path as the MFM always urges on the GOP. Her liberal base is now punishing her for it.

Does the Washington Post salute her for her courage in standing up to partisans, as it did with regard to Bennet's supporters?

Of course not -- for a liberal, accomodations to the center are deemed "mistakes," "missteps," and "blunders."

Did Senator Bennet make mistakes, missteps, and blunders? No, of course not, he did the right thing by reaching out to the left and was punished by unreasonable (and unreasoning) partisan purists.

Funny how extremism in the defense of liberalism is no vice.

Thanks to dang ass straights.

McCain: My Opponent's a Washington Insider! Yup. Guy must have been a hell of a pilot, because he's got stones the size of dump-truck tires.

Arizona Sen. John McCain launched two ads Tuesday that seek to shine a spotlight on his opponent's past work as a lobbyist.

McCain is locked in a re-election battle with former Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth. The two ads - one for television and one for radio - paint Hayworth as a Washington insider that was voted out of office in 2006 because of his ties to lobbyists.

"Hayworth was paid thousands by a Florida corporation to lobby the very committee he used to serve on," the television narrator says. "Outsider? A lobbyist is as inside Washington as it gets."

Slublog sent that along, confessing disbelief that McCain would accuse someone else of being a Washington insider, to which Dave in Texas resignedly said, "And yet, it happened."

(The McCain/Hayworth primary is not today, but in August, sayeth a commenter.)

Will Folks, The Wedding Singer? With apologies to the great Dan, Content Warning for content you've seen eight thousand times:

Thanks to lacyunderalls. But obviously Dan of The Dan Band is much, much better looking than Will Folks.

Posted by: Ace at 03:12 PM | Comments (296)
Post contains 1276 words, total size 9 kb.

I caught this on Sunday; thought maybe I should tip people to it, but I also thought, "Anyone who's interested in this probably already knows about it."

On the History Channel, they have a reality show like "Top Chef" except it's with... marksmen, who have to compete in interesting shooting challenges, including, clips promise, challenges with non-firearm weapons such as bow, spear, and tomahawk.

Since it's the History Channel, they have a "historic weapons" hook. But they shoot rifles and pistols (both modern and cowboy-action), too. Shotguns as well, I figure.

In the first episode, they had to navigate an obstacle course and fire four rifles of historical significance ('03 Springfield, Russian Nagant, M-14, and another Russian one whose name escapes me) at targets 50 and 100 yards away. The obstacles were barbed wire for WWI, a thorny maze for the hedgerows of Normandy for WWII, a mud-pool for Vietnam, and... well, a rope-climb for Korea. I don't get that one, myself, but I guess they couldn't just put people in a meat-freezer.

Participants are selected for different specialties -- long-range rifle, combat pistol, historic pistol, etc. I don't know, yet, if anyone specializes in knife-throwing or longbow.

This being TV, needing a dramatic visual, the targets explode in flash-bang when hit.

It's a pretty good show. (You can watch the first episode there, or browse clips.) On Sundays at 10pm Eastern/7 Pacific.

Oh, This Is Cute: For the elimination challenge (two guys are voted "off the island" by their team, but the only guy who actually leaves is the guy who loses the head-to-head shootout), they seem to be doing stuff like duplicating shots famous in folklore or fiction.

So one clip teases the William Tell Apple Shot, and next week, they're shooting a gun through a 2" tube capped with glass on each end... what I am 99% sure they are duplicating is the now-overused Hollywood cliche of shooting a sniper in the eye right through his scope.

Yeah, kinda corny, but you have to admit it's kind of fun -- like Mythbusters, but with guns.

One Cute Thing: One of the competitors, to show off or psych out his opponent, used his target practice period to shoot a Martin Riggs smiley-face into the target.

Next week a guy shows off with a no-look hit to the center of the target.

Ah! I realized, they're not replicating the shoot-a-sniper-through-his-scope-with-a-rifle, as was done in Saving Private Ryan and in real life by legendary sniper Hathcock.

I think they're replicating this extremely famous fictional pistol shot:

I realize that seems to be a gunbarrel, not a scope, but... anyway. I think that's what they're up to.

A Gun-Blogger's On The Show. Caleb's his name.

Posted by: Ace at 01:52 PM | Comments (131)
Post contains 480 words, total size 4 kb.

Definitely worth a watch. Skip to the end for the stuff about Larry "170 Pounds of Rompin'-Stompin' Heterosexual Id" Marchant.

Via Hot Air (though rdbrewer tipped me to this last night). Hot Air has the latest poll numbers, in which, to put it in terms Larry Marchant can understand, Nikki Haley looks like Madonna in Like a Prayer and her nearest competitor can only manage to look like Madonna in La Isla Bonita.

What the hell am I going to blog about after Haley wins tonight?

Posted by: Ace at 01:24 PM | Comments (71)
Post contains 137 words, total size 3 kb.

1. I care deeply about the oil slick. It really bothers me. I'm not being sarcastic-- it does.

2. I have done absolutely nothing to stop or slow it.

I just wanted to point out that I match Obama 2-for-2 on this issue. So do most of you.

I guess I have to give White House staffers their props -- dubious props -- and admit that until now I do not remember having nightmares about Obamatrina; but then, I rarely remember dreams. So maybe they edge me on that point alone.

I cannot believe that the MFM is actually insisting the relevant storyline here is whether Obama merely cares about a disaster.

I will not bother to point out that the MFM was less-than-interested in whether Bush cared that 9/11 happened on his watch, or cared that the War in Iraq took a bloody awful turn. Except, you know, I just did point that out.

In what strange alternate reality did I awake, in which the standard of presidential performance isn't performance at all but "caring"?

I'm sorry-- when did this become even relevant, let alone determinative?

I feel like I'm being skull-fucked with the crazy-stick.

There are a great many things I care about. However, I do not actually do anything about them, partly out of apathy or laziness and partly out of futility-- I don't have the power to do anything about them.

I didn't realize that the President was as powerless as I was, such that the only dimension of debate should be how much he -- and I -- happen to care about an issue.

Posted by: Ace at 12:58 PM | Comments (167)
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.