By the way, this is Sharryl Atkinson reporting, the only reporter on the Fast and Furious case in the whole MSM.

So here she is again. Reporting another good story which CBS only puts on its website, and will never mention in its main operation of televised news. (Correction: She did get on the early show to do a broadcast segment on this; the video is right in the link.)

Anyway.

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

Others are also struggling with potential problems.

I can't quote the whole thing. But here's a sum-up:

Economist Morici says even somebody as smart as Secretary Chu -- an award-winning scientist -- shouldn't be playing "venture capitalist" with tax dollars. "Tasking a Nobel Prize mathematician to make investments for the U.S. government is like asking the manager of the New York Yankees to be general in charge of America's troops in Afghanistan," Morici said. "It's that absurd."

Read the whole thing. It's short.

Vulture Socialism

Selling Magic Beans to a nation in desperate need for real solutions, and promising them that one day those Magic Beans will sprout mighty stalks.

Oh, and if you're worried that you're losing money on this exchange: Don't worry, Obama's cronies are doin' just swell.

Again, via @williamamos

Posted by: Ace at 11:49 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

Sure why not. You've been nothing but a straight-shooter with me thusfar.

The White House had no role in the decision to delay disclosure of a fire that broke out ina crash-tested Chevrolet Volt, the Obama administration told Congress on Friday.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator David Strickland said the White House had been informed in September of the fire that broke in June but didn't ask the agency to keep the information secret.

..

NHTSA didn't disclose the fire took place until November, when Bloomberg News first reported it had occurred.

Now I'm googling, but I don't have the answer: This article is written confusingly, and I wonder if that is the actual intention.

Did Bloomberg report the fire after the Administration properly, publicly divulged this fact, or did Bloomberg learn of this from a source when it was still being kept secret, thus forcing the Administration's hand?

Isn't that rather important? Shouldn't this media outlet (the Detroit News) said one way or the other? And if they don't say one way or the other -- which should be my presumption?

I don't know; I'm still trying to find out. Let me know if you know.

It opened a formal defect investigation later that month when a second Volt battery pack caught fire seven days after another government test.

The House Oversight committee, under Issa, will be examining this.

Remember, the White House previously arranged an emergency capital infusion into the dying Solyndra, despite analysts' telling them it was throwing good money after bad. And they seemed to do so to avoid a bankruptcy notice before the 2010 elections.

And we'll be talking more about that next post.

Via @williamamos.

Update: This isn't conclusive, but the way I read this, Bloomberg had sources (undisclosed) and thus had a scoop. They weren't simply regurgitating a formal release of information.

Barack Hussein Obama

We leak details about the Osama bin Ladin operation to our buddies in Hollywood, but our failures in running Government Motors are officially State Secrets.

Posted by: Ace at 11:26 AM | Comments (98)
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

This is a weird question. A candidate isn't supposed to "coordinate" with a Super-PAC supporting him.

But that means that he's the only guy in the world who's not allowed to say "I find their message deceptive."

That seems strange. Maybe public communication should simply be permitted, period, by law, to avoid this odd interpretation of the law. If it's public, it can be scrutinized, right?

Anyway, Newt urges the Super-PAC to correct its false claims while making the attack on Romney he should have made from the start (and Perry, too-- yes, I know he stupidly walked into this snakepit as well).

“Governor Romney is running as someone who knows how to create jobs. In fact, he has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs while at Bain Capital. However, numerous analyses have said that figure is as inaccurate as President Obama’s claim to have “saved or created” millions of jobs.

“Furthermore, Governor Romney’s experience as a portfolio manager did not help him create an environment in Massachusetts that was friendly to job creation. As Governor, Mitt Romney raised $700 million in taxes and fees, despite a campaign pledge not to, and Massachusetts ranked 4th worst in job creation under his leadership.

“These are just some of the facts which President Obama would use to undercut Governor Romney’s claims to be a job creator if he is the Republican nominee. Given these facts, it is entirely appropriate for Republican Primary voters to ask questions to determine whether Governor Romney is presenting himself in an accurate light."

The PAC has rejected Gingrich's request to correct.

And about the report that Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate and funder of the group, is unhappy with King of Bain and the tone of the attacks? “I haven’t heard that,” Tyler says. “We’re not backing off.”

Tyler is also indifferent about growing media scrutiny of the film’s accuracy, and he shrugs off Glenn Kessler’s fact-checking in the Washington Post. “It’s kind of interesting that the press, who failed to do its job on Bain, is mad at me because we did our job on Bain,” he says. “[Reporters] missed the story… Most voters do not know anything about Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital, other than what he tells us.”

I was just arguing that I have the same problems with Romney that I did with Palin.

Let me continue in that vein:

Wall Street is pretty unpopular right now. A populist gale is blowing, and a lot of lightning is hitting Wall Street.

Now, when Romney supporters once argued with True Conservatives -- those who supported unpopular, and yet ideologically correct, positions to the hilt -- Romney supporters would say things like, "Sure I agree with you, in principle, but you're not being realistic. You cannot change people's opinions that much to get the support for what you want."

I agreed with that then. I still agree with it. But Romney's supporters seem to no longer agree with it, as their plan for dealing with the populist rage at Wall Street seems to be, "We'll just convince people they're wrong."

Okay.

Just curious, while you're out there fighting to convince people for a kind of never-doubt-Wall-Street-as-its-actions-always-benefit-the-public creed, why not also agitate for No Abortions In Any Case, Including Rape and Incest, too? Since you're now apparently of the belief you can change public opinion, why limit it to just this one thing? Why not just uncork this newly-discovered wine and let the spirits flow all around?

Anyway, to lighten up on Romney, who is not nearly as electable as people seem to believe, Steve Rattner, a former Obama advisor (who also worked with Bain) says that while vulture capitalist firms do exist, doing shady deals to capture assets without really adding anything of actual value, but that Bain wasn't one of those. Except for four possible cases of mistakes (in favor of Bain), he claims the company's leadership has generally been pretty sterling.

See, that sort of argument plays better with me, because I do not subscribe to this Always Trust Wall Street Jagoffs ethos that has suddenly sprung up. I don't trust them, same as I don't trust anyone, really, outside of my family and chosen friends. I don't want to hear that the guys (partly) responsible for collapsing the world economy always have my best interests in heart and always make sound decisions. It doesn't sell, so don't peddle it.

Clarification: Partly responsible, yes. They sold themselves on the idea their funky tranches had almost no risk at all, and hence were investment grade, and hence sold them (and kept them for themselves) on this very, very wrong judgment. That's a big, big error.

Have faith in them? Nah. But then, a fact-specific claim about Bain works better. I don't want to hear that all of Wall Street is shiny-happy, because I don't believe it. But I'm open to hear that Romney's company was shiny-happy.

In fact, I agree more with this guy...

...who sagely reminded us that what's good for GM is not necessarily good for America.

No, I don't expect corporations to do anything except chase a profit. That is what they're in business to do, and I don't begrudge them that.

But part of "chasing a profit" includes, maybe, lobbying for laws which may assist them in that endeavor, and maybe taking advantage of such laws already promulgated, and no, I don't automatically rally to say whatever a corporation might want, it should have.

Disney gets the copyright term extended each and every time Winnie the Pooh is about to become public domain. Should I just agree to that, because Disney wants it? It is now pretty much expected that nothing published earlier than 1922 will ever become public domain again.

Anyway, this sort of argument is just basically unpersuasive, this How Dare You Question Anything thing.

The list of people I don't trust is long and varied, and includes priests, scientists, reporters, writers, and yes, CEOs.

Apparently because I'm a Republican, I'm supposed to have perfect faith in that last category. Why, I don't know. Because, America.

While the conservative party is correct to be highly suspicious of any attempt to regulate business, it should also not be so dopey as to begin assuming that everything a self-interested party may want, or may do, is in the best interests of the country.

Posted by: Ace at 10:51 AM | Comments (189)
Post contains 1104 words, total size 7 kb.

Actually Perry only has nine percent to Santorum's seven percent, and Gingrich has a nice 25%, but I wanted to put this out there for the various people calling on Gingrich and Perry to quit the race in favor of Santorum.

Paul has climbed 11 percent in the last week and Perry has gained seven percent. Santorum, who was tied for second in last weekÂ’s poll at 24 percent, plummeted into fifth place in the current poll.

Oh, and Paul's at 20%, but I don't count that. Here's the reason I don't count that: Paul and his supporters wish the Republican Party to completely reverse its foreign/defense policy -- going from interventionist and hawkish to pacifist and strictly dovish, with Defense budgets slashed to ribbons to make up for the budget deficit -- without actually convincing anyone on this issue.

The pitch is that Paul will cut government spending. Golf clap. We'd all like to see that. We're all convinced on that point.

But what we're not convinced of is that we should reduce Defense to the coast guard and a nuclear bomber wing and trust that the rest of the world will be nice to us if we are nonthreatening.

You cannot bootstrap a change that great without actually convincing the party that such a change is good and wise. But that seems to be the Paul strategy, run on the one thing people are convinced of (shrinking government) but then implementing the thing that people aren't convinced of (adopting a doctrinaire pacifist policy with virtually no power projection at all, because, see, we don't need that anymore).

I have used this analogy of putting up a strongly pro-choice candidate who talked very strongly about cutting government. Would such a candidate win? Should such a candidate win, without even bothering with that little step of persuading the party that abortion is a right?

Of course not. And nor can the conservative position on defense be changed so radically without any actual agreement to do so. But that's what Paul has in mind.

Oh, and foreign policy and defense are uniquely within the president's exclusive power, unlike most other areas. The president has not just a first-among-equals status here, but a nearly preeminent position in this area-- the Constitution specifically calls him out as chief foreign relations officer, and of course commander in chief.

Nevermind all that bad old stuff about the attempted Nazi/fringe right (whatever your preferred euphemism is)-libertarian alliance. You just can't have a r3VO_|ution while skipping over that basic step of convincing a majority of the country they should have a r3VO_|ution. And for me, whining about killing Osama bin Ladin, a man who murdered 2996 Americans, just isn't covering it on the persuasion front.

Posted by: Ace at 08:41 AM | Comments (531)
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

On Twitter, at least. Michelle Malkin and Jonah goofed on "Obama's" and "Michele's" Twitter accounts for passing sweet nothings, despite the fact they are acknowledged to be written by interns (except when they're signed with the principles' initials).

Unrelated, but this is pretty hot: A celebrity talks about secret lesbian parties in Hollywood. Rowwwr!

Thanks to @firsteamtommy.

Posted by: Ace at 08:17 AM | Comments (109)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

The real crime was the felony stupid of videotaping it.

A lot of people seem upset by this. I think it's upsetting that now these guys are probably going to get cashiered over a stupid act. But the act itself doesn't really upset me.

The whole point of a rule against corpse desecration is that you show respect and honor to the fallen one. But what if that fallen one had been trying to kill you not ten minutes before, and in fact you had killed him before he killed you?

It's not that suddenly you're permitted to pee on the corpse. The point is that they natural sympathy for a dead person that most people would feel is entirely absent in this case -- in fact, you feel something pretty close to hate; I'm not sure there's any other way you can feel about a terrorist dirtbag who was just trying to kill you and your friends -- so you're not naturally going to feel that you should treat the corpse with respect.

Your training and discipline should kick in to supplement that and keep you from doing this, but your natural moral sense isn't there. Because, seriously, the hell with this terrorist.

In addition, people who don't see corpses very often are naturally reverential about them. Awestruck to see what death looks like. Those who see it frequently lose that, almost just as a coping strategy. The first dead body a medical student sees might be cause to contemplate the mortality of man; the tenth dead body and jokes start occurring to him, like spinning around in surprise and accusing the corpse of grabbing his ass.

This happens, and yet those guys aren't monsters. They're just dealing with dead bodies every day.

Likewise these Marines aren't monsters. They don't have the advantage most civilians do, of being unfamiliar with corpses and hence a little awestruck by them. They see this a fair amount.

Nonetheless, this was certainly stupid, and bad for their fellow troops, both in terms of exciting the enemy and disrespecting the uniform of the Corps. They'll probably be ejected from the Corps, which is probably a good thing, since their discipline and judgement seem to be lacking. They also seem to have put their own hijinks above the Corps and their fellow Marines.

Posted by: Ace at 07:33 AM | Comments (334)
Post contains 404 words, total size 2 kb.

A light dusting of old world DOOM! to kick off the weekend.

Standard & Poor's ratings agency has downgraded France's credit rating, French television channels reported on Friday, citing a government source.

...

Several euro zone countries including France face an “imminent” downgrade by ratings agency S&P, Reuters and Dow Jones news agencies reported, sending the euro to a session low against the dollar and European stocks down. US stocks also tumbled.

Maybe if Presidents Downgrade were keeping their eyes on their jobs, huh?

Posted by: andy at 06:53 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Friday the 13th.

Here's one to get you started

Heather Locklear was rushed to a Southern California hospital on Thursday afternoon after an emergency call was placed from the "Melrose Place" star's home.

Law enforcement insiders told TMZ that the actress' sister called 911 after Locklear, 50, reportedly took a "dangerous mix of prescription drugs and alcohol."

T.J. Hooker was unavailable for comment.

Posted by: andy at 02:54 AM | Comments (205)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

The Best Long Reads of 2011

As determined by how often they were saved to Instapaper for later reading according to Give Me Something To Read. I picked out a couple of articles at random and yep they were pretty good reads. So based on that I've added the rest to my Instapaper account for downtime reading.

Note - some of these articles appeared in MSM periodicals and may contain *gasp* liberal opinions. So if you're quite happy in the red cocoon, then you may want to give these a skip.

The Immortal Horizon
Leslie Jamison, Believer Magazine

Over twenty years later, that man, the man in the trench coat—Gary Cantrell by birth, self-dubbed Lazarus Lake—has turned this terrain into the stage for a legendary ritual: the Barkley Marathons, held yearly (traditionally on Lazarus Friday or April Fool’s Day) outside Wartburg, Tennessee. Lake (known as Laz) calls it “The Race That Eats Its Young.” The runners’ bibs say something different each year: SUFFERING WITHOUT A POINT; NOT ALL PAIN IS GAIN. Only eight men have ever finished. The event is considered extreme even by those who specialize in extremity.

Here Be Monsters
Michael Finkel, GQ

They did it for the simplest of reasons: adventure. Three friends, on a drunken dare, set out in a dinghy for a nearby island. But when the gas ran out and they drifted into barren waters, their biggest threat wasn’t the water or the ocean—it was each other.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:29 PM | Comments (584)
Post contains 827 words, total size 7 kb.

In two of the three cases, not only are the facts not really as alleged (in one case the company went bankrupt long after Bain had sold it), but Romney also wasn't at Bain during the period complained of.

In the third case, the one I found most alarming -- the DDI one -- Romney supposedly wasn't involved there, either. (Although his name is listed as a "managing partner" in a fund controlling the share, but Bain people claim that's... I don't know, a "legacy" listing? They claim he wasn't involved there, either.)

Mitt Romney

Vote for the candidate who appeals to downscale white voters in the middle... even if the candidate in question does not, in fact, appeal at all to downscale white voters in the middle.

It's confusing, but trust us. We've prevailed in two elections or primaries before this year (out of 17), so seriously, we know what we're doing.

That weird, uneasy vibe you get off Romney? Telling you not to trust him? Don't sweat it, we've heard that a million times. And it's just you, anyway. No one else has that, except for everyone else.

And that in no way will play any role in this election. Because this election will be decided on ISSUES and principles. You know-- Romney's strength.

So it's not like that whole lack-of-charisma or can't-identify-with-him-at-all background will hurt him at all. Nope! It's all smooth sailing from here, on principles and ideas, and trust us, we've got big plans to have some of those, sometime down the line.

Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM | Comments (954)
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.