It’s been a good run with this version of QandO, but we’ve moved to a new blogging platform. If your bookmark led you to this page, you’ll need to update it to point to http://www.qando.net or to http://www.qando.net/index.php.

That is all.

If Obama is the messiah, does that make Bill Ayers Lazarus? By that I mean, is there any doubt Ayers would be wasting away in obscurity without Barack Obama? Instead, the unrepentant terrorist turned ill-qualified college professor has regained whatever notoriety he had lost:

Ayers, co-founder of the ’60s Weather Underground radical anti-war group, drew an angry and vocal group of protesters who condemned his appearance at St. Mary’s Soda Center, where he drew cheers and boos from the crowd of about 500.

The controversial author and education professor at the University of Illinois was repeatedly characterized as an "unrepentant terrorist" by GOP vice presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during the presidential campaign.

"I was going to propose that Sarah Palin and I have a talk show called ’Pallin’ Around,’ " Ayers said in his opening comments, which got laughs. Then, looking around at the standing-room-only crowd, he added: "Had it not been for the recent presidential campaign, there would be 22 of you here."

That may actually be a little high. Even in Berkeley I doubt he would have generated more interest beyond a few professors who remembered him from the glory days.

Ayers is in California on a tour to promote a new book on race relations that he wrote with his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, a fellow former leader in the underground movement who is now a Chicago lawyer and law professor. Ayers said he plans to return to the Bay Area with Dohrn later this month to speak before the Middle East Children’s Alliance in Berkeley.

His appearance at St. Mary’s "Against the Grain" lecture series to explore the topic of "Trudging Toward Freedom" drew sharp criticism from conservative and religious groups.

According to the report, some of those angered by Ayers’ appearance adopted the typical lefty tactic of disrupting his speech. It’s stupid when lefties do it and stupid here as well, regardless of how odious the speaker is.

Ayers delivered a wide-ranging address on social justice and education, but his effort outraged some 150 protesters - most marched outside, and others sat in the audience and occasionally disrupted his speech with yelling before they were escorted away.

"I don’t know what they’re protesting actually, but if the last few months are any indication, they’re protesting a cartoon character that shares my name and likeness, but it’s not me," he told The Chronicle before his speech, adding that the McCain-Palin campaign had attempted to turn him into a "monster."

Historical revisionism at its best. Whatever. Ayers will always be able to fool the useful idiots who simply want to believe the worst about America. Generally these are the ones who believe that capitalism is the literal incarnation of evil and hate America for being the nation most identified with it. To these people, Ayers is a hero for attacking the heart (as they see it) of the hated enemy.

To those who live in reality, however, Ayers is nothing more than a petty man of little worth and even less integrity. He is the egotistical embodiment of the Boomers’ worst aspects, and a failed terrorist to boot. He may enjoy some renewed interest amongst the useful idiots, but he’ll never have any political worth other than being a liability.

Certainly Bill Ayers should worship the ground that Obama treads upon. Absent his Presidency, Ayers would have no public life whatsoever.

All in the name of bread and circuses I suppose:

National Journal reported this week that the Senate’s economic stimulus bill includes a provision that would make Hollywood studios eligible for a special 50% write-off of equipment purchases. According to the report, "the provision is backed by firms like the Walt Disney Co., and the industry trade group the Motion Picture Association of America."

About those "special interests" which "control Washington" and the promise of "no more!"

Uh, yeah.

So let’s see: Democrats object to cutting the U.S. 35% corporate tax rate — which is higher than in all of Europe, undermines economic growth and discourages job creation — for all companies on grounds that it favors the rich and powerful. But Democrats will carve out tax loopholes for businesses they like and that write them campaign checks.

Hope and change.

David Harsanyi nails it:

Imagine that. The most expensive social experiment in American history — one that will cost taxpayers more than both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined — was allotted less than a single day of debate in Congress.

How many speed-reading whiz-kid representatives do you think slogged past their own pork to read the entire 647 (or so) pages of the "stimulus" menu?

This week, more than 200 notable economists — including three Nobel laureates — signed an open letter in The New York Times challenging President Barack Obama’s false suggestion that all economists agree a bailout is needed. It was titled: "With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true."

So though Nobel laureates can’t reach anything resembling a consensus, your former community organizing/car-dealing/ambulance-chasing congressperson has the intellectual capacity to digest a $900 billion piece of legislation in mere days.

Amazing.

Name a single Iraq war supplemental that wasn’t debated to death? You can’t?

And did you know, that when the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came before the Congress there were 1,000 hours of debate?

So what does the largest and most intrusive spending package in the history of the US get in Nancy Pelosi’s House?

An hour.

One stinking hour.

Yup - the same people who are screaming their guts out about the misuse of the first half of the TARP funds are now proposing two and a half times that amount of spending and deem it only worth - an hour.

They tell us it can’t wait. They tell us this is so important to talk about or examine. Instead we must - wait for it - trust them.

My goodness, if you’re not laughing out loud, you ought to be. Then you should cry.

Trust them? They bear as much responsibility for us being in the shape we are financially and economically as anyone. And when they tried this recently they ended up not even knowing where the first $350 billion went. And now they want more and don’t intend to debate it or examine the bill in detail?

No sale. I wouldn’t be satisfied with a 1,000 hours of debate on this turkey.

The Heritage Foundation is asking some questions, 10 of them in fact.

I’d love to see Congress answer any one of them, much less all 10. Like:

Politicians say deficit spending will expand the economy (as if President Bush’s $300 billion budget deficits brought economic nirvana). If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit — the largest in history — would already be rescuing the economy. It’s obviously not. So why would $800 billion more of the same suddenly end the recession?

Or:

We’re told that government spending will add new spending power to the economy. But Congress doesn’t have a vault of money waiting to be distributed: Every dollar lawmakers "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. If government borrows the money from American investors, investment spending drops accordingly. If it’s borrowed from foreigners, net exports drop accordingly. How does borrowing $800 billion from one group of people and giving that $800 billion to another group of people make us wealthier?

Or how about:

Policymakers are basing the "stimulus" bill on economic models that wrongly assume every $1 of government spending increases the economy by approximately $1.60. Is it really that simple? By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier than America. And why stop at $800 billion? Such logic suggests unlimited prosperity could be guaranteed by the government borrowing and spending $800 trillion. Should America be basing such costly decisions on these types of economic models?

But you can’t even ask those questions in an hour’s time much less begin to answer them and all the other important questions that our "leaders" are ducking with the excuse "this is too important to wait".

Uh, no, it’s not. In fact, it’s too important not to wait and examine, debate and for the most part, reject.

However, given how the Democratic House refused to do that, I doubt we’re ever going to see that happen. The Senate, I’m told, plans an even more expensive version than came out of the House.

Hope and change.

Of course most QandO readers are smart enough to understand that no matter what our political class says or promises, not much at all changes within the DC beltway. Despite the smiling assurances of ’hope’, change’ a ’new attitude’ and ’bi-partisanship’, it is obvious that there is neither a new attitude or any desire for bi-partisanship on either side and no hope that’s going to change any time soon. I’m fine with the lack of bi-partisanship, frankly.

That said, it is always interesting to get a peek at attitudes among our so-called leaders which they may or may not share with the voting public.

Take a moment and read this memo from Nancy Pelosi’s communications director sent to Democratic members and staff after the stimulus vote the other day:

To: Interested Parties
From: Brendan Daly
Re: The Republican Problem
Date: January 29, 2009

The House Republican Leadership put its Members in another politically untenable position yesterday: trying to reclaim the mantle of lower taxes and small government — at the exact time when economists of every ideological stripe agree that government investments are the only way to get our economy moving again and make us competitive for the long term.

So yesterday, while we are facing the greatest economic crisis in decades, Republican House Members ended up voting unanimously against:

* Jobs in their own communities

* Tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers

* Long overdue investments that will transform and grow their economies to compete globally

* Critical services in their own communities, such as police officers, teachers, and health care

Instead, their substitute did not create as many jobs and it increased the number of people subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The hypocrisy of the Republicans complaining about the process does not obscure the record of recent Republican leadership:

* 2.6 million American jobs were lost in 2008 alone.

* The national debt has almost doubled in the last eight years; the debt borrowed from foreign countries has tripled.

* The Clinton Administration left a record budget surplus. President Bush turned it into the worst deficit in American history.

* We face an economic recession unrivaled since the Great Depression, as a result of years of failure to invest in our own global competitiveness, failures to bring common sense to Wall Street and our housing market, and tax policies that favored massive corporations and most affluent individuals.

This is not the first time the Republicans in the House have unanimously voted against a needed economic package. The last time, in 1993, when Democrats voted for tough action to clean up after Republican economic mess, not a single Republican voted for the legislation that produced record surpluses and a balanced budget.

Once again this week, as another Democratic President and Democratic Congress worked to address historic deficits and recession brought on by Republican mismanagement of the economy, not a single Republican voted for the legislation. There’s a pattern here of Republican economic mismanagement and Democrats stepping up to do what’s needed for the good of the country while Republicans acted in a partisan and irresponsible manner.

Of course anyone with the intelligence of a retarded chipmunk knows that if you were to take a red pen and cross through the boilerplate political rhetoric, there wouldn’t be much left of this little missive. In fact, it is apparent there isn’t much deep thinking going on in it at all.

This is simply a talking point memo. This is what members and senior staff should regurgitate when the press comes sniffing around for comments. And this is from their leader (as there’s no doubt it reflects Pelosi’s thoughts - that’s what communication’s directors are paid to communicate). It’s pitiful.

Note the "either/or" false dichotomy they try to create. Republicans are either for ...

* Jobs in their own communities

* Tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers

* Long overdue investments that will transform and grow their economies to compete globally

* Critical services in their own communities, such as police officers, teachers, and health care

... or against those things as indicated by their vote.

Obviously they could be for jobs, real investments in actual wealth producing enterprises, tax cuts for 100% of the American workers and corporations too, and properly structured stimulus which creates real jobs as opposed to government "make work" jobs.

Nope - it is either for or against. No middle ground. It is their version or no version.

No desire to see beyond the talking points. Pure demagoguery. This is the face of national politics today. Reduced to foot stamping tantrums and demonization of the opposition when thwarted.

The bill passed but Republicans refused to sign on as planned (and share the blame when it fails).

Attack!

Hope and change.

Congratulations to Michale Steele for winning a tough race for the RNC Chair. It took several votes, but I think the RNC made a good choice:

Meet the new chairman of the Republican National Committee: Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, who defeated South Carolina party chairman Katon Dawson by a 91-77 margin on the sixth ballot.

"As a little boy growing up in this town — this is awesome," Steele said bluntly in accepting his victory.

Steele came six votes shy of the magic number 85 on the fifth ballot, and was able to get over the top after Michigan chairman Saul Anuzis dropped out to make it a clear two-man race. Steele is now the first African-American chairman of the RNC.

I don’t know a whole lot about the other candidates except that Chip Saltsman proved himself to be politically tone-deaf (regardless of being unfairly treated in the process), and that allegations surrounding Katon Dawson (which appear to be unfounded) would only serve to cement the view of the Republican Party as the home of racism.

Michael Steele, on the other hand, served as Lt. Governor in Maryland, and I’m familiar with his stances on things like taxes, spending and government intrusion into people’s lives. He tends to be against the government getting too involved although he has been in favor of affirmative action in the market place, as well some SoCon positions. He’s not a libertarian’s dream by any stretch of the imagination, but I think he’s a good enough friend of freedom to help steer the GOP back towards small-government principles. Of course, now that he’s in charge, he may prove to be just like every other pol.

The big story, naturally, will be that the RNC elected an African-American as its chair, the first time that has ever happened (for either party, I believe). I think that’s great, but I am doubtful that it will make much difference. Having Colin Powell and Condi Rice appointed to powerful positions in the Bush Administration never did anything for the GOP, so I’m not sure why having a black RNC chief would do more. Nevertheless, it does bespeak of change within the Party, and that’s probably a good thing. Many black people are actually pretty socially conservative, and it would seem that they would feel much more at home in the GOP. However, Republicans have been so successfully branded as the party of racists that its somewhat understandable why blacks shun it en masse.

In any case, I think the RNC chose well this time. Now we’ll just have to see how he performs. Good luck, Chairman Steele.

Disgruntled employee or an attempt to hide some skeletons?

The Justice Department says it foiled a plot by a fired Fannie Mae contract worker in Maryland to destroy all the data on the mortgage giant’s 4,000 computer servers nationwide.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office says 35-year-old Rajendrasinh Makwana, of Glen Allen, Va., is scheduled for arraignment Friday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore on one count of computer intrusion.

U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein says Makwana was fired Oct. 24.

Rosenstein says that on that day, Makwana programmed a computer with a malicious code that was set to spread throughout the Fannie Mae network and destroy all data this Saturday.

I’m inclined to believe in the disgruntled employee scenario. I mean, it’s not like there’s really been any big push to investigate the shenanigans at Fannie Mae that helped put us in the financial shape we are now, and I don’t believe there will be.

But you never know. If there can be 18 minute tape gaps and inadvertently deleted executive branch emails, it certainly isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that an accidentally on purpose deletion of the Fannie Mae data base wouldn’t be smiled upon by some in very high places.

[HT: McQ2]

After 2 years of lambasting the Bush administration about its supposed failure to adhere to the rule of law, it takes a military judge to remind our new President that he too must adhere to it.

You may remember that the new commander-in-chief issued a request (which is, essentially an order) that the military commissions process be frozen for 120 days to allow time for the new administration to study the process.

COL James Pohl, a military judge presiding in one of the cases refused the delay.

’’On its face, the request to delay the arraignment is not reasonable,’’ the judge, Army Col. James Pohl, wrote in his three-page ruling denying a prosecution request to delay Nashiri’s first court appearance.

Abd el Rahim al Nashiri faces a Feb. 9 arraignment on terror charges he helped orchestrate the October 2000 al Qaeda suicide bombing that killed 17 U.S. sailors aboard the USS Cole.

Here’s the key point to COL Pohl’s ruling:

’’The public interest in a speedy trial will be harmed by the delay in the arraignment,’’ Pohl also wrote.

He noted that unless Congress amended the 2006 Military Commissions Act, ``the commission is bound by the law as it currently exists not as it may change in the future.’’

Good call, COL Pohl.

The reaction is fairly interesting:

The decision stunned officials at the Department of Defense and White House, which had just begun to grapple with Obama’s order to freeze the war court and empty the prison camps within a year.

’’The Department of Defense is currently reviewing Judge Pohl’s ruling,’’ said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon. ``We will be in compliance with the president’s orders regarding Guantánamo.’’

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told the Associated Press that the administration was consulting with the Departments of Defense and Justice ``to explore our options in the case.’’

One option, the primary option, is to comply with the law of the land. But as I’ve mentioned before, when an obstacle stands in the way of a desired government action, it usually finds some way around the obstacle, whether doing so complies with our laws or not.

Let’s see how COL Pohl and his opinion fare in all of this. But a tip of the hat to the good COL for standing up for the rule of law.

That’s something they’ve been busily doing in Davos.

Global investment in clean energy must reach $515 billion per year by 2030 — triple that of last year’s investment — in order to avoid “the catastrophic impact of climate change,” according to a report from the World Economic Forum and New Energy Finance.

We all know the track record of estimates like this - they’re usually woefully understated. The utility of that record is that once committed and after massive cash outlays, too much is invested to back out once the real cost is realized.

Over the next 18 months, President Barack Obama wants to inject $54 billion into renewable energy as part of a larger economic stimulus plan — but that’s a onetime investment. Without question, reaching the Davos investment target will be no easy task. While the report authors argue that every stimulus package should push the cleantech ball forward (with support for educating a new generation of engineers and rolling out a fully digital power grid, for example), they see a necessary partnership between the private and public sectors ...

I certainly think that there is no question a new "fully digital power grid" is necessary. But not because of the reasons stated. I’ve been through all of that before. We have an energy demand gap building rather rapidly and we’re not doing a thing except talk about pie-in-the-sky alternatives to close that gap. The new smart grid will be a necessary evolution regardless of fuel source, but it is laughable to believe alternatives and ’cleantech’ are going to fill that gap any time soon.

In a time of economic turbulence, proven technologies are the way to fill that gap. But we should have been building such plants yesterday in order to do so. Instead we’re talking about throwing massive amounts of money at things which are literally decades away from providing the energy we need now.

And, unfortunately, I don’t see our politicians waking up anytime soon to that fact.

While the Coleman/Franken election remains in limbo, the Obama administration may have solved the problem of getting that 60th Senator who would caucus with the Democrats:

There is a strong possibility that Barack Obama will ask Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to serve as his Secretary of Commerce, Democratic Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.

The move would fill a vacancy that has lingered since Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination. And provided that Al Franken emerges victorious in the Minnesota recount, it would give Democrats in the Senate a 60th caucusing member, as New Hampshire’s Democratic governor John Lynch would appoint Gregg’s replacement.

With the "stimulus" bill not expected to be passed until mid February, this gives the Democrats plenty of time to get a new Democratic Senator on-board - assuming a Gregg nomination comes within a day or so and assuming Gregg accepts.

From the bully pulpit:

President Obama yesterday scolded Wall Street bankers who received millions of dollars in bonuses last year, calling the payouts "shameful" and chiding the executives for a lack of personal responsibility at a precarious time for the nation’s economy.

"There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses," the clearly irritated president said. "Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them."

That’s after the 150 million dollar inaugural and Wagyu beef meet and greet, right?. I don’t like the use of bailout money going for bonuses any more than anyone else. But I’ll take the outrage more seriously when I hear about Congress giving back its latest pay raise and Nancy Pelosi flying coach to California like the rest of us.

"Nonthing’s the same anymore."

No, it isn’t, so suck it up, Sinclair.

A preview of the very near future.

"Nothing’s the same anymore."

No, it isn’t, so suck it up, Sinclair.

A preview of the very near future.

That’s usually a good subject when the Dems are in charge. And Rasmussen gives us a little ground truth when it comes to things like "obesity taxes" and cell phone laws:

Most Americans think it’s all right for Big Brother to crack down on smokers, but he better keep his hands off their cell phones and their sodas.

With concern growing over the health implications of secondary smoke, 62% of adults say there should be a nationwide ban on smoking in all public places, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree, and five percent (5%) are not sure.

Just 38% of adults, however, support a complete ban on the use of cell phones while driving. Fifty-eight percent (58%) support the alternative of letting drivers use hands-free phones in their vehicles, and four percent (4%) are not sure which is the better option.

Seventy percent (70%) of Americans also oppose a national tax on all non-diet soft drinks. Eighteen percent (18%) like the idea of a so-called “obesity tax” like the one proposed by New York Governor David Paterson. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided.

I’m a bit concerned about the smoking ban, but find it healthy that vast majorities resist any laws which restrict their use of cell phones or taxes on foods which are "out of favor".

[HT: Grant S.]

Rasmussen reports that fewer people back the Democratic stimulus bill that passed in the House yesterday than did the week before:

Public support for the economic recovery plan crafted by President Obama and congressional Democrats has slipped a bit over the past week. At the same time, expectations that the plan will quickly become law have increased.

Forty-two percent (42%) of the nation’s likely voters now support the president’s plan, roughly one-third of which is tax cuts with the rest new government spending. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 39% are opposed to it and 19% are undecided. Liberal voters overwhelmingly support the plan while conservatives are strongly opposed.

Last week, support for the President’s plan was at 45% and opposition at 34%.

Sometimes a turkey is just a turkey. And this particular bill is the granddaddy of them all.

Apparently the public has more economic sense than the Congress - or at least the Democrats in Congress:

Voters continue to soundly reject a recovery plan that includes only new government spending without any tax cuts. Just 15% support such a plan while 70% are opposed.

Note it doesn’t say "tax rebates". The public wasn’t tax cuts.

Nancy and Harry, you’re doin’ a heck of a job.

Republicans stepped up yesterday and unanimously voted no on a pork laden monstrosity they were unable to amend or debate. I’d call that being responsible. Of course, the left is calling it many other less flattering things as you’d expect.

But to this point, this turkey of a bill belongs lock stock and barrel to the Democrats. And as Dale discusses below, it is a massive load of borrowing pointed in the wrong direction.

The question is, however, once it reaches the Senate, will we see the same sort of Republican solidarity there as we saw in the House?

My bet has been "no". I continue to assert that the bill will pass the Senate only with Republican help and that such help will be forthcoming. At least one of them, possibly more, will break ranks.

To bolster my assertion, I offer this from my local rag about two Republican Senators:

Chambliss and Isakson —- and their Senate colleagues —- will next week try to amend the $819 billion economic stimulus proposal the House passed Wednesday. Neither senator supports the House version of the package, but they and other members of Congress agree that the government needs to do something quickly to jump-start the economy.

“Once it gets to the Senate, you will see some more Republican ideas injected into the package because they [Democrats] would like to have Republican votes,” Chambliss said Wednesday just before he spoke to the state chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business in Atlanta. “But unless they raise the tax credits from about 35 percent of the package to somewhere around [the] 45 percent or 50 percent range, I doubt you’ll see many Republican senators voting for it.”

Now I’m actually somewhat pleased about one part of this - the demand that the bill raise tax credits to somewhere around 45 to 50% (although I prefer straight up tax cuts as the method of choice for stimulating the economy).

But even if that target percentage is met, the deficit spending will remain. That’s unacceptable. However my fear, and the basis for my bet, is they’ll cave on that based on the false premise that "the government needs to do something quickly to jump-start the economy" and that something must involve massive deficit spending.

Or put another way, they’ll end up voting for it even if they aren’t successful in eliminating much of the spending or expanding the amount of tax cuts. I think much of that has to do with the atmosphere of profound crisis that has been created in DC and the belief, unwarranted in my estimation, that only government can solve the crisis.

Few if any of the Republican amendments are going to find approval in the Senate. As the WSJ pointed out, Harry Reid and Nancy Peolsi have a 40 year old liberal wish list and this is the chance of their political lifetime to see it come to fruition.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living — or dead — Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

I absolutely agree with the last sentence. I simply have no confidence that will happen.

Consequently I offer this poll where you too can register your lack of confidence (or not) and we’ll see who is right.

Which Republican Senator Is Most Likely To Vote For The "Stimulus" Bill And Put It Over The Top?
	McCain
	Graham
	Collins
	Snowe
	Voinovich
	Spectre
	Other
	None
pollcode.com free polls

An interesting turn of events:

In Democratic legal circles, no attorney has been more pilloried than former Bush Justice Department official John Yoo, chief author of the so-called torture memos that Barack Obama last week sought to nullify.

But now President Obama’s incoming crew of lawyers has a new and somewhat awkward job: defending Yoo in federal court.

Next week, Justice Department lawyers are set to ask a San Francisco federal judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against Yoo by Jose Padilla, a New York man held without charges on suspicion of being an Al Qaeda operative plotting to set off a “dirty bomb.”

The suit contends that Yoo’s legal opinions authorized Bush to order Padilla’s detention in a Navy brig in South Carolina and encouraged military officials to subject Padilla to aggressive interrogation techniques, including death threats and long-term sensory deprivation.

The point made in the article is the Obama DoJ must argue to protect U.S. government prerogatives which they now represent.

As for torture itself - it’s banned, er, well, almost. Even the socialists saw through this one. Speaking of the Executive Order signed by Obama last week the World Socialist Web Site notes:

On the question of so-called “harsh interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture, Obama’s orders leave room for their continuation. White House Counsel Gregory Craig told reporters the administration was prepared to take into account demands from the CIA that such methods be allowed. Obama announced the creation of a task force that will consider new interrogation methods beyond those sanctioned by the Army Field Manual, which now accepts 19 forms of interrogation, as well as the practice of extraordinary rendition.

In reality, that’s the same policy in force now. And speaking of the Army Field Manual:

Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, Obama’s nominee for director of national intelligence, told a Senate confirmation hearing that the Army Field Manual would itself be changed, potentially allowing new forms of harsh interrogation, but that such changes would be kept secret.

NPR also remarks on the possible loophole the WSWS notes.

As NRO points out, the "closing" of Gitmo was more rhetoric than reality and something which might be quietly extended at the end of the year. More symbolism than substance. It appears the same is true with regard to torture and extraordinary rendition.

When loopholes are purposely left open, it is an acknowledgment which implicitly condones the possible need for techniques that were so roundly and unequivocally condemned prior to assuming office.

Some would call that a raging case of hypocrisy.

So,President Obama’s stimulus bill has now passed the House on a party-line vote (Good!) in which the only people to cross the aisle were 11 Democrats, to vote against it. So, it’s on to the Senate where we can probably expect the wonderfulness of bipartisanship to, again, fail to appear.

Pres. Obama wanted strong bipartisan support, they say. If so, then when being counseled about what should be in the bill by Republican House honcho John Boehner, he probably shouldn’t have turned a dead-eyed stare at Rep. Boehner, and wised off with, "I won."

That’s right. You won. And now, you own the stimulus package.

Good luck with that.

Because, as most clear-thinking people realize, the stimulus bill won’t stimulate much. The last time we tried this, in the 1930s, we managed to reduce the nation’s unemployment rate to...17%.

Huzzah.

Fortunately for FDR, he had an agent waiting in the wings to rescue the economy from the Great Depression: Nazis. I mean, if you want to reduce unemployment, it’s helpful to be able to put 12 million people in uniform.

Obama doesn’t have any Nazis handy.

On the bright side, we will now have a fascinating experiment to see if Lord Keynes’ original ideas have any merit. And you, my friends, get to be the test subjects.

Looking over the bill, I’m not sanguine about the results. mainly, that’s because since Keynes’ first came out with "The General Theory" in 1936, we’ve had 80 years of experience with how it actually works, and the original ideas of Lord Keynes have had to undergo a restructuring in light of that experience, and to account for the Monetarist and Austrian criticisms to which it was subjected.

Out of that experience rose the Neo-Keynesian School, which I basically subscribe to, in that I beleive that:

1) Macroeconomics arises from microeconomic foundations.
2) Information is, in many cases, asymmetrical, which rules out perfect competition.
3) Monetary policy should aim at macroeconomic stabilization, and not to produce short-term economic gains (at the price of increased inflationary expectations).

I suppose I should also note that I am a Neo-Keynesian only because we have a fiat currency. If we didn’t...well, that would be another story.

In any event, Keynesianism was, I thought, killed in the 1970s by stagflation, just as the original ideas of Monetarism were killed in the 1980s and 1990s by the decoupling of inflation and the money supply.

We will now have a fascinating experiment to see if Lord Keynes’ original ideas have any merit. And you, my friends, get to be the test subjects.Neo-Keynesianism is basically an attempt to sythesize what we know works from the original ideas of Keynes, Classical economics, and the Monetarist ideas of Milton Friedman.

What we are trying to do now, though, is a return to the original Keynesianism, that I thought pretty much everyone had agreed was basically unworkable in the real world. Even Paul Krugman seems now to have rejected his own academic work, which was broadly Neo-Keynesian, and abandoned his academic arguments that government intervention, even in cases of market failure, was more harmful than helpful.

As far as the stimulus bill goes, it appears "we are all Keynesians now".

We should know better.

Increasingly, it looks as if the Austrians were mainly right in their criticisms of a fiat currency—the regular economic shocks and deflations of the 19th century under the gold standard notwithstanding.

Unfortunately, going back on the gold standard may not be all that practical at this point.

Although it can be done, it might be a painful process. In 1926, when Winston Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the British government returned to the gold standard, after abandoning in the emergency of World War I. It resulted in massive deflation, and lots of unpleasant economic hardship.

I suspect the main problem with that move was that they tied the pound to the pre-war standard of £4.83 per ounce, rather than taking into account the inflationary effects of the war-era spending, but it still gives one pause.

And, there is one other thing that gives one pause, as well, which is the economic record of boom and bust cycles during the 19th century, when we were on the gold standard.

Once you return to the gold standard, the money supply becomes relatively inflexible. The amount of money you have depends upon the amount of gold you have, and it is next to impossible to match the money supply with the demand for money over the short term.

But if the stimulus bill fails spectacularly, I expect the gold bugs will come crawling out of the woodwork.

Well, well, well ...

The measure passed 244 to 188, with 11 Democrats and 177 Republicans voting against it.

That’s all the Republicans in the House. Not one voted for the package.

Obviously Obama didn’t promise enough to buy them off or they can sense a turkey when they see one. Republicans haven’t had solidarity like that since 9/11.

Of course that means nothing if a couple of Republican Senators cross the isle and vote for it. And I’m still betting that will happen. So my statement, "that’s not conjecture - that’s a promise" stands. My guess is it will only take one (maybe two) and they’ll find him or her.

Retired Military - one of our commenters - says he thinks that person(s) will come out of this group:

McCain
Collins
Spectre
Graham
Snowe

I don’t think McCain will vote for it. And if McCain doesn’t vote for it, neither will Grahan. That leaves Collins, Spectre and Snowe. Anyone else want to add a name or two?

Oh, and don’t forget this CBS "breaking news" email headline I received as we head down this road:

The House has approved President Obama’s $819 billion economic stimulus bill.

Can’t vote present on this one, can he?

Ah, the good ol’ days of BDS. Remember that Thanksgiving when Pres. Bush made a surprise visit to the troops in Iraq? The one immortalized forever by the picture of him seeming to offer a turkey platter to some soldiers standing in the chow line?

It was also the one where Bush was accused of cynically using a fake turkey for a photo-op in order to appear much more concerned about the troops than he actually was. Indeed, check out the caption to the picture above:

Bush has also had his share of turkey while in office, shown above bringing a turkey to troops in Baghdad, Iraq. However, the turkey was only for the photo op - it wasn’t real.
Credits: Martinez/AP
Published: 01/28/2009 11:11:27

It’s part of a pictorial essay by the New York Daily News titled "George W. Bush: The lamest duck ever?"

Since he’s no longer President, the media taking shots at Bush is sort of uncouth, but also sort of uninteresting. The man’s not even yesterday’s news for crying out loud.

What’s really bothersome, however, is that the lie continues unabated that Bush was voguing with a fake turkey. It’s been well documented for quite awhile now what actually happened, but the media can’t seem to ever catch up to the truth. I guess that’s why they’re still so concerned with news from several years ago.

Oh well, plus ça (hope and) change, plus ça meme chose.