Powered by TypePad

« Sure The Health Bill Stinks, But Blame The Republicans | Main | It Took Nearly Seven Years... »

March 14, 2010

Comments

Bill in AZ

20-40 years kim, 20-40 years. Look at the barycenter analysis. It's not a major one, but it's not a minor one either. If this shithead for president would but listen to real scientists, we would be better prepared - and not by turning corn into alcohol, well, unless that is the only way to shove this abject stupidity into some deep recess.

The Democrats' War on Science.

I agree, Landscheit's correlations amaze.

I used to think of a van de Graaf generator, where minimal perturbations would cause large changes in the positioning of the electric arc. Perhaps the magnetic theories work through this somehow.

Tom Fuller, whom I respect a lot, has a recent post in which he said he supports Obama's energy policies, and I went off on him today. There is almost nothing Obama's doing right, except maybe guaranteeing the loans to the two new nuke plants in Georgia. And then he cancels the waste storage facility in Nevada after 13 billion dollars worth of work and without proposing an alternative. It's schizophrenic. But look at his advisers, Chu, Holdren, Browner, Jackson, and Lubchenko. It would be difficult to find five crazier or more ideological people in science if you searched the world over. OK, maybe Van Jones.
================

Stephanie

Saw a great idea for a teaparty sign on twitter today:

Can an intern give Obama a BJ so we can impeach him already!

I snorfled. Then I cried.

I know nossing.  Nossing at all.

Bill, the barycentric argument rages over there as we speak. LUN for an open source blog about it.
=================

Mysteries.  Yes there are.

If you scroll to the fourth post there is a fairly lucid explanation by TallBloke of the so-called 'Solar-Planetary Theory'.
==================

BR

Hm, impeachment fodder gets new meaning :)
Although I prefer the substantive treason:
the standdown he ordered on Chinese espionage.

***

In a different context, telepathic pheromones are great. Catherine Asaro's "Primary Inversion."

daddy

If you've been on tenterhooks this Ides of March 'bout what to give your kitty-cat, rest assured ">http://www.petoffice.co.jp/catprin/english/"> your worries are over!

BR

Nah, Daddy, I think cats are basically nudists :)

daddy

I don't know BR,

I'm not a cat guy, but ">http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/study-abroad/100224/cat-costumes"> this site, which provides valuable background on the costume designer, Iwasa-san, tells us the following:

"Iwasa-san said she was not always cut out for tailoring. "I was not good at needlework or drawing. I didn't have any sense of art either," she says. But that changed when Prin — the site's eponym and one if its two fashionista models — padded into her life.
Iwasa-san was struck with a desire to clothe her pure white cat. She found some outfits in a teddy bear shop, but Prin outgrew the outfits in a year, and seemed destined to return to a life of nakedness.

Until Iwasa-san heard the voice:

"Take action this year."

The inspirational direction was so loud, she looked around for its source, she said. "I went outside and looked at other people, wondering if they heard the same voice," Iwasa-san says. "But they didn’t seem to hear."

By her own admission, Iwasa-san almost missed her calling. She ruminated for a week after she heard the voice.
"Costumes for dogs have been popular for 20 years," she said. "But we didn't have costumes for cats because we believed cats groom themselves and don't like to wear clothes. But, I met my cat, Prin, and suddenly thought, ' I want to dress her up!' "

So BR, my general bent is for naked cats myself, but who are we to question when a supernatural voice from the heavens tells us to dress up our cats in an Anne of Green Gables outfit?

Jane

It's gonna be a big week. Wake up and grab your pitchfork!

BR

ROFWL WP - with pitchfork.

hit and run

Test

hit and run

Oooh. I passed.

narciso

hit, did you get my email

Jim Ryan

Michael W. McConnell in WSJ today is arguing Slaughter is unconstitutional.

The rub is that, according to the Senate parliamentarian, reconciliation is permitted only for bills that amend existing law, not for amendments to bills that have yet to be enacted.[SNIP]Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.[SNIP]As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text."
So, he's not basing his main argument on the "Yeas and Nays" paragraph of the Constitution, although he does throw that argument in at the end of his column. I guess he senses it's not the strongest argument or he would have used it instead of the temporal order argument he did use.

Extraneus

The news we've been waiting for.

Rielle Hunter bares all in first interview about affair with John Edwards

narciso

Not surprisingly, they do violence to the meaning of the word, that was the case that killed the line item veto, a sign of how authority can be abused, even if the granter
has good intentions

pagar

Has any pro American site done any page by page review of the latest bill. Every thing I'm seeing seems to be outdated.

narciso

I posted the first part back earlier in the thread, it seems the buried the death panels on pg 1557, I just saw that on another source

cathyf

Oooo, daddy, I've been threatening my cats by showing them the pictures on that site. Told em they better shape up or they will be the laughingstock of the neighborhood!

narciso

It was from Hot Air, but I checked against my
copy of the Necronemicon (sic) it's in there,
from the stimulus

Pofarmer

There is almost nothing Obama's doing right, except maybe guaranteeing the loans to the two new nuke plants in Georgia.

That's a ruse. See if they ever get the permits to build. There are multiple plants around the country that would proceed if they could just guarantee the rules won't change in the middle of construction. Hell, it takes the NRC 3-5 years just to process the very first batch of permits to begin applying for the permits to do site work.

Sue

I am so happy to read that "Green Zone" bombed at the box office.

Jane

I got thru to my Congressman and asked what the sentiment is. The staffer said it was "even".

I really don't believe that.

narciso

The only film that I've seen that really does justice, to the enemy that we are fighting,
except for the MacGuffin at the end, is "The
Kingdom" yes it even includes that phony 'rehabilitation' gambit for wayward jihadis.
As was pointed out in other sources, the leader of the Mosque where Sharif Mosley was 'discouraged' from going to Yemen, is a Saudi, with ties to CAIR

Appalled

I find it hard to believe the Democrats would want to pass HC reform in such a way that it invites a Constitutional challenge.

The Slaughter rule has become so demonized that it has lost its usefulness as a cover for Dems too scared to pass the original Senate bill. I would be surprised if they attempt to use it.

Danube of Thought

Minus 16 at Raz today.

Rick Ballard

The Slaughter rule is a stupidity test for the prog base. I'm sure they will pass with flying colors. If Queen Botoxic were actually "only five votes away" then the prog jackals would be furnished a list of five names and set to howling like banshees. Instead we have an amorphous grouping of 30 - 80 names which can't really be whittled down much below 30. The progs are left to howl at the moon and when the vote comes down it will be against the Slaughter rule - not against the commie plot itself. The progs will fall for it.

pagar

Narciso, I see the Sarah Palin LUN but nothing else. I really would like to see Sarah get about 10 million supporters in front of Congress and get this thing stopped.

Clarice

Steve Gilbert at Sweetness and Light http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reconciliation-bill-is-a-place-holdersays this The reconciliation bill posted online last night is just the shell for the shell game and reports from the American Spectator http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/15/the-health-care-shell-game-beg
:
[quote]
Shortly before midnight on Sunday, Democrats released a 2,309 page health
care bill that will start the process of reconciliation - but don't let that
fool you, it's not the actual reconciliation bill with all the changes
you've been reading about. Instead, as Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking
Republican member on the Budget Committee, explained to me last week, this
is just the "shell" bill - the vehicle that Democrats need to get moving on
health care. Once the bill gets approved (likely Monday), Democrats will
send this phantom bill over to the Rules Committee, where it will be
stripped, and then they'll insert in all of the actual changes that they've
negotiated.

Why all of the theatrics?

Well, under the reconciliation rules in last year's budget, any
reconciliation bill would have to have been submitted to the Budget
Committee by October 15, 2009. It just so happens that earlier versions of
health care legislation cleared the Ways and Means and Education and Labor
Committees last year. So Democrats just dusted that legislation off, and are
using that as the vehicle to begin the reconciliation process. That's why,
for instance, if you look through the 2,309 page bill that was released
Sunday night, you'll find a public option, which leadership has indicated
would not actually be in the final bill. (Interestingly, the student loan
bill is also tacked on at the end.)

Just a "simple up or down vote," remember? [/quote]

Extraneus

Be a good day for an Obama "Et tu, Brute?"

caro
“Other problems I have with this bill include:** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN).**

This is from Gateway's Jim Hoft, quoting Willow Rose.
Outrageous!

narciso

Well I mentioned mostly that the discretion that the health insurance commissioner and the health benefits board has, the public option is in pg 117, and these elements,

Can't reduce salary as employee contribution, pg 147, small employers, can have a payroll no more than 400,000 of the previous year, 151, periodic auditing of employers, 161,

Dave (in MA)

Extraneus, I know you're just kidding around, but I would not go there.

Thomas Collins

The way the McConnell article (excerpted in Jim Ryan's post above at 9:02 am) describe the procedure under the Slaughter Rule, the Cornhusker Kickback bill would never be signed into law as a separate bill. In effect, the House Dems are trying to have it both ways: for Senate parliamenetary procedure purposes, they want a law to reconcile, but they don't want that law actually enacted.

Does anyone here know whether the budget reconciliation procedure on which the Senate parliamentarian gave an oral ruling is enacted law or a Senate procedural rule? If enacted law, I don't see how the Slaughter Rule as interpreted by McConnell works. If a Senate procedural rule, perhaps the Senate parliamentarian is interpreting a "law" for Senate rule purposes as one that, though not having been enacted, can be reconciled.

Dave (in MA)

Jughead lied when he said that there would be no special deals to try to swing support for Obamacare.

Still seeking votes for his proposed health care overhaul, President Barack Obama appears ready to reverse his position and allow unpopular deal-sweetening measures in the hopes of finding Democratic support for legislation whose future will be decided in coming days.

Danube of Thought

Prof. McConnell's article on the Slaughter Rule is persuasive. If I'm a Dem, I have to weight the advantages of proceeding that way against the disadvantages, and viewed in that light it's a slam-dunk not to try it.

If they use the Slaughter procedure, all they will have done is enable some Dem house members to use weasel words with their constituents about what they did and did not vote for, and I think the constituents at this point are miles ahead of these bastards on that one.

But they will run a pretty significant risk of having the whole shooting match voided in a constitutional challenge under Article 1 Section 7.

I'd love to see them do it.

narciso

Now as others have suggested, this maybe the decoy, like the one employed by the B-52 in "Failsafe", to focus fire away from the main target, actually that seems like a good analogy

pagar

Caro, I don't think that Gateway Pundit article has the updated bill info. The page numbers being cited don't seem to be matching up. But from what Clarice is saying, it makes no difference anyway, because they are changing everything again anyway. My question remains the same--Why aren't these people in jail? This whole process is fraud.

Jane

OT: a friend of mine ran into Mitt's top person in the NE and he was chatty.

Mitt thinks there will be 5 republican contenders in 2012: Mitt, Perry, Paul Ryan, Barbar and Pawlenty.

They see Ryan as the biggest threat (me too) and would like to have him as the VP nominee.

Rob Crawford

My question remains the same--Why aren't these people in jail?

Because of the left's favorite mantra: "No legal controlling authority".

caro

With the senate bill and the reconciliation we seem to have 5-6 thousand words that will not be read and/or posted. Pagar, fraud indeed.

Extraneus

Rather than put a shell bill online, wouldn't it have made more sense not to put the bill online?

Dave (in MA)

Jane, I'd love to see Liz Cheney in the mix. The moonbats would explode.

Clarice

Here's a link to Professor McConnell's article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html>Slaughter rule unconstitutional

Clarice

Oops--here's a link to the whole think

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html>McConnell

Pofarmer

They see Ryan as the biggest threat (me too) and would like to have him as the VP nominee.

I see Mitt as the biggest threat. He scares the hell outta me.

Dave (in MA)

Clarice, non-subscribers can only view the 1st ¶.

Ranger

Well, given how things are shaping up, the only way this thing works (reconsiling a law that hasn't actually been signed by the President, so it isn't a law yet) is for Biden to use his authority as President of the Senate to rule that the parliamentarian's interpretation is wrong, and that the Senate can reconsile a law that has not been signed (despite what the clearly writen rules say).

If they do that, I think the Republicans have to simply walk out of the Senate. If the executive branch can simply change the rules of the Senate at a whim, then there are no rules and the body has no true purpose other than prividing window dressing to an authoritarian regime.

pagar

" Mitt, Perry, Paul Ryan, Barbar and Pawlenty."

Who picked this group, the NYTs?

If one didn't like the Obamacare bill, why would one vote for Mitt? Paul Ryan has the problem of being in a group that is not doing a very good job, IMO.

The other three, would be a waste of money, IMO.

Ranger

Oh, and if they do retain the "multi-state" vote buying deals, the Dems lose their supposed "moral authority" on reconsiliation. One corrpt deal is enough to justify fighting this thing tooth and nail in the Senate.

Danube of Thought

NewsBusters:

Today's Morning Joe offered a hugely-entertaining example. Larry O'Donnell, speaking from the Olympian heights of his omniscience of the legislative process, mercilessly condescended to Donny Deutsch. Ad-man Deutsch had earlier twice "guaranteed" that ObamaCare would pass. When O'Donnell appeared, he in so many words said Deutsch was so blissfully ignorant of the process that he didn't understand just what trouble the bill is in.

When O'Donnell later ostensibly "apologized" to Deutsch, he wound up pouring salt in the wound. Larry patronizingly portrayed himself as having "so much information" about the situation, so that he just doesn't see it "the same way that people with less information" do.


Ignatz

Shouldn't it be called the Slaughterhouse Rule?

Danube of Thought

Ranger, I don't think anything Biden does concerning Senate rules can overcome the fact that before the prez can sign anything into law, both houses must have passed identical bills. The house cannot avoid passing the Senate bill as is before anything else can happen--at least that's what McConnell seems to be saying.

Clarice

Sorry, dave. when I googled McConnell and Slaughter rule I got the whole article and that's the 2d link. I suppose any non-subscriber who cares to see the entire thing can do the same thing I did. I just didn't realize you can read it but you can't link it.

Ranger

DoT, I completely agree. I'm just pointing out how this goes forward. I don't think Obama or the Dems give a damn about the constitutionality of what they are doing. These are the people who see the law as a tool to be followed when it helps, and avoided when it hinders. I think that despite the fact that it is a blatantly unconstitutional way to proceed, they will do it anyway. Then they have to overcome the Senate rules to vote on it there.

Its ironic that Biden so publicly chastised the previous VP for claiming he was part of the Senate and not part of the Executive branch. Now Obama and Biden are going to have to claim that its not the Executive branch dictating new rules to the Senate to get this thing through.

Jane

Jane, I'd love to see Liz Cheney in the mix. The moonbats would explode.

Love it! How about a Ryan/Cheney ticket?

cathyf

DoT, is it really true that both houses need to pass identical bills? As you (among others) were arguing over the weekend, this seems to be the sort of procedural question SCOTUS is loathe to interfere with, and what other "controlling legal authority" is there?

I've been arguing all along (not altogether unseriously) is that the best approach to the whole "voting on bills nobody has read" problem is for somebody to show up and demand their X million dollars that was appropriated in the bill. And when the response is that the bill did no such thing, then file suit, and force the government to prove that it wasn't in there. Basically the legal version of yelling "Did so!" "Did Not!" "Did so!" "Did Not!" "Did so!" "Did Not!" "Did so!" "Did Not!" for a few rounds. How can you possibly have the rule of law if nobody actually has the text of the bill, and it is absurd to argue that what gets printed in the Congressional Record has any relationship to what was voted on?

How can the courts think that this is a "procedural issue" -- it seems to me that it goes to the root of what the rule of law is.

Jack is Back!

If the Dems are off by more than a few votes, like say 20 or 30, to pass the bill, will they spark a constitutional crisis by trying to ram it through with the Slaughter rule and will Obama sign it knowing it is flawed and subject to a SOTUS review? I mean if McConnell is right, isn't that where this thing is going? I think Obama is so desperate to sign anything he can call "his" that he would sign a bill that only had the Republican plans and claim he was the one being bi-partisan and that the Republican's finally came to their senses and agreed with his bold initiative.

Please God, if we have to have a bill lets have one that John Roberts gets to decide is unconstitutional because of the way the Dems tried to shove it down our throats. This will mask them for years to come as the party of political arrogance.

Jack is Back!

daddy,

Lance Mackey still in first. Out of Koyok at 05:58. Jeff King 2nd but just into Koyok at 04:42. Both still have 12 dogs.

pagar

That Pg 58/59 stuff quoted at Gateway Pundit
seems to have come from a Judge Kithil article that has been around a while.
More info Here.

If the bill that was supposedly put on line today had any meaning I would say we need up to date info on what it says.

A simple example, you have an established line of credit with a bank. The bank calls you and tells you to come in and resign the agreement because changes have to be made.
When appearing at the bank, you are given a blank form to sign. The banker explains that the changes have not been made yet, but bank rules require that the blank form be signed or your line of credit will be canceled. Would your next stop not be to see your lawyer?

narciso

What you have is an outline which the health care commissioner. (Sibelius and/or some other
official to be named later) will fill in,what did Harkin call it, a 'starter house'.

Sue

No matter how freaked we are at the shenanigans being pulled by democrats to get HCR passed, Obama's numbers are rising. What does he have to do for JQ Public to get pissed off? Take away their iPods? MTV? What????

Danube of Thought

Der Spiegel:

Hopes were high in the Middle East when US President Barack Obama took office last year. But instead of progress toward peace, he has shown indecision and hesitancy. With many in the region united against Iran, he is in danger of letting a golden opportunity slip through his fingers.

It's not just the American people. The whole world is disappointed with this hapless fool.

Danube of Thought

DoT, is it really true that both houses need to pass identical bills? As you (among others) were arguing over the weekend, this seems to be the sort of procedural question SCOTUS is loathe to interfere with, and what other "controlling legal authority" is there?

That is the way Prof. McConnell (a former federal appellate judge) interprets Article 1 Section 7, and he says the Supreme Court decision in Clinton v. City of New York supports that view (that was the case holding the line-item veto unconstitutional).

The courts will never interfere with the various procedural rules the congress sets for itself, but those rules can't transgress against the constitution. At that point the courts won't hesitate to step in.

Danube of Thought

Here is McConnell:

Enter the Slaughter solution. It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a "Bill" to "become a Law," it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate" and be "presented to the President of the United States" for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has "passed" both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.

To be sure, each House of Congress has power to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings." Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text."

It's my understanding that this requirement has been bypassed in a few instances in the past, but each time for relatively inconsequential pieces of legislation that I assume were not challenged.

rse

Jane-

When you hear that "even" comment, remember how many people are being paid this week, even with our own tax dollars, to be making phone calls.

When I was explaining to the child going to DC how to tell the difference between the paid pros and the worried citizens there on their own dime, look for homemade signs.

She said it would be noce to give the Tea Partiers a hug but that would likely upset the chaperones.

LOL

narciso

I saw the Newsweek blurb on Liz, despite the snark, when you have Bellinger, Wilkerson and
others railing against you, you're doing the right thing

narciso

Steyn's in the House, subbing for Rush

Clarice

I am heartened by the McConnell article. It could not come at a better time.

Thomas Collins

DOT, if McConnell is describing the Slaughter Procedure correctly, there would be a bill with the same text, namely, the Cornhusker Kickback Bill with the Fixes. Thus, the end around would not be to the Article 1, Section 7 requirement that both the Senate and House pass the same bill, but to the budget reconcilation rule.

Dave (in MA)

Clarice, right you are. this Google query was able to get me through the wall. (sorry wsj)

Rick Ballard

One might wonder how the brilliant constitutional law professor in the Oval Office managed to let this slip by.

Porchlight

It seems that aside from the other questions surrounding passage using the Slaughter solution, if they put the Stupak amendment and the public option into the rider bill (basically making the rider bill look like the House bill), they might get to 216. Anyone see that as a surprise move later in the week?

narciso

Yes, he was the one that Professor McConnell
was so impressed with, as memory serves.

Clarice

Come again, Narciso? Who are you talking about?

jimmyk

Speaking of Liz Cheney, great op-ed by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn in the WSJ today about the sleazy Gitmo lawyers. (The connection to Liz is Keep America Safe.) If I hear one more time about John Adams I'll blow a gasket.

LUN

Jim Ryan

Yes, narciso, did McConnell present an evaluation of Zero somewhere?

Jim Ryan

Adams would have had the terrorists summarily executed without trial. It's a disgrace that he is used to give them full U.S. citizenship protections.

narciso


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._McConnell

narciso

Too bad, there isn't a Steven Decatur project
to compete with this John Adams thing

Old Lurker

"One might wonder how the brilliant constitutional law professor in the Oval Office managed to let this slip by."

...by reminding us that it is a basically flawed document that simply records a list of negative rights.

Clarice

My goodness, narciso! You are something!

From the wiki piece:
"McConnell graduated from Michigan State University's James Madison College in 1976. McConnell received his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Chicago Law School in 1979, where he served on law review. He was a law clerk for James Skelly Wright, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1979-1980, and for Associate Justice William Brennan, Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981. He was an assistant general counsel at the Office of Management and Budget, 1981-1983, and an assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1983-1985. McConnell was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, 1985-1996, where he brought Harvard Law graduate Barack Obama on a fellowship after being impressed with a suggestion Obama, then Harvard Law Review president, had made on one of McConnell's articles.[2] McConnell has been professor at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law since 1997 and has been a visiting professor at Harvard Law School (2006 and 2009)[3] and at Stanford Law School (2007 and 2008). '

Rick Ballard

Porchlight,

I'll be watching the prog jackal pack rather than the mutterings of Harry & Nan Obaloney. If the pack is loosed on 5-7 recalcitrants, then passage is within reach.

Right now they're still slobbering over running Ned Lamont v.2 against Blanche Lincoln in the primary.

Clarice

I can't get to volokh to see if it is merely a reference to the McConnell piece, but Insty also has a link to an article there suggesting this Slaughtee rule is unconstitutional.

Jim Ryan

Narciso, you have a mind like a steel trap, it's not hard to notice.

Danube of Thought

there would be a bill with the same text, namely, the Cornhusker Kickback Bill with the Fixes.

Not as I understand it. The whole point of the Slaughter exercise is that house members never actually vote on the bill that has been passed by the senate.

And if they put the Stupak amendment and the public option into the rider bill to get to 216 in the house, they'd need to get 60 votes in the senate (so far, no one has claimed that either of those provisions could be enacted by reconciliation).

Danube of Thought

We gonna get a new thread today?

narciso

Call them the Slaughterhouse 5, Rick, yes the Dresden reference is intended

Porchlight

Thanks, DoT. My impression was that they'd blow off reconciliation once they got the Senate bill past the House via the Slaughter fix, but that's just because I just can't bring myself to believe a word of what we're told is supposed to happen here. Very few people appear to be on the same page about it.

Neo
The box-office curse of movies about the U.S. Mess-o-potamian escapade remained unbroken ...
Time reports the obvious, "Green Zone" in the red.
narciso

Magic eight ball says maybe, Danube

Jim Ryan

It's tough because conservatives don't want to go see a movie portraying our military as fighting dishonorably and liberals don't want to see one portraying our military as fighting.

Danube of Thought

I can't get Insty's link to open, but the hyperlink language is a direct quote from McConnell's article.

I would really recommend doing whatever one needs to do to get access to the McConnell article. He is very lucid in setting up the scenario.

Bill in AZ

The power of DoT - a new thread is up. Krugman bashing yet again (fish, barrel).

Dave (in MA)
Insty also has a link to an article there suggesting this Slaughtee rule is unconstitutional.
I'm sure there's a death panels joke in there somewhere.
Jane

I can't get Insty's link to open

Me neither.

Clarice

It is slaughter's article and apparently the traffic is overwhelming.

hit and run

narciso"
hit, did you get my email

I haven't seen it. If you're trying my gmail address,it's

jomhitandrun at gmail dot com

hit and run

More importantly...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY PORCHLIGHT!

We were the same age there for a few weeks. I guess that'll be true for a few weeks every year.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame