Senators Vitter, Bunning, Coleman and Craig -- the Four Horsemen of the AGOPolypse.

NO, no, no to DC voting rights. If people there want to vote, the Constitution spells out the answer -- retrocession to Maryland.

John Gibson of FOX---the same FOX that declared its Constitutional right to lie to America with impunity---wants to sue over a doctored clip? Hell, John---you're physically addicted to bisexual transgendered goats! BAAA-A-A-A-A-A-AAAAHHH!!!

And yes---I fully expect a group of bisexual transgendered goats to file a class action against me for that one....

Do the Republican governors who wish to reject money for unemployment benefits REALLY think their states will continue to have the same unemployment numbers, and need for further money from their own coffers, after two years? Is this their faith in the economic viability of business prospects in their own states? Charming.

Flip side on airline dereg: Do you really want to pay $1,000 a ticket to fly coach domestically? I don't, and wouldn't have taken have the vacations I have in the past 7-8 years.

Also; this AIG thing has to be a joke of epic-fail proportions. We gave them $150 billion---and they still lose $60 billion? Are they really trying to say that without their original bailout money, they'd have lost $210 BILLION DOLLARS in a single quarter?

AIG is too stupid to be allowed to survive. They're a Frankenstein Monster on steroids. They need to die---quickly....

Rupert Murdoch's apology was another half-arsed non-apology:

"Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted," according to the statement from Murdoch...

See, readers, it's your fault for feeling offending and insulted.

I take it Geithner must be a genius? Or else he's just the perfect errand boy for the banksters?

So far not much impressed. Would have loved Obama to have sorted Commerce a long time ago, and to have gone for someone who appears to be less out of High-School than Geithner.
But maybe Summers wanted it that way ...

First Bunning and now Gibson; when did the right wing become a fan of frivolous lawsuits?

Quick, someone email http://www.atra.org/

NO, no, no to DC voting rights. If people there want to vote, the Constitution spells out the answer -- retrocession to Maryland.

I have to agree with Sen. Hatch (something that doesn't happen often) in his rebuttal of this argument, though I have to say that I find little rational basis for not giving the District representation in the House on the basis of population instead of the fixed single vote the current measure provides.

US Airways pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger not only made the case for more and stronger unions, he also made the case against deregulation.

Media attention goes dark in 5... 4... 3...

CM, the only reason Hatch authored that is because the DC bill would also address military voters and other issues that cost Utah an extra electoral vote in 2000.

There's no legal principal involved with his stand, and so, I don't consider what he said as being much more than tissue paper.

As for vote on the basis of population, DC's only entitled to one vote anyway, as the population size of a House district is larger than DC population. If you're trying to include the equivalent of Senate electoral votes, then I oppose you even more....

And suggest you read the Constitution.

Not only do I think the current bill is wrong, I think it's unconstitutional. And, there's think tanks, etc., ready to sue on those grounds, and rightfully so.

* For a welcome change, the markets rallied today.
I understand, but isn't it funny and suspicious for there to be some inherent, net "good" for the price of something to go up? Really, a stock costing a dollar more means someone else has to pay a dollar more for it... The whole scheme (and not Social Security!) is a Ponzi scheme, and depends on people buying and reselling for more - but there can't be *net gains* (actual value of course) from a bunch of people trading, anymore than people playing cards with each other can make themselves richer on average. The least we can do is not charge a lower tax rate to playing this game, compared to doing real work.

Neil's right. I don't get people who profess to be liberal fixating too much on Wall Street, let alone a small group of 30 stocks.

This is an issue of political PR...

Gadfly, quoting someone: And suggest you read the Constitution.

Who is it that you're quoting here?

May I suggest that AIG consider a really big garage sale to raise money? I understand they have corporate jets and a fleet of cars. And maybe the Board of Directors should consider doing to AIG's top staff what the airlines did to pilots - eliminate their pension, cut their health insurance to pittance and eliminate vacation leave.

About global warming: Drudge was recently trumpeting a link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY) to a report that arctic sea ice was underestimated due to a glitch. (But note bolded caveat of last sentence.) I just wonder what opinions anyone has on that:

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

By Alex Morales

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) --
A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said. ...The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.

For a welcome change, the markets rallied today.

Once again, a high degree of market volatility is a common feature of a weak economy with great uncertainty. That includes short-term spikes. While superficially these seem like good news viewed in isolation, in broader context they are as much a symptom of the weakness and uncertainty of the present economic situation as the more frequent large declines.

Shortstop, no quote... just italics for emphasis.

For more on the details of DC retrocession, and Constitutional issues, see Wiki.

That said, Maryland has consistently said it doesn't want DC.

Certainly, IMO, I think providing voting representation to DC requires a constitutional amendment.

It would be a great thing if Al Sharpton would lead the athletes to refuse to appear in games on the Fox Channel, which is owned by Rudolph Murdoch. No one would miss out in any way (except Fox), a competitor would be glad to suckup the highly prized contracts with the NFL, and major league baseball.

There's no way of knowing for sure if arctic ice is retreating or, as many scientists believe, greatly expanding, but one thing we do know is that we can desalinate sea water in our bathtubs using the power of focused tunnel vision. So there's lots of good news there.

CM, the only reason Hatch authored that [...]

Whatever. I'm agreeing with his argument on the particular point of Constitutional law, not his motives (actual or perceived) for presenting the argument.

(Personally, I prefer that every square inch of ground in the District not currently actively used for federal government functions -- in addition to federal offices, monuments, parks, etc., can be considered federal government functions, private homes not so much -- be split off from the District and admitted as a new state.)

As for vote on the basis of population, DC's only entitled to one vote anyway, as the population size of a House district is larger than DC population.

Currently, yes. But if a law is being passed to give DC Congressional representation, there is no reason to fix the representation in the law rather than giving it representation based on population with a minimum of 1, just like a state would have in the House.

If you're trying to include the equivalent of Senate electoral votes

If I was trying to "include the equivalent of Senate electoral votes" I wouldn't have said "representation in the House", nor would I need to talk about that since the District already has that under Amendment XXIII.

Not only do I think the current bill is wrong, I think it's unconstitutional.

And I think that Hatch's argument that it is not is correct, whatever his motivation for supporting D.C. representation as a matter of policy might be.

And, there's think tanks, etc., ready to sue on those grounds

And on what basis are they going to claim standing? The only entities I can see with even a colorable claim to standing are the President and the various States (and even there, the former is weak), though I suppose once a bill was passed into law with the District's representative's vote being decisive, and the law was enforced, anyone against whom the law was being enforced might be able to have standing to challenge the law on the grounds that the District's representation was unconstitutional.

BTW what I said about "markets" (stocks, as default w/o adjective - tells you who rules) pretty much applies (or more so) to the housing market. IOW, there is said to be something wrong, when people can buy dwellings at a low price ...

Re today's mini-report: IT IS SO DEPRESSING that most of the commenters to the Boston.com's article on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are global warming deniers, the NY "Times editors cut from story their own reporter’s debunking of GOP mouse tale" and the AP is falsely reported Obama called Social Security "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far."

Our "press" is massively failing us in a time of monumental need and importance.

Ah yes the deep integrity of John Gibson...gee I wonder if he's ranted in the past about the horrors of the litigious culture we live in? Still I suppose he has a case, I mean how could one possibly hope to parody John Gibson?? Nothing one could possibly come up with could possibly top the sheer ridiculousness of his existing schtick (with all due apologies to the Huff Post)...

* The Senate confirmed Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary, 80 to 17. -- Steve Benen

Another one squeaked through by the skin of her teeth; I expect she'll be totally powerless due to the lack of mandate. Like Holder, she'd have never made it had it not been for the affirmative action.

(I miss our Carpetbagger Mary; she'd have done it much better)

Exlibra, good try. I think you captured the essence of Mary.

AP falsely reported Obama called Social Security "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far."

Our "press" is massively failing us in a time of monumental need and importance.

Well, in their defense, it was the AP, after all. Professional Journalism™ -- gotta love it!

Oh, and Gibson. Did anyone else think he must have wondered himself -- or even had to have someone research it -- whether or not he really had said that?

Certainly occurred to me ...

No, no, exlibra; you've forgotten that Mary always extolled Latinos as hard-working and family-oriented while sneering at African Americans for their alleged laziness and dependency.

Murdoch's move isn't that surprising to me. I think the recognized early on what Obama could/would be. He has been trying to make nice with Obama for a while now.

CM, I said think tanks, etc.... note the ETC.

Somebody who sues WILL get standing. Given the current nature of SCOTUS, I think the "standing" definition on this would be defined pretty broadly.

That said, you're assuming the House bill passes the Senate. Can you say filibuster?

If you're NOT talking about giving DC the equivalent of two Senate votes? How does DC merit more than one vote then? What are you doing, passing out bonus votes? That makes me more skeptical yet of your supporting this.

Other than that, I said nothing about "fixing representation in the law." I just pointed out that DC would only get one vote. (And, given the size of the District and flight from it, it's highly unlikely to ever get more than one vote.

Now, based on the history of retrocession discussions, I think any such bill similar to the one at hand would have to have a formal vote of both the citizens of DC and those of Maryland, too, at a minimum, as well as passing the Constitutional hurdles I mentioned.

As for Hatch?

I point out that his support for this is primarily a matter of expediency because he has a fair streak of that in him. Plus, the other side is, as I noted, that he's trying to bring home some electoral vote bacon for Utah, and his legal support for this is nothing more than horse-trading.

Frankly, and yes, such a thing exists... to me, DC statehood, or similar, bills, are a litmus test of "interest group liberalism."