USPS Forever stamps. :o)

Political question… next.

To see John give it a shot, just made it way more interesting. I think I would agree to John’s take that cost would not be an issue.

Jon isn’t called “the thinking man’s Ezra Klein” for nothing.

Kevin, OT but it occurred to me that one (or all) of your foreign readers could approach Chinese govt with an idea: China writes an open letter to Obama (not the US State Dept, Obama) suggesting a straight-up swap, China will let Chen leave, if the US will let Bradley Manning leave.
Now THAT would be fun to see play out. :o)
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Chinese-Activist-May-Study-Law-in-New-York-150698015.html

:o)

This.

The Europeans are missing the problem. The underlying problem is the imbalance in trade. That’s where all the money went, and why the Greeks don’t have it now, and why the Greek economy is now a shambles. That is the continuing reason the situation keeps worsening. And why the Europeans have no real solution, and no timetable for the problem’s resolution.
To solve the trade imbalance, they should phase in Warren Buffet’s idea of import certificates.

I’m not in the LGBT community, so I apologize if this is a dumb question, but instead of pursuing separate goals– don’t ask don’t tell, employment rights, marriage (inclusive of spousal tax benefits and green card) issues– on separate tracks, why isn’t the focus on a single goal of amending the Civil Rights Act to fix all of the above?

In a one sentence amendment, Congress could deem that, “notwithstanding any other provision of law” (overriding all other federal laws), discrimination based on sexual orientation is a type of sex discrimination. If the votes are there, add a second sentence defining gender identity as an element of sexual orientation. Keep it vague and let federal judges fill in the blanks (hopefully they won’t rule that Title IX requires colleges to field all-gay sports teams). :o)

“Some trans people are also LGB; this doesn’t appear to cover sexual orientation.”

Indirectly, it makes LGB legislation more likely to pass by making this issue (from 2007) moot:
In a private meeting late Friday on Capitol Hill, congressional leaders told gay and transgender activists that they would move ahead with a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that lacks trans protections….
The decision by House Democrats to move ahead with the sexual orientation-only ENDA comes two weeks after Pelosi delayed a vote on that measure to give gay and transgender rights groups more time to persuade House members to back a trans-inclusive ENDA.
http://www.gayrightswatch.com/labels/ENDA.html

“Until the House of Representatives indicates that it will abide by last summer’s agreement, the President will not be able to sign any appropriations bills,” writes Jeffrey Zients, acting director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, in a letter addressed to congressional appropriators Wednesday”

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
US Const. Art I, Sect 7

See the grand bargain is already in place!

A pity he didn’t just go with Wikileaks TMZ. That would have ruled. :o)
http://www.tmz.com/2010/12/05/saturday-night-live-tmz-wikileaks-sketch-video/

And it goes without saying that Ag subsidies, where farmers are paid in some cases to not grow crops, would remain intact. The producers would still get cash payments; the poor people who need the food would not.

Actually its exactly because of agribusiness that this proposal is doomed.
$26 billion in food stamp cuts is taking $26 billion in guaranteed sales revenue from the pockets of food producers and grocery stores (including, as the above link notes, Walmart).

I don’t think the House Republicans have thought through what a really bad idea it is to give a bunch of unpopular corporate behemoths the chance to be seen fighting The Man on behalf of hungry children (and unlike most do-gooders, with virtually unlimited resources to pay for lobbyists and campaign contributions). There really isn’t a better opportunity imaginable for corporations to improve their public image AND protect their govt subsidies at the same time. The TV ads write themselves.

Thanks for your comment, I was wondering why they went with CAA instead of CWA (I rather cynically wondered if Clean Water “private attorney general” suits would’ve been harder for the industry to defend than Clean air suits).
Your explanation makes sense, its certainly easier to monitor air quality than ground water, they can always expand this to include water regs once the horse is used to the saddle.

While corporations can and sometimes do have a corrupting influence over a nation’s politics, the idea that the level of corruption and violence from a legal business would ever be on the scale that we see with the cartels in the illicit drug trade doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Maybe the President is a fan of Law & Order: Criminal Intent.
Its astonishing how many whistleblowers, business rivals and/or pesky muckrackers would end up floating in the East River simply because Manhattan businessmen (at least the ones on that show) prefer to resolve problems by hiring hitmen instead of lawyers.

You take the good with the bad. One of the few income security program that is funded generously is the food stamps program,which spent $75 billion last year. It has bipartisan support (Bush actually expanded it) for a simple reason, Agribusiness loses money when people go hungry, Their lobbyists can persuade Members, who’d otherwise never spend a dime to help the poor, to vote for the food stamps program.

The trouble is its illegal in every state to drive drunk, however in Florida it is legal for someone with a concealed carry permit to roam a neighborhood with a loaded gun. I actually take your point and think its manslaughter but the prosecutor didn’t do anyone any favors by overcharging as murder. It pains me to say that Alan Dershowitz is the voice of reason here.

“It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible. I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal. But it’s worse than that. It’s irresponsible and unethical in not including material that favors the defendant. This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause. Everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/