Bailout Fails, Mandatory Sunrise Bill Falters

Gotta love Scrappleface!

“The sun will come out tomorrow,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, “but only if Congress takes action now to eliminate uncertainty.”

Conservatives in Congress immediately expressed reluctance to support the Mandatory Sunrise Act, noting that government intervention is unlikely to have the intended effect, and could produce many unintended, and unpredictable consequences.

Why $700 Billion?

According for Forbes.com:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Read the entire article.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin, who linked to the LA Times Blog who dug this little nugget out.

Fox News analyzes:

But why $700 billion? Why not $500 billion? Or $1 trillion? And why hasn’t anyone explained that price tag?

No one seems to know.

The number is even more confusing given that one of the reasons the U.S. financial system needs bailing out is because no one knows the value of the securities that $700 billion is earmarked for purchasing.

One thing everyone (economists and market participants) agrees on, though: $1 trillion would have been too scary, frightening taxpayers and Congressman alike with the prospect of a bailout of that size. (It turns out $700 billion was too scary, as well. Congress rejected a first draft of the proposal on Monday, sending stock markets plunging.)

And $500 billion might not have been enough purchasing power at a given moment. (The language in the bill says $700 billion "outstanding at any one time.") Congress didn’t want to have to go back to the taxpayers and ask for more if $500 billion had turned out not to be enough.

So $700 billion was just right.

A Vote for Sarah Palin

Here's a really good read about why a Democrat (at least, a former Democrat) will be voting for Sarah Palin and the guy that picked her for vice president.

A Vote for Sarah Palin by Suann Therese Maier

Here are some key paragraphs that I particularly like:

I will vote for Sarah Palin because she has guts. We’ve never met, but I suspect I know something about her life, and so do a great many other women. I know what it means to have a son with Down syndrome. I know what it means to talk a good line about religious faith and then be asked to prove it. I know what it means to have a daughter pregnant and unmarried.

...

I will vote for Sarah Palin because she is intelligent, tenacious and talented. Nobody made her rise easy, and no one is making it easy now. And—is it only moms who notice this?—unlike Senator Biden, she does seem to act consistently on her beliefs about the sanctity of life, at considerable personal cost.

I will vote for Sarah Palin because she doesn’t come from Washington or New York or Chicago or anywhere else the political and media aristoi like to hang out. In fact, I especially like the idea that the state she governs actually produces something—like some of the oil that powers the hair dryers and klieg lights at MSNBC.

Sounds like she might need to get over to the "I am Sarah Palin" store.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.

Pandora Internet Radio

I've recently started using and enjoying the Pandora internet radio service.

It allows you to pick an artist or group and it will create a radio station of similiar artists/groups. Then it allows you to give thumbs up or down for the additional groups to further sculpt the station to your tastes.

However, increased internet licensing fees are putting the station's fiscal viability into jeopardy. The widget below claims it can help us to help them.'

I honestly don't know what email is sent to where. But I used the other button to create this blog post. 8-{)>

Raed Tihs

Aoccdrnig to rsceearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. This is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

Thanks to Pihl Cokoe for the reminder.

My Five Factor Personality Profile

I'm not sure why I am sharing this. I took the time to take the quiz, I guess I'd just as well post the results.

Your Five Factor Personality Profile

Extroversion: You have low extroversion. You are quiet and reserved in most social situations. A low key, laid back lifestyle is important to you. You tend to bond slowly, over time, with one or two people. Conscientiousness: You have medium conscientiousness. You're generally good at balancing work and play. When you need to buckle down, you can usually get tasks done. But you've been known to goof off when you know you can get away with it. Agreeableness: You have medium agreeableness. You're generally a friendly and trusting person. But you also have a healthy dose of cynicism. You get along well with others, as long as they play fair. Neuroticism: You have low neuroticism. You are very emotionally stable and mentally together. Only the greatest setbacks upset you, and you bounce back quickly. Overall, you are typically calm and relaxed - making others feel secure. Openness to experience: Your openness to new experiences is low. You're a pretty conservative person, and you favor what's socially acceptable. You think that change for novelty's sake is a very bad idea. While some may see this as boring, many see you as dependable and wise.

The Five Factor Personality Test

US judge says University can ignore Christian course credits

I don't even know what to say.

US judge says University can ignore Christian course credits

According to the Reg:

A federal judge has told the University of California that when considering applicants, it has the constitutional right to ignore high school course work grounded in the notion that the Bible is infallible.

...

In a 20-page ruling (pdf) Judge Otero, of the Central District of California, says that UC could reject credits as long as it wasn't acting out of "animus" and it had "a rational basis" for those rejections. And he's quite sure the University met both criteria.

That's nice. He's "quite sure". How many rulings are based on this level of jurisprudence?

One high school course was rejected because its primary text, the Bob Jones University-published United States History for Christian Schools, "failed to adequately teach critical thinking and modern historical analytic methods."

That's also nice. Do they examine all classes from all high school transcripts that closely?

Also, I may have had a very mediocre history teacher in college, but High School U.S. History did not teach me anything about "critical thinking and modern historical analytic methods."

The plaintiffs have already appealed. "It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," said their attorney, Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom. ®

Let's hope they find some sanity up the court food chain. Of course, this is federal court in California. Next stop 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

No sanity there. Just as well whistle by that stop and go to the final stop with the Supremes.

Read the entire article.