Are they all bought, or what?

I don't know whether cry or puke. Take a look at the list of our fine elected representatives who voted YES on cloture today, supporting the systemic breach of our Fourth Amendment rights by telecoms:



Grouped By Vote Position (from the Senate's website)

YEAs --- 80 [also known as the chickensh*t fearmongers]
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs --- 15 [also known as "heroes"]
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 5 [only Byrd and Kennedy are excused due to illness; no excuse for the other, particularly Obama.]
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

I'm particularly upset and disappointed with the votes of the Senators from Michigan, and I'm further disgusted with their inability to tell constituents straight up what their positions were before this vote. I got the run around from both of their offices, with Stabenow's office "refusing to second-guess the Senator" and Levin's office coming damned close to misrepresenting Senator Levin's plan of action. Stabenow has already bought herself a likely primary due to her poor decision on the MCA vote; she's digging deeper when she should stop. And Levin? I don't know how to explain this at all; for a smart guy, this was a dumb move.

(It does beg the question whether Levin horsetraded his vote for at least one judicial appointment...)

But this was only a cloture vote, you might argue. Wrong. This is no different than the cloture vote in advance of Alito's approval before the Senate, or the cloture vote on the MCA. This is the real deal, in that they voted to limit debate to 30 hours and no more, so that the American public will hear little but posturing in that amount of time and no real arguments about the bill in order to stop it. With unlimited debate that filibustering would bring, there would be a chance to educate the public about this bill and encourage them to contact their Senators to demand a NAY vote.

But now there will be 15 hours or less of real discussion, depending on which Democratic Senators are able to speak, and 15 hours of whining, puling and excuses. There will be those on both sides of the aisle who'll complain that the bill is real progress, a bi-partisan compromise.

Hell no. The only compromise here is one of integrity. Far too many of the whiners will be those who've received a big financial boost from the well-lawyered and lobbyist-endowed telecoms guilty of violating our rights, being little more than corporate whores.

Democracy well and truly lost today, which brings me back to my original problem: do I cry or do I puke?

Micro-Hoo: Shotgun marriage avoided; if only the old man would shut up

Over the last several months I've been watching the push-pull of the Yahoo-Microsoft negotiations, and getting more and more angry with Carl Icahn for his stupid bullying of Yahoo for its reluctance to jump in bed willy-nilly with Microsoft.

I want to tell Icahn to his face, "Shut the hell up and walk away; you have NO clue what you are doing."

He wants a shotgun marriage of these two technology companies, thinking in some twisted way that being technology companies is enough to assure compatibility and a rational price. It's not, and the uppermost management at Yahoo know that. Were they to take the Microsoft offer instead of working for better terms, Yahoo would cease to exist -- and there would be no viable alternative to Google.

That might make little sense to outsiders who aren't familiar with tech industry; they are likely to point to the Yahoo-Google search deal that followed on the heels of Microsoft's exit from the bargaining table. If this is all about building a better competitor to Google, why not team up with the mega-player Microsoft?

Because it's about competing with Google -- on those technologies where Google is clearly not a leader.

Microsoft tipped its hand when a secondary offer for Yahoo business targeted its search technology only; Microsoft knows its search business, Microsoft Live, sucks. Yes, sucks. Let's be blunt about it; the traffic data for website I'm managing shows that Live only garners 3.5% of searches, with MSN search only 3%. Yahoo brings in 18% of traffic, and Google brings 74%, including nearly all of international search traffic. The meager remainder is spread across other search tools, which may or may not use Google's or Yahoo's search algorithms rebranded under a different label.

Microsoft wanted two things: search technology, and the existing market that Yahoo brings with it as a Google alternative and as an established brand. That's it. They didn't want much else, although they'd figure out how to wind it into its existing brands somehow, as it has other small acquisitions over time.

But Yahoo already knew that selling its search technology would result in the death of the rest of the brand; the IT industry hasn't kiddingly referred to Microsoft as "the Borg" for nothing. Was the death of the brand and the independent corporate culture of Yahoo worth it? They didn't think so.

Yahoo also realizes that its business model has changed, and that it does not have the competitive edge in search technology any longer. It's not the first time this has happened in the life of the internet; remember AltaVista? At one point it was the end-all, be-all of search engines. But when was the last time you used it? According to my site's traffic data, not any time in the recent past. Yahoo has been dealing with this truth and trying to deliver consistent improvements on its bottom line to shareholders, while trying to improve its position as a search engine. Unfortunately, Yahoo can't do both at the same time; it has to concentrate on what it does best to make money, and look towards investment in areas where it can be a leader and not a follower. It's recognized it doesn't have the best search technology, and that an amalgam of its search tools along with Google's search technology could be a win-win. It allows Yahoo to increase earnings through improved search results for users, while concentrating on the business components that users prefer about Yahoo over any other competitor.

In other words, Yahoo is returning to its roots as a portal -- which is what Google hasn't yet become.

This seems pretty transparent and obvious to me; many businesses take this tack in downturns, returning to their core competencies in order to concentrate on what they do best. Which makes me wonder why Icahn has his shirt in a knot, having one hissy fit after another about Yahoo's board rejecting Microsoft's offers.

Clearly, Icahn is looking at this only for the money, one bloodsucking leech who doesn't grok Yahoo's situation. And clearly Icahn could give a rat's behind about Microsoft except as a source of cash that Icahn wants his hands on, not as a long-term investment.

Because if Icahn were really in touch with reality, he'd see that Yahoo also doesn't want to hitch its struggling star to a business whose model is in its death throes. Microsoft is failing at its efforts to become an internet company, as its Live search shows. Its management is struggling with moving from the desktop to the cloud, even though it owns a big chunk of technology all along the transition from desk to server. They've now spent years -- millions, maybe billions -- on this effort, and they've also realized it may be cheaper to simply buy what it needs and retrofit than to continue to build from scratch. Microsoft as a culture has always been better at subsuming than the build from scratch; Windows and Vista offer examples, with Windows based upon previous efforts of other entities like Apple, and Vista being homegrown. (Vista has been a failure in the marketplace, resulting in Microsoft's extension of Windows XP's sales and service lifespan.)

Again, Icahn either doesn't understand this, or refuses to do so, or maybe a bit of both.

In any case, Icahn is bad news for both Yahoo and Microsoft. Can you think of any shotgun marriage that was truly happy and successful for both the bride and groom?

Me neither.

Death by politics

Cheney to stump for Walberg in Marshall | Battle Creek Enquirer
This is the definition of desperate: asking the most unpopular person in America next to George Bush to help raise money for you...or it's the definition of political homicide, assuming everybody but Walberg knows how toxic DeadEye Dick is, and they're taking full advantage of that toxin.


Desperate Times: Clinton Says Her People Didn't Make Plagiarism Charge Against Obama

“Our buddy in the ugly sweater will show up on your show and try to make this and other things an issue.”

And yes, this might be snark, but it's another good example of political death. Suicide, in this case -- death by ugly sweater. Might even be an attempted mass murder.

We'll see how exclusive that club really is come November

From a Lenawee Daily Telegram article:

Levin is being challenged for re-election by state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk, R-Kalamazoo, who on Friday said he would challenge Levin's record on defense, spending and immigration issues and accused Levin of being "a life member in one of the most exclusive clubs in the world."

Hoogendyk thinks so highly of that club that he wants a cut of the action.

But will the folks who select the club's members agree he's membership material?

That queasy feeling

When Gingrich calls for a re-vote, I feel sick to my stomach.

Michigan's primary was a total abortion of democracy; I know "Uncommitted" was not the candidate of my choice, and yet I felt compelled to vote for "Uncommitted". I'd really rather have a crack at doing it the right way; I'd like all folks like me who couldn't vote for Obama or Edwards to be able to do so.

But when New Gingrich agrees that our primary was so jacked up that it needs a re-vote, I have to wonder what the hell is wrong with enfranchising the voters of this state -- because Gingrich surely does not have my interests or the interests of any "Uncommitted" voters in mind.

Nothing runs like a Deere

Police: Man Drunk Drove Mower to buy Wine

I think we could set up a tag,"cabin fever", just for these kinds of stories.

The image of a man driving away on a lawn tractor conjures up sweet and sentimental images of Richard Farnsworth in his last feature flick, The Straight Story -- but if you're not a Mitten Stater, you are missing what kind of full-on freaky drunkenness it takes to hop a mower-decked John Deere to drive to the party store in sub-zero wind chill and blowing snow.

Obviously the man was out of his head drunk; he could have gotten away with this if he'd been sober enough to slap on a plow blade or a snow blower attachment to the front end before going on his little jaunt.

NYT: have they gone begging?

Is it just me, or does this look like somebody is begging through a proxy for a bail-out?

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/01/might_google_buy_the_new_york.html

I've been following Google for years because of my consulting work; I've not run into anything recently that suggests firm interest by Google into the acquisition of any news organization, because news is not their core competency. That's why this piece comes across as an initial plea for help, a kind of cold call on deep pockets.

The other funny bit is that the plea is made by a conservative writer, John Ellis. He writes for RealClearPolitics; this piece in RealClearMarkets is his first for this sister outlet. He doesn't mention in this piece that NYT has picked up some of RCP's content. Is he worried that there will be one smaller or one fewer news outlet picking up his own work? NYT is already one of Google's content partners; why buy NYT rather than any of the other partners, assuming Google shifted its business model and moved to content production?

The timing is also shaky; Google will be participating in an auction of the 700Mhz spectrum next week. This is the bandwidth over which television is now broadcast and will be vacated in 2009. Is floating this bit NOW an attempt to ask Google to rethink its capital outlays in advance of the auction?

The whole thing smells off; Google is not known as a conservative company, tending to be more agnostic about platforms whether software or ideology. It's also been under fire from Republicans what is alleged to be indifference to consumer privacy (yes, isn't that rich, considering which party brought you domestic spying in the last 7 years). Why Google?

The last little bit that suggests there might actually be something to this weird little cry-for-help via proxy is in the fallout after NYT signed Bill Kristol as their neo-conservative on the op-ed board. The feedback from NYT readers and bloggers alike has been tense; Kristol has done little to change their opinions, either, in his short tenure. Gabriel Sherman, contributing as guest at The New Republic, closed his assessment of Kristol's hiring and his work to date, saying,

Ultimately, Sulzberger's selection of Kristol has left many at the Times uninspired by his leadership. "Right now, in terms of the economic anxieties of the newspaper business in general, and the Times in particular, there's a concern that we should be doing things that are exciting and thinking about tomorrow's readers," one senior Times staffer said. "Kristol is a long, long, long established voice. There's no surprise or resourcefulness of enterprise in the choice."

Um, yeah...is Sulzberger so desperate for an infusion of fresh and radical thinking at NYT that he's hoping a fresh and radical company like Google will buy him out?

I doubt it; any guy who thinks Kristol was an improvement to NYT's brand that would bring in dynamic readers and attract savvy young contributors is too clueless by half.