>> ^dag:
I haven't watched it yet - but is it crack sluts?


No, that's the democrat answer for everything.

^ They do mention that that's the prevailing conventional wisdom being put forward in the papers.

The same papers that said Iraq was clearly a threat, and that still say Gaza had it coming.

I agree the issue of finding and vetting worthy infrastructure is hard, but they gave an example here where they stopped well short of fully funding what sounds pretty worthy to me (more buses), and is "shovel ready". If the reason the package isn't spending more on infrastructure is that they've run out of worthy programs to fund, why are they partially funding that one?

I think if you read between the lines in this, the point Rachel's making is that the composition of the bill is being shaped more by Obama's political desire to make an outreach to Republicans than it is based on actual analysis of what will work best.

I'm gonna help the people pushing for more infrastructure, though I'm curious how this will ultimately play out. I've got a feeling that Obama will listen to people like Defazio, and the final bill will come out quite a bit more progressive than it looks now.

DeFazio nailed it
"...maybe you don't want to hear the truth, but I do!"

Rep. Peter DeFazio asking why the goverment denies access to the 'detailed secret plan' for continuity of goverment in face of a disaster. The goverment says 'Trust us'.