Other than the colors being reversed from how we map electoral votes, the metaphor here is the scene where Morpheus offers Neo the red pill or blue pill. Republicans chose the blue pill and the return to the fake world, while the rest of us chose the red pill to deal with reality, even at the risk we wouldn't like it.

It seems what Shlaes is doing by missing the point of the movie and wishing for a superhero is the usual conservative wish for a powerful daddy to come and protect us. "Yes we can" doesn't mean "yes we can -- sit around and wait for someone else to save us". It means we're taking the red pill, dealing with life as it is, and fixing it ourselves. Contrary to the image conservatives have of the Obama-messiah left, we're not waiting for Obama to do anything.

Even the Feith interview is an example of how Stewart gets along with his guests, even ones he disagrees with. He takes apart their points while leaving them willing to come back on. Maybe not Feith, but John McCain and Bill Kristol have bee taken apart and keep going back. My prediction is the result of tonight's interview will be peace. Stewart just doesn't do shouting matches.

The scary thing is I'll know if I'm wrong or right in just a few hours. And anyone reading this will know too. Ugh.

It did seem stretching things to see the Zimbabwe reference as a racial attack. Sanford's point was that he thought the stimulus would cause inflation. The worst case of inflation in the world right now is Zimbabwe, which is pretty epic. It would be better to come back with the current concerns about deflation, which makes Sanford's comparison a very bad comparison. It's such a dreadful point economically, but jumping to the racial reference almost gives it credence. Now if there were better examples of inflation run amok than Zimbabwe, or if Sanford had said Obama's trying to make the US into an African country, I would entirely concede the racial undertone.

Besides, like other governors threatening to refuse part of the stimulus, they always pick unemployment compensation as the part they don't want. That sounds like a chance to demonstrate to the unemployed just who is on their side.

...it's crony-capitalism. The government seems not to really own AIG, or at least it and AIG management act like the government doesn't own it. This seems more like just giving public money to a private company. If that is what "socialism" meant, then the right would be right to fear it.

I understood that the bailouts were necessary to stop the financial industry from collapsing and taking the rest of the economy with it, but now I'm starting to wonder if the immediate pain would have been better. Perhaps it would have been better to let AIG and the big banks collapse, and rebuild a better banking system.

This bill of attainder argument makes sense only if the tax is so narrowly drawn as to apply only to AIG. Many banks took TARP or other bailout money, so applying the tax to all of them should avoid the bill of attainder problem.

By the way Alex, well explained.

The bill of attainder question is still open since they applied only to those taking over $5 billion. That excludes most TARP recipients. Why didn't they just make it apply to all recipients? And $250,000 seems awfully generous, not to mention the first thought I had was the recipients will split the bonuses into multiple $250,000 bonuses.

I don't see this as price controls. It seems like just attaching conditions less strenuous than what these execs would face if they applied for food stamps.

David Axelrod couldn't be more wrong. AIG is EXACTLY what people are talking about. The bonuses aren't a distraction, they're a symbol of how the people who screwed up the economy and are still in charge haven't learned and shouldn't be trusted.

I say spin off the financial products division as a separate company and take it's accounts unpayable with it, and let it go chapter 7. If that screws over the speculators who bought insurance on securities they didn't own or bought securities that were stupid investments, tough. At least the people who bought home insurance, life insurance etc. will still be covered.

The AIG bonus scandal isn't minor. It's symbolic. The people who committed massive fraud and engaged in extremely risky behavior that threatens to take down the whole economy are being rewarded instead of punished. Above all, the crooks are STILL IN CHARGE> That's what the AIG uproar is about. If anything, we need more outrage, not less. We need to replace the people in charge, not pay them insane amounts of money because supposedly we can't get by without their expertise. That attitude is what allowed them to get away with this for so long. Quite the contrary, these executives and traders should be regarded as unemployable in finance ever again.

Give Obama credit for clearly realizing the military isn't nearly enough. The Taliban has made gains because little gets better and the Taliban at least offers order. Crappy order, but sometimes people will take that. I took notice that Obama is adding resources to civilian agencies, and not just having the military do anything. This seems like a serious break from Bush policy.

This is an inside look at Afghanistan from a teacher building girls schools that's not exactly optimistic, but indicates some things are hopeful: http://imnotafraidinafghanistan.blogspot.com/

If I can revive a question from the debate over reimportation from drugs from Canada, are Canadians dropping dead from brain injuries that don't kill Americans?

Is every dead American an indictment of the American system?

NPR had a story on prison reform, consisting mostly of an interview with Webb, though they did follow it with a piece on prisoners left in solitary confinement for long periods of time. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102486450