Sunday, February 28, 2010
Pic of the day
Has there ever been a more perfect shoulder-fired weapon than the M14 rifle?
(That's a U.S. Army sniper on patrol in Afghanistan.)
(That's a U.S. Army sniper on patrol in Afghanistan.)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
How the mighty have fallen
This is priceless, er, worth two bucks ...
Just got back from Big Lots while making my weekly Arugula and Wagu Beef run and they had a big stack of handsomely boxed limited run Obama commemorative plates for $2. They used to sell for $20+S&H on TV. Oh how the mighty have fallen. Even though they were placed on an endcap at the front of the store, it didn't look like they were moving.
Anyone want to wager this rather embarrassing remaindered stock vanishes very quickly due to an "anonymous" bulk buy?
If the price of Obama commemorative plates falls to a buck-a-piece, I won't have to buy any clay skeets this year!
Just got back from Big Lots while making my weekly Arugula and Wagu Beef run and they had a big stack of handsomely boxed limited run Obama commemorative plates for $2. They used to sell for $20+S&H on TV. Oh how the mighty have fallen. Even though they were placed on an endcap at the front of the store, it didn't look like they were moving.
Anyone want to wager this rather embarrassing remaindered stock vanishes very quickly due to an "anonymous" bulk buy?
If the price of Obama commemorative plates falls to a buck-a-piece, I won't have to buy any clay skeets this year!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, February 27, 2010
When I'm right, I'm right (no pun intended)
I told you ...
After careful consideration and consultation with my family, I have decided that I will no longer be a candidate for Governor of Tennessee.
Senator Jim Kyle, 26 February 2010
After careful consideration and consultation with my family, I have decided that I will no longer be a candidate for Governor of Tennessee.
Senator Jim Kyle, 26 February 2010
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, February 27, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
So there
Over on my food blog, an anonymous jackass took issue with my post calling reconciliation an "obscure" Senate rule. Mr. Jackass also stated that because President George W. Bush used reconciliation to enact tax-cuts in 2003, well, it's a-okay to use reconciliation to pass ObamaCare, too. In response, I said:
You don't have to be a PhD in political science - and you obviously never even took political science 101 - to know that reconciliation is a device used for BUDGETARY legislation (and just so you know, tax-cuts, or tax-increases for that matter, are BUDGETARY matters). Never in the history of the Republic has reconciliation been used to pass sweeping social legislation.
Today's Wall Street Journal features an op-ed by former Senator Bill Frist, who, as a former Senate Marjority Leader, knows a thing or two about the rules of the U.S. Senate. Not only does Frist call reconciliation an "arcane" Senate rule, he also says that reconciliation has never been used "to adopt major, substantive policy change."
So there.
You can read Frist's op-ed here. A cogent passage:
Applying the reconciliation process is dangerous because it would likely destroy its true purpose, which is to help enact fiscal policy consistent with an agreed-upon congressional budget blueprint. Worse, using reconciliation to amend a bill before it has become law in order to avoid the normal House and Senate conference procedure is a total affront to the legislative process.
Finally, enacting sweeping health-care reform through reconciliation is a mistake because of rapidly diminishing public support for the strictly partisan Senate and House health bills. The American people disdain the backroom deals that have been cut with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, the unions, the public display of the "cornhusker kickback," etc. The public will likely—and in my opinion, rightly—rebel against the use of a procedural tactic to lower the standard threshold for passage because of a lack of sufficient support in the Senate.
You don't have to be a PhD in political science - and you obviously never even took political science 101 - to know that reconciliation is a device used for BUDGETARY legislation (and just so you know, tax-cuts, or tax-increases for that matter, are BUDGETARY matters). Never in the history of the Republic has reconciliation been used to pass sweeping social legislation.
Today's Wall Street Journal features an op-ed by former Senator Bill Frist, who, as a former Senate Marjority Leader, knows a thing or two about the rules of the U.S. Senate. Not only does Frist call reconciliation an "arcane" Senate rule, he also says that reconciliation has never been used "to adopt major, substantive policy change."
So there.
You can read Frist's op-ed here. A cogent passage:
Applying the reconciliation process is dangerous because it would likely destroy its true purpose, which is to help enact fiscal policy consistent with an agreed-upon congressional budget blueprint. Worse, using reconciliation to amend a bill before it has become law in order to avoid the normal House and Senate conference procedure is a total affront to the legislative process.
Finally, enacting sweeping health-care reform through reconciliation is a mistake because of rapidly diminishing public support for the strictly partisan Senate and House health bills. The American people disdain the backroom deals that have been cut with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, the unions, the public display of the "cornhusker kickback," etc. The public will likely—and in my opinion, rightly—rebel against the use of a procedural tactic to lower the standard threshold for passage because of a lack of sufficient support in the Senate.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Campaigner-in-Chief
For the record, I'm not surprised by the result of this poll:
The consensus among American voters is Barack Obama is better at campaigning for the job than at doing the job, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday. In addition, half of voters say the Obama administration doesn’t "get it."
As the president’s approval rating remains in the high forties, the poll finds that voters by a wide 62 to 17 percent margin think Obama is better at campaigning than at governing.
The consensus among American voters is Barack Obama is better at campaigning for the job than at doing the job, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday. In addition, half of voters say the Obama administration doesn’t "get it."
As the president’s approval rating remains in the high forties, the poll finds that voters by a wide 62 to 17 percent margin think Obama is better at campaigning than at governing.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, February 25, 2010
Pic of the day
Bill Haslam and B. Hussein Obama? I'll let you draw your own conclusions ...
(Pic courtesy of Mr. Mordecai)
(Pic courtesy of Mr. Mordecai)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Ree-diculous
If you think President B. Hussein Obama's health care summit tomorrow is going result in any sincere compromises with the GOP, I've a 2-mile stretch of sandy beach in Kansas I'll sell you, dirt cheap.
When Obama's goose-steppers in the U.S. Senate announced earlier this week that they're gonna use an obscure rule (i.e., "reconciliation") to do an end-run 'round the will of the American people and pass ObamaCare, they let the cat outta the bag that they're not interested in anything the Republicans could or will say tomorrow. Thus, tomorrow's confab will be nothing but poltical theater; and if Republicans were smart, they'd refuse to show up ... or walk out saying they have no intention of taking part in the ridiculous charade.
When Obama's goose-steppers in the U.S. Senate announced earlier this week that they're gonna use an obscure rule (i.e., "reconciliation") to do an end-run 'round the will of the American people and pass ObamaCare, they let the cat outta the bag that they're not interested in anything the Republicans could or will say tomorrow. Thus, tomorrow's confab will be nothing but poltical theater; and if Republicans were smart, they'd refuse to show up ... or walk out saying they have no intention of taking part in the ridiculous charade.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, February 24, 2010
You gotta love her!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
What is it about "illegal" that so many folks don't understand?
Are you still asking yourself whether or not its a good idea to grant illegal immigrants amnesty? If you are, you ain't gonna be after reading this ...
Let me tell you exactly why illegal immigrants shouldn't be given American citizenship.
1) It will only encourage more illegal immigrants to come here. We've already had a "one time only" amnesty deal for illegals. It occurred during the Reagan Administration and the idea was supposed to be that we'd allow the illegals who were here to become citizens and we'd simultaneously beef up security to try to keep the problem from occurring again. Well, guess what? That very bipartisan sounding compromise didn't work. To the contrary, it failed miserably. So why in the world would anyone who actually wants to stop illegal immigration want to try something that has already been proven to be counterproductive? We have far more illegals in America today than we did when the "one time" amnesty went through. Do we want 20 million illegals here when the next amnesty goes through? 30 million? Are we going to be accused of racism if we say the next huge wave of illegals shouldn't be given citizenship either? Where does it end?
2) Illegal aliens take jobs from American citizens. The economy stinks. American citizens are out of work. People are going out every day looking for jobs to support their family and they're coming home empty handed. Meanwhile, there are illegal aliens in this country holding jobs that American citizens would otherwise have. "Oh, but those are jobs Americans won't do!" There's no such thing. There's no job in this country that couldn't be filled if every illegal disappeared tomorrow -- but, here's the catch: the crooked business owners who are knowingly hiring the illegals might have to pay what the job is worth instead of hiring people who let everyone else pay their health care, pay their car insurance, and pay their share of the taxes.
3) We're importing poverty. It's no secret that the majority of illegals are uneducated manual laborers. In fact, that's supposed to be one of their selling points, isn't it? Don't advocates of amnesty say we need illegals to do the dirty, hard, manual labor that "Americans won't do?" But even if that were true, which it’s not, people with very limited skills often turn into liabilities for a society as they age. There aren't a lot of people picking oranges and scrubbing floors at fifty years old. In other words, in order to help crooked business owners get cheap labor today, the rest of society has to be burdened with people who are going to cost society far more than they ever pay in taxes. Are American taxpayers so unburdened that we want to actually bring in even more people to carry on their backs?
4) It rewards bad behavior. It's against the law to enter this country illegally. It's against the law to buy fake documents or steal someone's social security number. It's against the law not to pay your taxes. So after all of that, we're going to give people citizenship? What message does that send to all the immigrants filling out reams of paperwork, paying out significant chunks of their paychecks, and waiting for years in their home countries to finally achieve their dream of becoming an American citizen? Here's the message it sends: You're a chump! This is something you don't normally have to say to people north of five years old, but it's not smart to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior.
5) It cheapens and demeans our country. Is this Cuba? Is this Afghanistan? Is this Rwanda? Are we such a garbage dump of a nation that we have to desperately give citizenship to anybody and everybody we can find? Newsflash: This is the greatest nation God has seen fit to raise up in the history of mankind. We can not only have the cream of the crop from other nations; we can ask them to wait in line, obey our laws, and prove themselves -- and the ones worth having will do it because this is the place people all over the world dream of coming one day. American citizenship is a precious thing and it shouldn't be given to people whose first act upon American soil was to violate our laws.
Let me tell you exactly why illegal immigrants shouldn't be given American citizenship.
1) It will only encourage more illegal immigrants to come here. We've already had a "one time only" amnesty deal for illegals. It occurred during the Reagan Administration and the idea was supposed to be that we'd allow the illegals who were here to become citizens and we'd simultaneously beef up security to try to keep the problem from occurring again. Well, guess what? That very bipartisan sounding compromise didn't work. To the contrary, it failed miserably. So why in the world would anyone who actually wants to stop illegal immigration want to try something that has already been proven to be counterproductive? We have far more illegals in America today than we did when the "one time" amnesty went through. Do we want 20 million illegals here when the next amnesty goes through? 30 million? Are we going to be accused of racism if we say the next huge wave of illegals shouldn't be given citizenship either? Where does it end?
2) Illegal aliens take jobs from American citizens. The economy stinks. American citizens are out of work. People are going out every day looking for jobs to support their family and they're coming home empty handed. Meanwhile, there are illegal aliens in this country holding jobs that American citizens would otherwise have. "Oh, but those are jobs Americans won't do!" There's no such thing. There's no job in this country that couldn't be filled if every illegal disappeared tomorrow -- but, here's the catch: the crooked business owners who are knowingly hiring the illegals might have to pay what the job is worth instead of hiring people who let everyone else pay their health care, pay their car insurance, and pay their share of the taxes.
3) We're importing poverty. It's no secret that the majority of illegals are uneducated manual laborers. In fact, that's supposed to be one of their selling points, isn't it? Don't advocates of amnesty say we need illegals to do the dirty, hard, manual labor that "Americans won't do?" But even if that were true, which it’s not, people with very limited skills often turn into liabilities for a society as they age. There aren't a lot of people picking oranges and scrubbing floors at fifty years old. In other words, in order to help crooked business owners get cheap labor today, the rest of society has to be burdened with people who are going to cost society far more than they ever pay in taxes. Are American taxpayers so unburdened that we want to actually bring in even more people to carry on their backs?
4) It rewards bad behavior. It's against the law to enter this country illegally. It's against the law to buy fake documents or steal someone's social security number. It's against the law not to pay your taxes. So after all of that, we're going to give people citizenship? What message does that send to all the immigrants filling out reams of paperwork, paying out significant chunks of their paychecks, and waiting for years in their home countries to finally achieve their dream of becoming an American citizen? Here's the message it sends: You're a chump! This is something you don't normally have to say to people north of five years old, but it's not smart to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior.
5) It cheapens and demeans our country. Is this Cuba? Is this Afghanistan? Is this Rwanda? Are we such a garbage dump of a nation that we have to desperately give citizenship to anybody and everybody we can find? Newsflash: This is the greatest nation God has seen fit to raise up in the history of mankind. We can not only have the cream of the crop from other nations; we can ask them to wait in line, obey our laws, and prove themselves -- and the ones worth having will do it because this is the place people all over the world dream of coming one day. American citizenship is a precious thing and it shouldn't be given to people whose first act upon American soil was to violate our laws.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Dance the [crackpot] Night Away
Five Senate Republicans who should know fuckin' better have signed onto Harry Reid's "jobs" bill ...
Too bad Reid and the Dems and the turn-coat GOPers didn't pay heed to something I wrote back in 2003 -- the specific details are dated; the overall theme is seven-years-later true:
In the months leading up to the 1936 elections, Franklin Roosevelt and his Democratic allies in Congrss enacted new spending programs to create an artificial inflationary spurt in the economy. FDR was re-elected in a landslide; however, his left-wing economic plan pushed the U.S. into a painful recession in 1937-38. In his masterwork, The Roosevelt Myth, John T. Flynn dubs the machinations of Roosevelt and his cronies as "the dance of the crackpots."
We're now witnessing a new dance of the crackpots. The ten Democrats currently running for president have been offering increasingly silly and outdated proposals to scrap President Bush's tax-cuts and enact policies to "stimulate demand." These ideas are basically warmed-over Keynesian claptrap that FDR's crackpots offered up sixty-five years ago. Unlike the present-day Keynesians in the Democratic Party, Roosevelt's crackpots had the excuse that most of their schemes had yet to be proven false.
Contrary to the crackpot theories of the neo-Keynesians, slow economic growth does not signify "too much supply and not enough demand." It signifies a mismatch between what companies are producing and what customers want. I'm sure there was excess supply in the candle industry when electric lighting became readily available. The answer to excess capacity in candle manufacturing was not for the government to stimulate demand for candles. It was to allow industry to make needed investments in the industries that were replacing wax and wick.
In times of recession, the government should focus its fiscal policy on removing barriers to investment. That's precisely what President Bush said when he offered a bold measure to reduce taxation. Bush's plan to eliminate the double-taxation of corporate dividends and his slashing of marginal tax rates was a good start. (GDP has been growing faster than expected.) However, accelerating depreciation schedules and slashing marginal tax rates on capital gains would help even more.
So THERE.
Too bad Reid and the Dems and the turn-coat GOPers didn't pay heed to something I wrote back in 2003 -- the specific details are dated; the overall theme is seven-years-later true:
In the months leading up to the 1936 elections, Franklin Roosevelt and his Democratic allies in Congrss enacted new spending programs to create an artificial inflationary spurt in the economy. FDR was re-elected in a landslide; however, his left-wing economic plan pushed the U.S. into a painful recession in 1937-38. In his masterwork, The Roosevelt Myth, John T. Flynn dubs the machinations of Roosevelt and his cronies as "the dance of the crackpots."
We're now witnessing a new dance of the crackpots. The ten Democrats currently running for president have been offering increasingly silly and outdated proposals to scrap President Bush's tax-cuts and enact policies to "stimulate demand." These ideas are basically warmed-over Keynesian claptrap that FDR's crackpots offered up sixty-five years ago. Unlike the present-day Keynesians in the Democratic Party, Roosevelt's crackpots had the excuse that most of their schemes had yet to be proven false.
Contrary to the crackpot theories of the neo-Keynesians, slow economic growth does not signify "too much supply and not enough demand." It signifies a mismatch between what companies are producing and what customers want. I'm sure there was excess supply in the candle industry when electric lighting became readily available. The answer to excess capacity in candle manufacturing was not for the government to stimulate demand for candles. It was to allow industry to make needed investments in the industries that were replacing wax and wick.
In times of recession, the government should focus its fiscal policy on removing barriers to investment. That's precisely what President Bush said when he offered a bold measure to reduce taxation. Bush's plan to eliminate the double-taxation of corporate dividends and his slashing of marginal tax rates was a good start. (GDP has been growing faster than expected.) However, accelerating depreciation schedules and slashing marginal tax rates on capital gains would help even more.
So THERE.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Pic of the day
The Cumberland River ... as seen from a friend's Donelson back yard:
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, February 21, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Le Tigre stupide
Did you see Tiger Woods' "I'm sorry" speech? If so, was that not one of the most surreal f'ing things you've ever seen?
What was up with the stage and the staged-speech? I kept waiting for Tiger to say, "I hereby announce my candidacy for ...," or "I choose not to run for ..."!
As far as mea culpas go, Tiger's was deliberately insincere to the point of being a parody of insincere mea culpas. Oh, sure, he got all "I'm sorry"; but then he had to go on a George Clooney-esque tirade 'bout paparazzos, and that's where he lost me. Indeed, at that point his little presser became more woe-is-me than woe-is-what-I've-done, and, well, let's just say that I don't respect that, none.
Tiger could've sat down for a weepy sit-down with Katie Couric or some other idiot talking head. Just a hunch, but I'll bet this is the course o' action that his PR flaks advised him to take. Good for him for ignoring such shitty advise, but then he went and got all sorry-on-a-stage on us.
I'm of the opinion that Tiger should've released a 10-page "I'm sorry" manifesto in an attempt to leave his tom-cattin' at that; and then when he was asked about his past misdeeds, he could've said, "I've said all I'm gonna say."
When Tiger does come back -- and he's gonna come back at some point -- he may be able to dismiss questions 'bout his past misdeeds, but he's going to face additional questions about the ridiculous way in which he addressed said misdeeds ... and dismissin' ain't gonna be so easy in that respect.
What was up with the stage and the staged-speech? I kept waiting for Tiger to say, "I hereby announce my candidacy for ...," or "I choose not to run for ..."!
As far as mea culpas go, Tiger's was deliberately insincere to the point of being a parody of insincere mea culpas. Oh, sure, he got all "I'm sorry"; but then he had to go on a George Clooney-esque tirade 'bout paparazzos, and that's where he lost me. Indeed, at that point his little presser became more woe-is-me than woe-is-what-I've-done, and, well, let's just say that I don't respect that, none.
Tiger could've sat down for a weepy sit-down with Katie Couric or some other idiot talking head. Just a hunch, but I'll bet this is the course o' action that his PR flaks advised him to take. Good for him for ignoring such shitty advise, but then he went and got all sorry-on-a-stage on us.
I'm of the opinion that Tiger should've released a 10-page "I'm sorry" manifesto in an attempt to leave his tom-cattin' at that; and then when he was asked about his past misdeeds, he could've said, "I've said all I'm gonna say."
When Tiger does come back -- and he's gonna come back at some point -- he may be able to dismiss questions 'bout his past misdeeds, but he's going to face additional questions about the ridiculous way in which he addressed said misdeeds ... and dismissin' ain't gonna be so easy in that respect.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, February 20, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Stimulate this!
Makes you wanna go "Hmmm"
You can divine a lot 'bout a feller or gal from the books he or she keeps on his or her bookshelf. Check out this pic from the Michelle Obama-stocked White House library (click for larger view):
'Tis a thing that makes you wanna go "Hmmm," n'est-ce pas?!
(HT: SayAnyThingBlog.com)
'Tis a thing that makes you wanna go "Hmmm," n'est-ce pas?!
(HT: SayAnyThingBlog.com)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Hmmm ...
I just got back from this:
Unfortunately, DA Gibbons is on the wrong side of a right idea ...
Bill Gibbons, the Shelby County District Attorney General, is the only Republican candidate for governor who opposes legislation that would allow guns in bars and restaurants. ... To the question of where he stands on legislation to allow gun permit holders to carry guns into bars and restaurants – Gibbons’ response was right to the point – "[it’s] simply a bad idea."
... thus, as much as I like him, I cannot give 'im my endorsement at this time, which I dutifully told him ce soir.
Unfortunately, DA Gibbons is on the wrong side of a right idea ...
Bill Gibbons, the Shelby County District Attorney General, is the only Republican candidate for governor who opposes legislation that would allow guns in bars and restaurants. ... To the question of where he stands on legislation to allow gun permit holders to carry guns into bars and restaurants – Gibbons’ response was right to the point – "[it’s] simply a bad idea."
... thus, as much as I like him, I cannot give 'im my endorsement at this time, which I dutifully told him ce soir.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, February 18, 2010
J'attendrai ...
Today's Wall Street Journal has a great article 'bout my namesake, Django Reinhardt. To wit:
Reinhardt, who died tragically young in 1953 at the age of 43, was both the greatest jazz guitarist and the most significant international jazzman. He proved that non-Americans could contribute to the tradition. And he fused it with the rich heritage of Gypsy music, creating a style, "jazz manouche," that in recent decades has continued to grow in world-wide popularity.
Read the rest here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, February 18, 2010
Pic of the day
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
What an idiot
Every once in a while you hear a bureaucrat say something so incredibly stupid that you wonder why anyone in his or her right mind would argue that we need more gov'ment bureaucrats running more things.
Late last year, Dave Thornton was installed to serve as acting director of California's boxing commission. In a recent interview with The Ring magazine, Thornton stated that the individual who fills his position on a permanent basis doesn't necessarily need to know a lot about boxing. As if that statement wasn't stupid enough, Thornton said at a commission meeting that a boxer's hands should be wrapped with 30 yards of gauze and 30 feet of tape before a fight.
Now, you don't have to be a professional boxer to know that an individual who had 30 yards of gauze and 30 feet of tape wrapped 'round his hands would have fists the size of basketballs ... before he ever tried to lace up his gloves.
For the record, Dave Thornton is an idiot.
Late last year, Dave Thornton was installed to serve as acting director of California's boxing commission. In a recent interview with The Ring magazine, Thornton stated that the individual who fills his position on a permanent basis doesn't necessarily need to know a lot about boxing. As if that statement wasn't stupid enough, Thornton said at a commission meeting that a boxer's hands should be wrapped with 30 yards of gauze and 30 feet of tape before a fight.
Now, you don't have to be a professional boxer to know that an individual who had 30 yards of gauze and 30 feet of tape wrapped 'round his hands would have fists the size of basketballs ... before he ever tried to lace up his gloves.
For the record, Dave Thornton is an idiot.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, February 17, 2010
52 percent of Americans can't be wrong
Back in January 2008, I said this about one B. Hussein Obama:
Obama could very well be the next president of the United States. He'll no doubt enjoy a six or eight-month honeymoon period; however, it won't take long for him demonstrate that he's in over his head. The presidency ain't the place for on-the-job training. I fear that when Americans figure that one out, it'll be too late. Way too late.
I couldn't help but think about that self-penned gem when I saw this story today:
52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.
44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.
Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.
Obama could very well be the next president of the United States. He'll no doubt enjoy a six or eight-month honeymoon period; however, it won't take long for him demonstrate that he's in over his head. The presidency ain't the place for on-the-job training. I fear that when Americans figure that one out, it'll be too late. Way too late.
I couldn't help but think about that self-penned gem when I saw this story today:
52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.
44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.
Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Snowpocalypse
Check out this time lapse video of snow accumulating in DC during this year's blizzard:
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
"Heavy metal jazz"
I was watchin' an Ovation TV doc about John Coltraine ce soir and one of the sax-man's former producers called his music "heavy metal jazz."
I couldn't agree more. To wit:
I couldn't agree more. To wit:
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, February 15, 2010
No wonder Al Gore's in the global-warming witness protection program
Paging The Tennessean's editorial board ...
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
Read the rest here.
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
Read the rest here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, February 15, 2010
Le déluge n'est pas fini!
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh - he of the $13 million war chest - has dropped outta the 2010 election.
Officially, Bayh says "partisanship" in Congress has impeded "progress" and that's soured him on servin' the public; thus, he's not running for re-election.
Question: Democrats have enjoyed a super-majority in the U.S. House and Senate for the past year, so how in the hell has partisanship stalled any f-ing progressive thing on the Democrats' agenda?!
That said - and I'm putting on my well-seasoned political apron when I say this - Bayh's internal polls must be pretty ugly for him to drop out when he has 13 million big-ones in the bank. Indeed.
The political death-watch now turns to Arkansas and Nevada. If the "centrist" 'n' "popular" 'n' well-funded Evan Bayh determined that he can't win this November, what're the chances that Blanhe Lincoln and Harry Reid will still be U.S. Senators next January?
Answer: Not good.
Officially, Bayh says "partisanship" in Congress has impeded "progress" and that's soured him on servin' the public; thus, he's not running for re-election.
Question: Democrats have enjoyed a super-majority in the U.S. House and Senate for the past year, so how in the hell has partisanship stalled any f-ing progressive thing on the Democrats' agenda?!
That said - and I'm putting on my well-seasoned political apron when I say this - Bayh's internal polls must be pretty ugly for him to drop out when he has 13 million big-ones in the bank. Indeed.
The political death-watch now turns to Arkansas and Nevada. If the "centrist" 'n' "popular" 'n' well-funded Evan Bayh determined that he can't win this November, what're the chances that Blanhe Lincoln and Harry Reid will still be U.S. Senators next January?
Answer: Not good.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, February 15, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
"Now, THAT says ..."
Just in time for Valentine's Day, Spinner.com is promoting its list o' the Top 10 'Love Sucks' Music Videos.
Just so you know, Spinner.com's love-sucks list, well, sucks.
Indeed, what the hell is a Gnarls Barkley, and what the hell does a Ga-narls-Barkley know about anything ...?!
If you want to hear the pain of separation put to music -- put to actual/non-rap-crap music -- listen to Veruca Salt's Resolver ...
This couldn't get any better
She didn't get it, so fuck her
I'll never be any saner
'Cause I'm a born entertainer.
Now, THAT says Love Sucks!!!
Just so you know, Spinner.com's love-sucks list, well, sucks.
Indeed, what the hell is a Gnarls Barkley, and what the hell does a Ga-narls-Barkley know about anything ...?!
If you want to hear the pain of separation put to music -- put to actual/non-rap-crap music -- listen to Veruca Salt's Resolver ...
This couldn't get any better
She didn't get it, so fuck her
I'll never be any saner
'Cause I'm a born entertainer.
Now, THAT says Love Sucks!!!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, February 14, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
What's in a name (redux)
I don't listen to Glenn Beck's radio program very often. I can only "take" Mr. Beck in small doses, if you will, and that's just what I did yesterday during a semi-important road trip to the Tennessee-Alabama border.
Mr. Beck said he didn't understand why so many conservatives choose to refer to President Barrack Hussein Obama as President "Barrack Hussein Obama." Beck said, and I quote, "It's silly."
I broached the "Barack Hussein" subject way back in February 2008, and I'm all too happy to re-post what I said. To wit:
During the 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns, liberals couldn't resist using George Bush's middle names at any and every turn. Calling him George Herbert Walker Bush made the Vice President/President appear patrician and, thus, less understanding of the needs and concerns of the workin' man. We conservatives took this name-calling - accurate name-calling to be sure - all in stride. That's politics, we said.
Fast forward to 2008 ...
A growing number of liberals have their panties in a twist 'cause conservative radio hosts and a small number of Republican political operatives have started referring to U.S. Senator Barack Obama by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. That's bigotry, they say.
There are two facts that the using-"Hussein"-when-referring-to-Obama-is-racist folks have conveniently ignored: First, that former-President Bill Clinton, a fellow liberal who's never exhibited any racist tendencies, was the first person to regularly use the H-word, if you will, when referring to Senator Obama; and second, that St. Obama himself was the first person to highlight the ethnic portions of his name for political purposes.
For years B. Hussein Obama was known to family, friends and colleagues as "Barry." When he began his political career, however, Obama realized that the über-ethnic "Barack" would impress left-wing money-givers and voters more than a white bread name like "Barry" (pun absolutely intended). His ethnic name game obviously worked; indeed, he went from the Illinois State Senate to presidential front-runner in 36 short months.
I've taken to referring to Senator Obama as "B. Hussein" 'cause, to tell the truth, it gets under liberals' skin like a two-inch syringe. If liberals have a problem with conservatives using the man's honest-to-God middle name, perhaps they should try to convince their flavor-of-the month candidate to go back to bein' plain ol' "Barry." It'd make liberals and B. Hussein, er, Barry seem a tad less hypocritical.
Now, tell me that's "silly," Mr. Beck.
Mr. Beck said he didn't understand why so many conservatives choose to refer to President Barrack Hussein Obama as President "Barrack Hussein Obama." Beck said, and I quote, "It's silly."
I broached the "Barack Hussein" subject way back in February 2008, and I'm all too happy to re-post what I said. To wit:
During the 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns, liberals couldn't resist using George Bush's middle names at any and every turn. Calling him George Herbert Walker Bush made the Vice President/President appear patrician and, thus, less understanding of the needs and concerns of the workin' man. We conservatives took this name-calling - accurate name-calling to be sure - all in stride. That's politics, we said.
Fast forward to 2008 ...
A growing number of liberals have their panties in a twist 'cause conservative radio hosts and a small number of Republican political operatives have started referring to U.S. Senator Barack Obama by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. That's bigotry, they say.
There are two facts that the using-"Hussein"-when-referring-to-Obama-is-racist folks have conveniently ignored: First, that former-President Bill Clinton, a fellow liberal who's never exhibited any racist tendencies, was the first person to regularly use the H-word, if you will, when referring to Senator Obama; and second, that St. Obama himself was the first person to highlight the ethnic portions of his name for political purposes.
For years B. Hussein Obama was known to family, friends and colleagues as "Barry." When he began his political career, however, Obama realized that the über-ethnic "Barack" would impress left-wing money-givers and voters more than a white bread name like "Barry" (pun absolutely intended). His ethnic name game obviously worked; indeed, he went from the Illinois State Senate to presidential front-runner in 36 short months.
I've taken to referring to Senator Obama as "B. Hussein" 'cause, to tell the truth, it gets under liberals' skin like a two-inch syringe. If liberals have a problem with conservatives using the man's honest-to-God middle name, perhaps they should try to convince their flavor-of-the month candidate to go back to bein' plain ol' "Barry." It'd make liberals and B. Hussein, er, Barry seem a tad less hypocritical.
Now, tell me that's "silly," Mr. Beck.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Re: Mikey McWherter (that's what I'm gonna call him from here on out)
Unless something drastic happens between now and August, Mike McWherter will be the Dem candidate for governor in Tennessee.
What're Mike McWherter's qualifications? Well, he really only has one ... his daddy once lived large, literally and figuratively, in the Executive Residence.
That said, I got an e-mail from one Mike McWherter today, in which he said this:
I participated in two ... gubernatorial forums – one before business leaders and the other before newspaper publishers from across the state. While candidates from the other party were attacking one another, I stayed focused on what I believe matters more to Tennessee’s working families – creating jobs and putting people back to work.
My question for Mike McWherter is this: If it was wrong for Republican candidates to attack one another, will Mr. McWherter pledge not to "attack" the GOP candidate in the general election? Will he pledge, now, not to air "attack" ads 'gainst his Republican opponent?
That's two questions, I know. I cynically asked an additional question knowing full well that Mr. McWherter's first anti-GOP ad will air about 11 p.m. on August 5.
Who wants to bet that what I said won't happen?!
What're Mike McWherter's qualifications? Well, he really only has one ... his daddy once lived large, literally and figuratively, in the Executive Residence.
That said, I got an e-mail from one Mike McWherter today, in which he said this:
I participated in two ... gubernatorial forums – one before business leaders and the other before newspaper publishers from across the state. While candidates from the other party were attacking one another, I stayed focused on what I believe matters more to Tennessee’s working families – creating jobs and putting people back to work.
My question for Mike McWherter is this: If it was wrong for Republican candidates to attack one another, will Mr. McWherter pledge not to "attack" the GOP candidate in the general election? Will he pledge, now, not to air "attack" ads 'gainst his Republican opponent?
That's two questions, I know. I cynically asked an additional question knowing full well that Mr. McWherter's first anti-GOP ad will air about 11 p.m. on August 5.
Who wants to bet that what I said won't happen?!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, February 12, 2010
Literate basketballers (did I say that?!)
If pressed (!), I bet I couldn't name a dozen NBA players (let's just say that I'm not a fan). After reading this, however, I might just have to start following some o' them too-tall fellers ...
As the NBA prepares for Sunday's All-Star Game, international players are becoming an increasingly prominent force on the court. The number of players born outside the U.S. who have cracked the top 40 in scoring and minutes played this season is more than double the number a decade ago. This season, foreign-born players have nabbed five of the top 15 spots on the NBA's highest-paid list.
As their numbers grow, these players are also bringing a different sensibility to the locker room. While many of their American-born counterparts fill their down time with laptops, phones, DVD players, videogame consoles and iPods, these NBA imports like to kick it old school. They don't just read books, they often read the sorts of weighty tomes you may not associate with professional athletes.
The Cleveland Cavaliers say Zydrunas Ilgauskas, a Lithuanian center who is obsessed with military history, often reads right up until tip-off. Orlando Magic center Adonal Foyle, who was raised on an island in the Grenadines with no electricity, says he's the only player he knows who stocks up on hardcovers before every road trip. Mr. Foyle started a book club recently with some nonbasketball friends and acquaintances and hosts discussions during the off-season at his home in Orinda, Calif.
New Orleans Hornets center Emeka Okafor, whose parents both hail from Nigeria, is one of the league's most accomplished fans of literature. He has finished six books this season, including "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy, "Interpreter of Maladies" by Jhumpa Lahiri and Junot Diaz's "The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao." He says the reading binge is meant to make up for all the time he spent last year watching DVDs. "I had to get my book game back up," he says.
Many of the NBA's 83 foreign-born players say reading was always the main form of entertainment in their home countries. Cleveland's Mr. Ilgauskas says he grew up with no videogames and a TV that had only two channels. Nenad Krstic of the Oklahoma City Thunder says his basketball coaches in Serbia probably gave him as many books to read as his schoolteachers did when he was a child. "People are just brought up with more technology here," says Milwaukee Bucks center Andrew Bogut, who grew up in Australia. (Mr. Bogut says he's such a bookworm he can't bring himself to use a Kindle. "I get more of a thrill out of going through the actual book like you're supposed to," he says.)
Check out the rest here.
As the NBA prepares for Sunday's All-Star Game, international players are becoming an increasingly prominent force on the court. The number of players born outside the U.S. who have cracked the top 40 in scoring and minutes played this season is more than double the number a decade ago. This season, foreign-born players have nabbed five of the top 15 spots on the NBA's highest-paid list.
As their numbers grow, these players are also bringing a different sensibility to the locker room. While many of their American-born counterparts fill their down time with laptops, phones, DVD players, videogame consoles and iPods, these NBA imports like to kick it old school. They don't just read books, they often read the sorts of weighty tomes you may not associate with professional athletes.
The Cleveland Cavaliers say Zydrunas Ilgauskas, a Lithuanian center who is obsessed with military history, often reads right up until tip-off. Orlando Magic center Adonal Foyle, who was raised on an island in the Grenadines with no electricity, says he's the only player he knows who stocks up on hardcovers before every road trip. Mr. Foyle started a book club recently with some nonbasketball friends and acquaintances and hosts discussions during the off-season at his home in Orinda, Calif.
New Orleans Hornets center Emeka Okafor, whose parents both hail from Nigeria, is one of the league's most accomplished fans of literature. He has finished six books this season, including "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy, "Interpreter of Maladies" by Jhumpa Lahiri and Junot Diaz's "The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao." He says the reading binge is meant to make up for all the time he spent last year watching DVDs. "I had to get my book game back up," he says.
Many of the NBA's 83 foreign-born players say reading was always the main form of entertainment in their home countries. Cleveland's Mr. Ilgauskas says he grew up with no videogames and a TV that had only two channels. Nenad Krstic of the Oklahoma City Thunder says his basketball coaches in Serbia probably gave him as many books to read as his schoolteachers did when he was a child. "People are just brought up with more technology here," says Milwaukee Bucks center Andrew Bogut, who grew up in Australia. (Mr. Bogut says he's such a bookworm he can't bring himself to use a Kindle. "I get more of a thrill out of going through the actual book like you're supposed to," he says.)
Check out the rest here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Some gift he has
In an interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts, Michelle Obama said this about her husband's "bipartisan" nature:
That's the beauty of Barack Obama. His hand stays out. ... It's a gift."
Would this be the same Barack Obama who told Republicans he didn't need to worry himself with their concerns because "I won [the 2008 election]" ...?
Is it the same Obama who's endavoring to drag Republicans into a dog-and-pony health care forum not because he's interested in any substantive ideas they may have, but so he can cynically, and shamefully, shift some of the blame for his failure(s) on health care to the GOP?
Doesn't sound like a "gift" to me. Sounds more like the curse of a hack politician with whom we have to live for another three years.
That's the beauty of Barack Obama. His hand stays out. ... It's a gift."
Would this be the same Barack Obama who told Republicans he didn't need to worry himself with their concerns because "I won [the 2008 election]" ...?
Is it the same Obama who's endavoring to drag Republicans into a dog-and-pony health care forum not because he's interested in any substantive ideas they may have, but so he can cynically, and shamefully, shift some of the blame for his failure(s) on health care to the GOP?
Doesn't sound like a "gift" to me. Sounds more like the curse of a hack politician with whom we have to live for another three years.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, February 11, 2010
Read his lips
Remember how candidate B. Hussein Obama kept telling us that no one who makes under 250 grand would ever see his or her taxes go up "one dime"?
Well ... President B. Hussein Obama now says he's "agnostic" 'bout raising taxes on individuals making less than $250,000:
President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.
Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases.
I'm sure Obama's advisers have apprised him of the fact - if he didn't know it already - that there is no way he's going to be able to dole out nanny-state goodies and tackle the deficit without going where the real money is, i.e., in the pockets of folks making less than $250,000.
If Obama wants to break what was his most oft-repeated campaign promise, I say bring it on (apologies to George W. Bush). It will make the 2012 presidential campaign très intéressant, to say the least
Well ... President B. Hussein Obama now says he's "agnostic" 'bout raising taxes on individuals making less than $250,000:
President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.
Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases.
I'm sure Obama's advisers have apprised him of the fact - if he didn't know it already - that there is no way he's going to be able to dole out nanny-state goodies and tackle the deficit without going where the real money is, i.e., in the pockets of folks making less than $250,000.
If Obama wants to break what was his most oft-repeated campaign promise, I say bring it on (apologies to George W. Bush). It will make the 2012 presidential campaign très intéressant, to say the least
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, February 11, 2010
Quote of the day
"'Saved or created' is itself the greatest weaselly locution yet coined in the 21st century. Just for the record, I save or create 500 push-ups every morning."
-- Jonah Goldberg
-- Jonah Goldberg
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Pic of the day
Looney Tunes wolf ... right?!
Update: I got a snarky e-mail - the sender is unimportant, literally - wanting more information about " this Looney Tunes wolf." It's an inside joke that no one needs to worry his or her pretty little head about. Let's just leave it at that.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Fan mail
In response to my Happy Birthday RR post, Rebecca_Loman sent me an e-mail in which she said this:
"Ronald Reagan never served. ... Funny what depths of lying Conservatives will sink to to elevate the second worst Republican President of the 2th [sic] Century to Sainthood."
First, if Ronald Reagan is the "second worst" Republican president of the 2th, er, 20th Century, I'd love to know which'n, according to Ms. Loman, is the first.
Second, if you'd like to send Rebecca_Loman a retort, she uses a widely-used free e-mail service (I'll leave it at that lest I be accused of fomenting a spam attack).
Lastly, Ronald Reagan did serve. Anyone who can type "Ronald Reagan serve" into a search engine will learn such. From Wikipedia:
Military service
After completing fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses, Reagan enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve on April 29, 1937, as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa. He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937, and on June 18 was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry. His service number was 0 357 403.
Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. Upon the approval of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit (officially, the "18th AAF Base Unit") in Culver City, California. On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California. He returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943.
In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was re-assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II. He was recommended for promotion to Major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year. He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.
"Ronald Reagan never served. ... Funny what depths of lying Conservatives will sink to to elevate the second worst Republican President of the 2th [sic] Century to Sainthood."
First, if Ronald Reagan is the "second worst" Republican president of the 2th, er, 20th Century, I'd love to know which'n, according to Ms. Loman, is the first.
Second, if you'd like to send Rebecca_Loman a retort, she uses a widely-used free e-mail service (I'll leave it at that lest I be accused of fomenting a spam attack).
Lastly, Ronald Reagan did serve. Anyone who can type "Ronald Reagan serve" into a search engine will learn such. From Wikipedia:
Military service
After completing fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses, Reagan enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve on April 29, 1937, as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa. He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937, and on June 18 was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry. His service number was 0 357 403.
Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. Upon the approval of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit (officially, the "18th AAF Base Unit") in Culver City, California. On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California. He returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943.
In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was re-assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II. He was recommended for promotion to Major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year. He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010
While I'm at it ...
Did you ever wonder why so many Hollywood nitwits rub elbows with/excuse the abuses of tinpot dictators like Fidel Castro? Here's why.
A sample:
Leftist Hollywood is not driven by wealth or artistic freedom, they’re driven by status and the insatiable need to be unconditionally adored. Unfortunately for them, as actors in America, status and adoration is tied to awards and the size of the paycheck – in other words competition and a free market – which they hate. But that’s the least of their worries. All this messy American capitalism forces our favorite artistes into the undignified position of having to beg for money in order to have the millions necessary to watch themselves be all artistic on the big screen, and all this messy American free expression allows people like you and me to criticize and ridicule their hard self-serving work.
Not so under a dictatorship.
The way they see it, with the right dictator, the State would hand them money for film projects and jail anyone who criticized them in print or elsewhere. Hugo Chavez shutting television stations down doesn’t horrify Leftist Hollywood, it makes them giddy.
A sample:
Leftist Hollywood is not driven by wealth or artistic freedom, they’re driven by status and the insatiable need to be unconditionally adored. Unfortunately for them, as actors in America, status and adoration is tied to awards and the size of the paycheck – in other words competition and a free market – which they hate. But that’s the least of their worries. All this messy American capitalism forces our favorite artistes into the undignified position of having to beg for money in order to have the millions necessary to watch themselves be all artistic on the big screen, and all this messy American free expression allows people like you and me to criticize and ridicule their hard self-serving work.
Not so under a dictatorship.
The way they see it, with the right dictator, the State would hand them money for film projects and jail anyone who criticized them in print or elsewhere. Hugo Chavez shutting television stations down doesn’t horrify Leftist Hollywood, it makes them giddy.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Snitchin'
If I live to be 100, I'll never understand why American liberals to this day are enamored of Castro's Cuba. Especially when I read about Cuban "adventures" like this from Baseball America's Peter Gammons (BA January 11-24, 2010):
In March 1999, ESPN sent ... me to Cuba for 10 days in advance of the Orioles' exhibition in Havana. ...
Driving around Havana one night, we saw a long line down a dark street; our guide said it was a "snitch line," where citizens could get extra food stamps and products for telling on their neighbors.
Wait, didn't the Obama Administration set up a snitchin' e-mail address back in August ...?!
In March 1999, ESPN sent ... me to Cuba for 10 days in advance of the Orioles' exhibition in Havana. ...
Driving around Havana one night, we saw a long line down a dark street; our guide said it was a "snitch line," where citizens could get extra food stamps and products for telling on their neighbors.
Wait, didn't the Obama Administration set up a snitchin' e-mail address back in August ...?!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Monday, February 08, 2010
Hell in a handbasket
A "children's lingerie collection" ...?! What in the hell are Mama and Papa Cyrus thinking?
Seems like every time we hear about Noah Cyrus she's doing something totally innapropriate for her age.
Whether it's dressing like a dominatrix for Halloween, skipping around a pole-dancing pole or performing the totally un-PG hits 'Smack That' and 'Tik Tok', we suspect this nine-year-old could easily notch up more scandals than her big sis by the time she hits her teens.
The latest news that's got us scratching our heads and wondering, yet again, 'what were her parents thinking?' ... little Noah is set to become a lingerie model.
She'll be teaming up with her pint-sized best friend Emily Grace to launch a children's lingerie collection for 'Ohh! La, La! Couture'.
Seems like every time we hear about Noah Cyrus she's doing something totally innapropriate for her age.
Whether it's dressing like a dominatrix for Halloween, skipping around a pole-dancing pole or performing the totally un-PG hits 'Smack That' and 'Tik Tok', we suspect this nine-year-old could easily notch up more scandals than her big sis by the time she hits her teens.
The latest news that's got us scratching our heads and wondering, yet again, 'what were her parents thinking?' ... little Noah is set to become a lingerie model.
She'll be teaming up with her pint-sized best friend Emily Grace to launch a children's lingerie collection for 'Ohh! La, La! Couture'.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, February 08, 2010
Bad news for Barry ...
Here's some bad news for Barry:
Fewer registered voters nationwide — 44 percent — currently approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance than disapprove — 47 percent. When Marist last asked about the president’s approval rating in December, 46 percent thought well of Obama’s job performance while 44 percent gave him low marks. For the first time since taking office, a majority of Independents — 57 percent — disapproves of how he is doing in the role. 29 percent approve, and 14 percent are unsure.
Oh, and there's this:
According to the latest Gallup poll, President Obama is underwater — higher disapproval than approval — in six of nine categories. He's at a 48/49 split on terrorism, a 36/60 split on health care, 36/61 split on the economy, and 32/64 split on the deficit.
Among independents, his approval is at 35 percent on Iran, 24 percent on health care, 29 percent on the economy, 24 percent on the deficit.
What will be interesting to watch is how far, and how fast, Democratic congressional candidates run away from one Barry Obama as the fall campaign heats up. Someone needs to ask Roy Herron if he'll be inviting Obama to come to West Tennessee.
Fewer registered voters nationwide — 44 percent — currently approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance than disapprove — 47 percent. When Marist last asked about the president’s approval rating in December, 46 percent thought well of Obama’s job performance while 44 percent gave him low marks. For the first time since taking office, a majority of Independents — 57 percent — disapproves of how he is doing in the role. 29 percent approve, and 14 percent are unsure.
Oh, and there's this:
According to the latest Gallup poll, President Obama is underwater — higher disapproval than approval — in six of nine categories. He's at a 48/49 split on terrorism, a 36/60 split on health care, 36/61 split on the economy, and 32/64 split on the deficit.
Among independents, his approval is at 35 percent on Iran, 24 percent on health care, 29 percent on the economy, 24 percent on the deficit.
What will be interesting to watch is how far, and how fast, Democratic congressional candidates run away from one Barry Obama as the fall campaign heats up. Someone needs to ask Roy Herron if he'll be inviting Obama to come to West Tennessee.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, February 08, 2010
Quote of the day
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Frédéric Bastiat, Government (1849)
-- Frédéric Bastiat, Government (1849)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, February 08, 2010
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Reckon what ...?
Reckon what Chip Forrester and the Tennessee Socialist, er, Democratic Party thinks about ...
20 Reasons Why The U.S. Economy Is Dying And Can't Ever Recover As Long As Democrats Control the Levers of Power
You want to see a hockey-stick graph? Try this unemployment chart, as businesses retract in fear over health tax mandates, cap-and-trade, card check, and heaven knows what else. In December, 6,130,000 workers had been unemployed for 27 weeks or more -- another Obama record. That's the highest total since they started keeping track in 1948.
Read it all here.
20 Reasons Why The U.S. Economy Is Dying And Can't Ever Recover As Long As Democrats Control the Levers of Power
You want to see a hockey-stick graph? Try this unemployment chart, as businesses retract in fear over health tax mandates, cap-and-trade, card check, and heaven knows what else. In December, 6,130,000 workers had been unemployed for 27 weeks or more -- another Obama record. That's the highest total since they started keeping track in 1948.
Read it all here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, February 07, 2010
Where in the world is Al Gore?
From Michael Barone ...
"The global warming movement as we have known it is dead," writes Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations in The American Interest. "The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics."
Some decades hence, I suspect, people will look back and wonder why so many government, corporate and media elites were taken in by propaganda that was based on such shoddy and dishonest evidence. And taken in to the point that they advocated devoting trillions of dollars to a cause that was based on flagrant dishonesty and dissembling.
I can't be the only one who's noticed that former-Veep, Nobel Laureate Al "The Earth Has a Fever" Gore has been very, very quiet as of late. Is his silence 'cause of Climategate? Or did he decide to zip his lip when cities from Houston to Baltimore got buried under inches of snow?
Either way, Big Daddy Gore's not saying nothing is indicative of where the "consensus" on global warming, er, climate-change now stands.
To borrow a line from Chet in Weird Science, I wouldn't give a squirt of piss to be in Gore's shoes right now. And with that said, I'm pretty sure that the "science" in Weird Science is more solid than anything in Gore's ballyhooed books ... indeed.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Sunday, February 07, 2010
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Remember when ...?
Remember when we had a President who'd served, who could clear brush and manually dig post-holes, and who knew there wasn't no such thing as a freakin' "corpse-man" in the military's ranks?
Remember when we had a President who made you want to stand up and shout, "USA! USA! USA!" ...?!
Happy Birthday, Mr. President ...
Remember when we had a President who made you want to stand up and shout, "USA! USA! USA!" ...?!
Happy Birthday, Mr. President ...
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, February 06, 2010
Friday, February 05, 2010
John "Droopy" Kerry: Presidential Whiz-Kid
Back in 2003/2004, I was a regular contributor to a now-defunct conservative blog. Due to the wonders of Interweb science, I've been able to dig up most of what I said back in the day. I'm especially proud of this ...
In 1992, the establishment media had a field day castigating President George H.W. Bush when he admitted that he'd never laid eyes on a supermarket check-out scanner. Common sense dictated that Bush - who'd served as vice-president and president for 12 years at that point - couldn't hit the local Bi-Rite on a whim. Nevertheless, we were told that the president was "hopelessly out of touch."
Fast forward to 2003. Millionaire Senator John Kerry is doing his level best to convince Americans that he's the consummate Everyman. So far, he's not having much luck. It's well known that Kerry, whose mannerisms and tastes are more befitting an effete Frenchman, had his worldview permanently shaped while cloistered in a Swiss finishing school. His refinement at the hands of the Swiss now threatens to doom his presidential campaign (if it really ever had a chance to start with).
During a recent visit to Philadelphia, Kerry visited the legendary Pat's Steaks and ordered cheesesteak -- with Swiss cheese. Kerry's faux pas was akin to someone visiting Nathan's on Coney Island and ordering a tofu dog. If Kerry's Swiss cheese gaffe wasn't bad enough, he asked that he not be photographed while eating. As the Washington Post reported, "Shutters clicked anyway, and Kerry was caught nibbling daintily at his sandwich." (At least he wasn't dumb enough to order a Perrier for washin'-down purposes.)
Anyone who's come within five miles of Philly's famous cheesesteak stands knows that Swiss cheese is not an option when ordering. Ask a small sample of Pat's customers to describe someone who makes such an error, and "out of touch" will probably trip off someone's lips. Is this a trivial point? Perhaps, but so was the endless harping over the first President Bush's supermarket epiphany.
(Hey, Matt, remember that ...?!)
In 1992, the establishment media had a field day castigating President George H.W. Bush when he admitted that he'd never laid eyes on a supermarket check-out scanner. Common sense dictated that Bush - who'd served as vice-president and president for 12 years at that point - couldn't hit the local Bi-Rite on a whim. Nevertheless, we were told that the president was "hopelessly out of touch."
Fast forward to 2003. Millionaire Senator John Kerry is doing his level best to convince Americans that he's the consummate Everyman. So far, he's not having much luck. It's well known that Kerry, whose mannerisms and tastes are more befitting an effete Frenchman, had his worldview permanently shaped while cloistered in a Swiss finishing school. His refinement at the hands of the Swiss now threatens to doom his presidential campaign (if it really ever had a chance to start with).
During a recent visit to Philadelphia, Kerry visited the legendary Pat's Steaks and ordered cheesesteak -- with Swiss cheese. Kerry's faux pas was akin to someone visiting Nathan's on Coney Island and ordering a tofu dog. If Kerry's Swiss cheese gaffe wasn't bad enough, he asked that he not be photographed while eating. As the Washington Post reported, "Shutters clicked anyway, and Kerry was caught nibbling daintily at his sandwich." (At least he wasn't dumb enough to order a Perrier for washin'-down purposes.)
Anyone who's come within five miles of Philly's famous cheesesteak stands knows that Swiss cheese is not an option when ordering. Ask a small sample of Pat's customers to describe someone who makes such an error, and "out of touch" will probably trip off someone's lips. Is this a trivial point? Perhaps, but so was the endless harping over the first President Bush's supermarket epiphany.
(Hey, Matt, remember that ...?!)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, February 05, 2010
Paging Al Sharpton ... Paging Reverend Al Sharpton
I've been a bit outta the political loop today, so this might be old news ...
An NBC employee in New York broadcasted the networks [sic] cafeteria menu. To celebrate lack history month [sic], they showed the menu in which it was fried chicken, collard greens, corn bread, black eyed peas, etc. But then two hours later the sign was mysteriously removed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Fuzzy Zoeller lose endorsements and get all kinds o' shit heaped upon him when he quipped that Tiger Woods was a fan o' fried chicken and collard greens?
Reckon what's going to happen to NBC in light of, ahem, recent fried chicken-related events? I've a dime to your dollar that nothing's going to happen.
Somewhere, Fuzzy Zoeller's probably real pissed off ...
An NBC employee in New York broadcasted the networks [sic] cafeteria menu. To celebrate lack history month [sic], they showed the menu in which it was fried chicken, collard greens, corn bread, black eyed peas, etc. But then two hours later the sign was mysteriously removed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Fuzzy Zoeller lose endorsements and get all kinds o' shit heaped upon him when he quipped that Tiger Woods was a fan o' fried chicken and collard greens?
Reckon what's going to happen to NBC in light of, ahem, recent fried chicken-related events? I've a dime to your dollar that nothing's going to happen.
Somewhere, Fuzzy Zoeller's probably real pissed off ...
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, February 05, 2010
Thursday, February 04, 2010
This is a call
Don't know why, but I get weekly e-mails from the Communist Party USA. The latest Commie communication says this:
"Don't Mourn, Organize!" This is the growing call form [sic] labor and progressive forces following the upset election in Massachusetts of Republican Scott Brown to fill Edward Kennedy's seat in the U.S. Senate.
The election in Massachusetts should not be read as a shift to the right, but rather as an indication of inconsistent thinking and flux on the part of voters in a time of hardship and the biggest wealth gap in history. It was a protest telling Democrats they must take on the opposition and deliver for people's needs. ...
To regain momentum, big, bold, decisive actions are required that will create millions of jobs and rebuild the economy. It will take standing up to the opposition, not giving in.
Given that Scott Brown ran against the "bold, decisive actions" of Obama and his left-wing allies in Congress, and won, it seems rather foolish to suggest that Democrats should not only do what they've been doing, but take it up a few notches as well.
Of course, calling Commies fools is kinda like calling baboons "ugly-asses," ain't it?
(If you'd like to receive the Communist Party USA's e-mails, chick here to sign up. I urge you to do it for weekly comic relief.)
"Don't Mourn, Organize!" This is the growing call form [sic] labor and progressive forces following the upset election in Massachusetts of Republican Scott Brown to fill Edward Kennedy's seat in the U.S. Senate.
The election in Massachusetts should not be read as a shift to the right, but rather as an indication of inconsistent thinking and flux on the part of voters in a time of hardship and the biggest wealth gap in history. It was a protest telling Democrats they must take on the opposition and deliver for people's needs. ...
To regain momentum, big, bold, decisive actions are required that will create millions of jobs and rebuild the economy. It will take standing up to the opposition, not giving in.
Given that Scott Brown ran against the "bold, decisive actions" of Obama and his left-wing allies in Congress, and won, it seems rather foolish to suggest that Democrats should not only do what they've been doing, but take it up a few notches as well.
Of course, calling Commies fools is kinda like calling baboons "ugly-asses," ain't it?
(If you'd like to receive the Communist Party USA's e-mails, chick here to sign up. I urge you to do it for weekly comic relief.)
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, February 04, 2010
Now she's concerned ...
Yesterday, Senator Blanche Lincoln told President Obama to his face that Democrats need to "push back against people in our own party that want extremes." Immediately thereafter her campaign Web site featured a newsflash with this headline: "Lincoln challenges Obama on liberal 'extremes.'"
In the last twelve months, Blanche Lincoln hasn't been too awful concerned about the extremists in her party who've been pushing for cap-and-tax, another stimulus boondoggle, ObamaCare, and treating terrorists with kid gloves.
I guess a poll showing you down 23 points, and down 46 points among independents, will get you concerned real fast ...
If the election were held today, Sen. Blanche Lincoln would lose in a landslide, according to the latest polling from Public Policy.
The poll shows 33% of voters would pick the Arkansas Democrat, while 56% would vote for Republican Rep. John Boozman.
The 23-point edge for Boozman, who has yet to officially announce his campaign, underscores that Lincoln is one of the most vulnerable incumbents of the 2010 cycle. Among independents, Boozman fares even better, 66%-20%.
In the last twelve months, Blanche Lincoln hasn't been too awful concerned about the extremists in her party who've been pushing for cap-and-tax, another stimulus boondoggle, ObamaCare, and treating terrorists with kid gloves.
I guess a poll showing you down 23 points, and down 46 points among independents, will get you concerned real fast ...
If the election were held today, Sen. Blanche Lincoln would lose in a landslide, according to the latest polling from Public Policy.
The poll shows 33% of voters would pick the Arkansas Democrat, while 56% would vote for Republican Rep. John Boozman.
The 23-point edge for Boozman, who has yet to officially announce his campaign, underscores that Lincoln is one of the most vulnerable incumbents of the 2010 cycle. Among independents, Boozman fares even better, 66%-20%.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, February 04, 2010
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Man, this is bull****
Cracked.com has an hee-larious post about the seven biggest bullshit police myths propagated by movies and television shows. This'n is my favorite:
#7. Forensic Science is Magic
There has been a murder. While the regular cops are all wasting time talking about "witnesses," "motives" and "evidence," the CSI team walks in and gets shit done. Within seconds they find a single hair, scan it with a green laser and discover the identity of the killer, saving countless lives with their ingenious magical science. Hell, the CSI team will even pack up their guns and go arrest the guy!
His one mistake was having hair.
Why it's Bullshit:
First, do you have any idea how much random DNA you are carrying on the soles of your shoes this very instant? A hair from that bank clerk across town, gum from a Pakistani cab driver and semen from an undetermined source are all probably crawling around down there, ready to be tracked through a crime scene.
Also, certain laboratory tests such as DNA samples, toxicology and blood reports can take weeks or even months to process, and when they do finally arrive, they are about as clear cut as the plot to The Phantom Menace.
Also, while DNA criminal databases do exist, less than 1/10th of all criminals are a part of it. Having a bit of DNA doesn't mean shit unless they have something to compare it to.
That means the CSI stuff is less about finding the killer and more about making sure they have enough evidence to convict the guy they've already pinpointed as a suspect through old-fashioned police work.
CSI is really just another victim of bad Hollywood science, kind of an extension of their "computers are magic" philosophy. It's appealing to think that any problem--even crime--can be stopped cold by nothing but the power of science and human intellect. Add a few dead hookers and an exploding car to the mix and you have the recipe for television success, baby.
I knew there was a reason I've watched a single minute of the 128 different CSI shows (CSI: Des Moines just doesn't appeal to me at all).
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010
November can't get here soon enough
Reckon what Chip Forrester thinks about this (courtesy of the Campaign for Working Families)?
The 2010 elections are still 272 days away, but the news gets better and better. Today’s Washington Times reports that Republican candidates are polling even or ahead of their liberal Democrat opponents in ten key Senate races. That’s enough to retake the Senate majority. And here’s more good news.
Former two-term Senator Dan Coats reportedly plans to challenge Democrat Evan Bayh in the Indiana Senate race. While many conservatives were hoping that Rep. Mike Pence would run, Coats is a solid conservative on all the issues – economic, defense and values.
The 2010 elections are still 272 days away, but the news gets better and better. Today’s Washington Times reports that Republican candidates are polling even or ahead of their liberal Democrat opponents in ten key Senate races. That’s enough to retake the Senate majority. And here’s more good news.
Former two-term Senator Dan Coats reportedly plans to challenge Democrat Evan Bayh in the Indiana Senate race. While many conservatives were hoping that Rep. Mike Pence would run, Coats is a solid conservative on all the issues – economic, defense and values.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Vive Django!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Re: Le Journal Nocturne
If you're not reading The Nightly Daily, nightly, you're missing out. This is good, good stuff:
A few weeks ago, I wrote about how the national elections this year could be the tastiest we have seen in many years.
The Democrats have majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate, and because of this, President Barack Obama has been able to enjoy legislative successes. Nothing helps a president more than having a friendly Congress.
However, everybody in the House and a significant amount of those in the Senate are up for re-election this year. With Congressional approval ratings hovering in the 20 percent range, the possibility of a sizeable shake up exists.
Though the November elections are only a blip on the radar now, it is never too early to begin paying attention to what is going on. In a perfect world, we would be paying attention each day, but politics often hold our attention for only short periods of time. I do not know why that is, but it seems that way.
Because of this, we should all begin considering now the issues that will be most important to us when the election season begins in earnest. Too often, we approach elections like students who wait until the night before a big exam to begin studying.
We try as best we can to cram as much information into our brains at the last second, but it does not work. When we do that, we feel overwhelmed and frustrated when we start considering the challenges our nation faces. This drives many not to vote at all.
While we focus a lot on the qualifications of those who run for office, I wonder if we should focus more on the political literacy of those who vote. No, I am not advocating that we try and keep people from voting who do not follow the issues. People have a constitutional right to vote even if it is an uninformed vote.
Still, we can make sure to apply subtle (or maybe not so subtle) forms of pressure to people so they can take this year's elections seriously. Good old fashioned peer pressure was certainly effective on us when we were growing up. Maybe the same tactic can work now.
This may sound a bit harsh, but it is necessary. For something as important as electing our leaders, it is unfortunate that the process of doing it turns off so many. And I can certainly understand why so many get turned off.
It can be a difficult process to observe sometime. It is kind of like making sausage. We like eating it, but we do not necessarily like watching it get made.
The same goes with politics. We like the benefits our elected officials can bring us. However, the process can make us a little queasy.
The bottom line is the concept of accountability needs to be applied to the public, too. For all the hand-wringing people do about elected officials, many voters conveniently sugar coat their role in the process. Elected officials do not take office simply because they have been sprinkled with magic pixie dust.
We put them there, and if we keep complaining about their performance, maybe we need to re-assess our approach as to why we vote for someone.
I am picking on the people who actually bother to vote, and that may be unfair. The biggest criticism should be leveled at the people who do not bother to participate. Often, they are the ones who complain the most and the loudest.
Remember, we get the government we deserve. If we work more at it, just maybe we will be surprised at what the result will be.
In response, I said this:
Great post.
Reminds me of a particularly testy argument I had with a cousin back during the 2000 presidential election.
I, of course, was supporting George W. Bush; my cousin was supporting Al Gore, even if she couldn't really explain why she was supporting Al Gore.
I posed several election-specific questions ("Are you aware Gore gore wants to do X,Y, and Z?"), all of which she was clueless to answer. Then I moved on to more general questions, if you will, such as ...
I asked her to name one Supreme Court justice, or one important Supreme Court decision, and she could do neither. As big a Democrat as she claimed to be, I was certain that she could at least say "Roe v. Wade." Well, she couldn't.
Exasperated, I finally said, "Please, do us all a favor and do not vote." I meant it, too. I mean, it killed me to know that someone so clueless about basic civics would be, in effect, cancelling out my vote.
Now, I don't expect everyone to be a political junkie like me. Nor do I expect folks to be able to name every member of Congress and/or every Cabinet official. What I do expect is for people to be at least moderately informed about the issues of the day. That duty is, in my opinion, as important as the duty to vote.
So there.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about how the national elections this year could be the tastiest we have seen in many years.
The Democrats have majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate, and because of this, President Barack Obama has been able to enjoy legislative successes. Nothing helps a president more than having a friendly Congress.
However, everybody in the House and a significant amount of those in the Senate are up for re-election this year. With Congressional approval ratings hovering in the 20 percent range, the possibility of a sizeable shake up exists.
Though the November elections are only a blip on the radar now, it is never too early to begin paying attention to what is going on. In a perfect world, we would be paying attention each day, but politics often hold our attention for only short periods of time. I do not know why that is, but it seems that way.
Because of this, we should all begin considering now the issues that will be most important to us when the election season begins in earnest. Too often, we approach elections like students who wait until the night before a big exam to begin studying.
We try as best we can to cram as much information into our brains at the last second, but it does not work. When we do that, we feel overwhelmed and frustrated when we start considering the challenges our nation faces. This drives many not to vote at all.
While we focus a lot on the qualifications of those who run for office, I wonder if we should focus more on the political literacy of those who vote. No, I am not advocating that we try and keep people from voting who do not follow the issues. People have a constitutional right to vote even if it is an uninformed vote.
Still, we can make sure to apply subtle (or maybe not so subtle) forms of pressure to people so they can take this year's elections seriously. Good old fashioned peer pressure was certainly effective on us when we were growing up. Maybe the same tactic can work now.
This may sound a bit harsh, but it is necessary. For something as important as electing our leaders, it is unfortunate that the process of doing it turns off so many. And I can certainly understand why so many get turned off.
It can be a difficult process to observe sometime. It is kind of like making sausage. We like eating it, but we do not necessarily like watching it get made.
The same goes with politics. We like the benefits our elected officials can bring us. However, the process can make us a little queasy.
The bottom line is the concept of accountability needs to be applied to the public, too. For all the hand-wringing people do about elected officials, many voters conveniently sugar coat their role in the process. Elected officials do not take office simply because they have been sprinkled with magic pixie dust.
We put them there, and if we keep complaining about their performance, maybe we need to re-assess our approach as to why we vote for someone.
I am picking on the people who actually bother to vote, and that may be unfair. The biggest criticism should be leveled at the people who do not bother to participate. Often, they are the ones who complain the most and the loudest.
Remember, we get the government we deserve. If we work more at it, just maybe we will be surprised at what the result will be.
In response, I said this:
Great post.
Reminds me of a particularly testy argument I had with a cousin back during the 2000 presidential election.
I, of course, was supporting George W. Bush; my cousin was supporting Al Gore, even if she couldn't really explain why she was supporting Al Gore.
I posed several election-specific questions ("Are you aware Gore gore wants to do X,Y, and Z?"), all of which she was clueless to answer. Then I moved on to more general questions, if you will, such as ...
I asked her to name one Supreme Court justice, or one important Supreme Court decision, and she could do neither. As big a Democrat as she claimed to be, I was certain that she could at least say "Roe v. Wade." Well, she couldn't.
Exasperated, I finally said, "Please, do us all a favor and do not vote." I meant it, too. I mean, it killed me to know that someone so clueless about basic civics would be, in effect, cancelling out my vote.
Now, I don't expect everyone to be a political junkie like me. Nor do I expect folks to be able to name every member of Congress and/or every Cabinet official. What I do expect is for people to be at least moderately informed about the issues of the day. That duty is, in my opinion, as important as the duty to vote.
So there.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Monday, February 01, 2010
Head Start's false start
In November 2004, the Tennnessean published an editorial touting Head Start's record of success. "Numerous studies chart the educational benefits of Head Start" said the Tennessean's editorial board.
In response, I posted this on a now-defunct blog:
If Head Start does indeed have a "record of success," I can only wonder why the Tennessean did not cite one study in which the program is credited with helping disadvantaged children prepare for their first year of school. Could it be that very few such studies - except those published by interest groups that have a financial stake in Head Start - actually exist?
$44 billion and 17 million children have passed through the Head Start program since 1965. A study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services had this to say about Head Start: "In the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start." In other words, Head Start is a false start -- the net gain to children has been zero.
Five years have passed, during which a few, ahem, million dollars have passed through the Head Start program. Has anything changed? According to the February 8 National Review, the answer is no. To wit:
Reporters largely ignored it, but the Department of Health and Human Services released a study showing that Head Start’s positive effects peter out by the end of first grade. The study included 44 tests, of which 42 found no statistically significant and lasting improvement. Some positive results are to be expected when you run that many tests, and a footnote points out that the two apparently lasting results disappear after correcting for that tendency. Andrew Coulson and Adam Schaeffer of the Cato Institute point out that school choice, on the other hand, appears to have lasting positive results. Naturally, the Democrats have expanded funding for Head Start while ending school choice in D.C.
In response, I posted this on a now-defunct blog:
If Head Start does indeed have a "record of success," I can only wonder why the Tennessean did not cite one study in which the program is credited with helping disadvantaged children prepare for their first year of school. Could it be that very few such studies - except those published by interest groups that have a financial stake in Head Start - actually exist?
$44 billion and 17 million children have passed through the Head Start program since 1965. A study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services had this to say about Head Start: "In the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start." In other words, Head Start is a false start -- the net gain to children has been zero.
Five years have passed, during which a few, ahem, million dollars have passed through the Head Start program. Has anything changed? According to the February 8 National Review, the answer is no. To wit:
Reporters largely ignored it, but the Department of Health and Human Services released a study showing that Head Start’s positive effects peter out by the end of first grade. The study included 44 tests, of which 42 found no statistically significant and lasting improvement. Some positive results are to be expected when you run that many tests, and a footnote points out that the two apparently lasting results disappear after correcting for that tendency. Andrew Coulson and Adam Schaeffer of the Cato Institute point out that school choice, on the other hand, appears to have lasting positive results. Naturally, the Democrats have expanded funding for Head Start while ending school choice in D.C.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, February 01, 2010
Ol 'Bill
Rarely does a week go by during which I don't hear a Democrat talking head on TV going on and on about how great a president was one William Jefferson Clinton. Well ... The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes tells us the troof about ol' Bill:
Though it’s rarely acknowledged, Clinton’s most significant successes in the White House were all in conjunction with Republicans: the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, welfare reform in 1996, and balanced budget legislation in 1997 that included a cut in the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent that spurred the financial boom and budget surplus of his second term.
So there.
Though it’s rarely acknowledged, Clinton’s most significant successes in the White House were all in conjunction with Republicans: the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, welfare reform in 1996, and balanced budget legislation in 1997 that included a cut in the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent that spurred the financial boom and budget surplus of his second term.
So there.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, February 01, 2010
