We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, October 31. 2009
President Obama’s appointee, Rocco Landesman, as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an ignoramus, whose own words keep reaffirming his lackyism and lack of knowledge. One might not think him unqualified by reading his official NEA bio: Yale PhD in Dramatic Literature, Yale assistant professor, president of a company that owns five major NYC theaters, successful Broadway show producer, board membership on several prestigious arts foundations. But, that impressive background has not stopped him from saying some outrageously idiotic and incorrect things in excess praise of President Obama’s purported literary skills.
Scott Johnson, of PowerLine blog, critiqued Landesman’s assertions: “Well, so what if Landesman is a bootlicker? Landesman is also an idiot….It would be hard to pack so much ignorance into one short paragraph if one were really trying.”
Today, Johnson gives Landesman space for reply. Landesman’s reply displays further ignorance of what he speaks, and Landesman’s attempt to slipperly elide from his previous stupid statement. Johnson comments: “It's the bootlicking, the ignorance, and the higher illiteracy that are Rocco's problems, not the lack of an editor. He really need not worry. Those of us concerned about the politicization of the cultural agencies and intrigued by the phenomenon of Obama worship will continue to find Rocco of interest.”
Remember, this is the NEA that a few weeks ago was caught trying to elicit pro-Obama propaganda from its grants beneficiaries. Now, the trail back to the White House is being exposed.
A couple I’m friendly with teach drama at a prestigious university. They are politically quite liberal, supporters of President Obama. Both are quite knowledgeable about literature and the arts, a pleasure to discuss these topics with, and also very well versed in political and other topics. Either would have made a superior appointee to Landesman.
So, why weren’t they? Simple. They are not rich and highly connected contributors to President Obama.
Michelle Malkin delves deeper into what she titles, “No Bundler Left Behind.” Despite, as in other areas, Obama’s campaign pledges otherwise, he has stuffed his administration with rich sycophants, some clearly unqualified, acting nefariously, or displaying embarrassing inanity.
In earlier administrations, certainly Republican ones but Democrat as well, we might have seen media exposes and uproars over NEA and this wider pattern of appointments (not to mention VP Biden's inanities). Instead, the media is behaving like relatives at a poorly performed way-off-Broadway production starring favorite incompetent relation Barack Obama.
It takes a lot to laugh, it takes a train to cry. Dylan's great song performed by Jerry Garcia, 1985:
A reminder of Heather MacDonald's Why Johnny’s Teacher Can’t Teach, from City Journal in 1998.
That essay was linked by George Leef's comment on the Send Fewer Students to College topic. Leef concludes:
Dede Scozzafava releases her voters! She is essentially dropping out.
This should give Hoffman an edge since she is, nominally, a Repub and (was) the pick of the County Repub Chair.
Our blog pal Right Wing Prof just got bad medical news. I don't even know his real name, but God does.
He emailed me the serious details, but I won't post them. Please include him in a prayer today.
Posted by Bird Dog in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 10:25 | Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0)
Send him a few bucks today, if you like him. Every little bit helps, and it looks to be tight. Plus the race has become nationalized: The O did a fund-raiser in NYC for the Dem in the race, and the RNC finally took down their ads against Hoffman.
We would like to see this modest, non-pol, Reagan-Conservative Republican guy elected.
Photo is Saul Alinsky. His ghost walks. Boo!
Coyote on the Dem tax/health bill:
The high cost of Aromatherapy: Premiums to Skyrocket Under Obamacare
‘Jobs Created or Saved’ Is White House Fantasy
Re Henninger's piece which we linked:
New Jersey plans vote fraud
Via our Irish friends re the US economy:
Casinos in Ohio? Governments are money addicts.
How is that bending-over approach working with Iran?
Related: Gore says 220-foot ocean rise in ten years.
The Copenhagen Climate Extortion
Michelle Bachman on Pelosi Health Care Bill: “This Is the Crown Jewel of Socialism”
Masterfleece Theater at RCP:
From Reason's The Unhealthy Public Option:
From Sexy Witch:
Posted by Bird Dog in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 05:51 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
Friday, October 30. 2009
Democratic Congressmen and Senators should think twice about whether they'd rather have an angry wife by lining up for Pelosi and Reid.
In a recent poll of women, Obamacare is rejected by most women. This is important because there are more female than male voters, because women are usually more involved with and sensitive to medical coverage, and because women are most influential in making decisions about medical coverage.
Although John Hinderaker’s conclusion is telling that the various ObamaCare proposals from Congressional Democrats all add up to socialized medicine, the rejection of ObamaCare in this poll is even high among Democrat women. The poll identifies political leanings, but the questions are not ideological. Practical and personal concerns are polled, and are primary over ideology.
After several decades of experience in health insurance brokerage and consulting, I can tell you that women are far more concerned and demanding as to their coverage. At least before middle-age, women have more health care issues and make more visits to their doctors. Women are most often the decisive influence on the choice made in the workplace, including that most HR people are female, and the wives of the senior executives or owners make their desires quite clear to their husbands. For example, try to separate a woman from her favored gynecologist or their children from their favored pediatrician and the broker usually faces a fight, the women willing to even pay higher premiums to retain their favorite personal doctors.
A conservative-leaning organization, The Independent Women’s Forum, hired an independent pollster to question in depth what appears to be a representative national sample of female voters about their preferences in the health care legislation debates. The poll analysis is here, and more details of the questions and responses are here.
Some of the key poll results:
75% want few to no changes to their own healthcare (40% ?? be modified, but mostly left as is; 35% ?? be left as?is) while 19% want it to undergo dramatic overhaul.
67% of women agree with the following statement: “I would prefer that
When asked how much should be spent on healthcare reform, most put the acceptable amounts in the thousands (16%), millions (24%), or billions (16%). Only 10% say that $1 trillion (5%) or more than $1 trillion (5%) should be spent on healthcare reform.
66% of women describe the quality of their health insurance as “excellent” or “good.” 74% use the same terms to describe the quality of their healthcare. 29% say their health insurance is “fair” or “poor” while 24% say the same of their healthcare.
By a margin of 64%?27% of women would “rather have private health insurance than a government?run health insurance plan.”
55% think that the CBO projection of $829 billion is an underestimation of how much will ultimately be spent on healthcare reform. 17% think the figure is too high and 12% think the guess is about right.
46% of women predict that “increased federal involvement in healthcare” will result in more doctors leaving the practice of medicine while 12% think it will cause more to join; 34% think the ranks will remain unchanged.
58% disagree and 29% agree that “more federal involvement in healthcare will improve the relationships members of my family have with their doctors.”
51% of women think more federal involvement will cause declines in the quality of healthcare they and their families receive; 15% feel it will lead to improvements; and 28% believe the quality will remain unchanged.
Among Independents, 73% would be less likely to support a “candidate for Congress knowing he or she favored moving people from their private healthcare plans to government?run healthcare plans.”
Among Independents, 47% would be less likely to support a candidate “knowing he or she supports this new $829 billion healthcare bill,” 31% would be more likely.
Among small business owners, 65% trust that the private sector does a better job of providing choice in healthcare; 25% think the federal government does.
Among small business owners, 56% believe the private sector can offer lower costs while ensuring high quality healthcare; 36% give the federal government the advantage.
Majorities of voters in all age, regional, and educational attainment cohorts believed the private sector to be superior when it comes to providing choice in healthcare. Pluralities of selfidentified Democrats (45%) and liberals (49%) agreed, as well as majorities of self?identified Independents (64%), Republicans (81%), moderates (54%), and conservatives (74%).
Two?thirds of women objected to government paying for abortions in the healthcare bill, including majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, and political parties (55% of self?identified Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 84% of Republicans). Even 39% of “prochoicers” qualified their views with their unwillingness to pay for it.
When informed that “one of the reasons why the deficit is expected to decrease is because the federal government is going to decrease how much it spends on Medicare,” 77% of women deemed this tactic a “mostly bad” one. Just 13% considered this approach a “mostly good” idea. Majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, incomes, educational attainments, political parties, ideologies, and regions considered these cuts to Medicare to be a “bad idea.” At least 70% of women in every age cohort not benefitting from Medicare rejected this.
John at Powerline asks why they need the public option:
Exactly. Turn them into form-processors instead of free enterprises. Regulate them to death.
A thank you to the USMC: Project Valour - IT
The Englishman has, as have many of our friends.
Tell us what hunting you have done this fall (not including pen-raised birds or half-trained farm Mallards - that isn't hunting - that is shooting. Not that there is anything wrong with it.)
Halloween witch above courtesy of Theo
High-end home stagers.
The sad strange life of Bobby Fischer
"Sustainability" Wars on campus.
A new housing bubble? Your government is working on it.
The guy who filmed the world's last hunter-gatherers
Story begins like this:
Sounds as if they are designed to crush business and employment.
Posted by Gwynnie in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 09:12 | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)
Re FOX vs. The WH.
Do Dodd or Frank care why TARP failed? Washington Examiner
It's getting old: Intertubes turn 40
AG tries to shut down school voucher ad. Screw the kids. This is union payback.
How Putin is Separating America from Europe
The mess the Dems are creating with health care. From Robb at RCP:
Thursday, October 29. 2009
Remember this piece from Am Thinker a couple of years ago?
Imus was never too impressed, but now he is getting a bit rough on Obama:
Happy Halloween, from your Federal government.
(Page 1 of 10, totaling 229 entries) » next page