President Obama doesn’t want Republicans to listen to Rush Limbaugh. In a matter of time, he may not even want the name, Rush Limbaugh, spoken. Well, in the spirit of bipartisanship of which President Obama once spoke, I thought we should take on some of the sillyness of liberal Democrats and show our support of Rush by taking on his name. You know, like Sunshine Hussein Lipshits.
What sounds better, Candy Rush Slice or Candy Limbaugh Slice? Should there be a hyphen? Or should it be Candy Rush Limbaugh Slice?
If only more “Republicans” in congress would actually listen to Rush Limbaugh…
If you heard Jennifer Granholm talk, you’d never know there was a surplus. Our state is bleeding businesses and people. The ONLY industry that Granholm saw fit to offer incentives was Hollywood (movie/television etc.). It was a great lesson showing that tax cuts/incentives to industry work – but I guess the stars in her eyes blinded her to the fact that it would work across the board. In any case – I want my money back!
“Taxpayers deserve a refund!”
-Attorney General Mike Cox
Cox calls for state tax refund…Attorney General Mike Cox says the state is overcharging taxpayers, and more than $700 million should be refunded to them to help with car, house and other payments. He said when the state raised income and business taxes in October 2007, it was sold as a means to deal with an economic crisis. And yet, he noted, the state ended the last two fiscal years with surpluses, including $712 million for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
Please take time to read this story at The Gathering Storm:
CAIR’s latest attempt at protecting our civil rights are charges against a California middle school teacher, Randy Ingram, who had the courage to state to his sixth grade class the obvious – that Iran has sworn to destroy the state of Israel.
It seems simple. Someone does a great job and he is rewarded – typically with more money in a capitalistic society. If he does a poor job; he is not rewarded. In many facets of business and society, it works brilliantly. Common sense tells us that creating a such a sytem would motivate any employee, including teachers:
President Bush wants more money in the 2008 budget for a fund that encourages performance-based pay systems for teachers — a request that will no doubt feed into the larger debate on Capitol Hill about how best to attract, create and retain effective teachers.
The administration is asking for $199 million for its Teacher Incentive Fund, which was created in 2006. The fund provides financial incentives for teachers and principals who improve student achievement in high-poverty schools and helps to recruit top teachers to these schools. Rewards are left up to the states to decide and can include bonuses or raises.
Dangle reward. Do well. Receive reward. It’s not climatological science! We’re taught this system as very young children even before we enter school. A reward is often a motivator for good behavior, completing chores, kissing Great Aunt Ethel. For children entering school, grades become the reward; though some teachers have been known to give out candy and trinkets to motivate their students. Public school teachers are well aware of this cause and effect response.
However, public school teachers are union members and the rules of the motivation system somehow do not apply.
The top teachers union has criticized the fund.
Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, recently said the setup “is nothing more than a merit-pay system, and merit pay hasn’t worked wherever it has been tried, for the most part.”
Far from spurring teachers on to greater effectiveness, extra bonuses for some and not others simply “creates tension” between teachers and kills any teamwork, he said.
“It doesn’t work and it’s not going to do anything to attract and retain quality teachers,” Mr. Weaver said. What will work is getting teachers involved in the decision-making process, giving them a safe and orderly school and a decent salary, he said.
My question is, what does motivate our public school teachers to do their best? If it’s pride in their job and students, then why would attractive salaries be a motivator? Reg Weaver is wrong and his positing otherwise is a glaring show of the disconnection between teachers’ unions and reality.
Filed under: Are you kidding me?, Enviromentalism, News
Fresh off the Drudge Report this morning:
HOUSE HEARING ON ‘WARMING OF THE PLANET’ CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.
DC WEATHER REPORT:
Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph…increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.
Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.
And Al Gore reaches out to kids and explains Global Warming in terms they can understand:
[youtube FN8y5zuQTRU Global Warming Will Destroy Us ALL!]
Conservative UAW Guy has a few things to say too.
Sister Toldjah reminds us of Al Gore’s bad day.
And more from – Pirate’s Cove
Oh – and did you know that St. Valentine’s Day contributes to global warming?
It’s a matter of odds. If you spend a certain amount of time each day saying awful things about people, mocking them for laughs – odds are, your timing is really going to stink and well, you’ll pull a “Rosie.”
[youtube sXR7Y-YJZkU The View Morning of February 8, 2007]
Is the following supposed to be apologetic in her twisted way? Instead she seems as if she’s trying to justify her drug remarks and her portrayal of a dazed and incoherent Anna Nicole Smith.
Posted by ro on February 9th at 10:15am in in the news
CLAIM: SMITH CHOKED ON HER OWN VOMIT…
CBS: Investigators found illegal narcotics, prescription meds in room…
Mother Blames Drugs…
Lawyer vows no DNA sample…
Battle Over $1.6 Billion Fortune Brewing…
Autopsy to Be Performed…
She Died Like Marilyn…
Final Footage Sells for Over $500,000…
Rosie Rants On Anna Nicole — Hours Before Her Death…
No, silly me – that was no apology. She was going for the justification. Later that same day, she enters her own trascript into her blog:
Posted by ro on February 9th at 6:25pm in in the news
ME: BIG THINGS GOING ON IN THE NEWS. IF I HAVE TO SEE ANNA NICOLE SMITH ONE MORE TIME ON TELEVISION. THAT WOMAN AND HER PATERNITY TEST. .. AND SHE CAN HARDLY EVEN SPEAK NOW. SHE CAN’T EVEN SPEAK. SHE’S LIKE (I DO A BLANK AND MUMBLE INTO THE CAMERA) …YOU KNOW IT’S A TRAGEDY ALL AROUND. ..HER SON DIED. SHE HAS THIS LITTLE BABY. THERE’S OBVIOUSLY SOME KIND OF MEDICATION OR SUBSTANCE INVOLVED. I DON’T KNOW.
ELISABETH HASSELBECK: THAT’S AN ODD SITUATION.
KRISTIN CHENOWETH: OR NOT INVOLVED
ME: OR NOT INVOLVED, EVEN WORSE. BUT IT’S SORT OF LIKE DISTRACTING. THE ART OF DISTRACTION. THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE REAL.
ME: I THINK OUR CULTURE NOW.
EH:YOU THINK THE THE REPUBLICANS ARE PUTTING ANNA NICOLE ON THE TV ?
JOY BEHAR: YOU CAN’T BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR EVERYTHING.
EH:WE WERE THERE BEFORE. JUST NEEDED TO CHECK.
(Note: Caps Lock is Rosie’s not mine)
More from the same blog entry:
i was in the air when Anna Nicole Smith died
the plane landed
my phone rang
“Anna Nicole Smith died three hours ago,” my publicist said
“Do you have a comment?” she asked.
2 words only
sums it up
to tell the truth
to speak of her suffering
2 notice 2 care
more toxic than crack
and ur done
more tempting than sex
the suffering of someone else
all anyone wants
r people who they know
will keep them from going over the edge
keep me where the light is
E.E. Cummings without the talent?
Laughs are not so hearty when they are always at someone else’s expense. Ching Chong indeed…
Filed under: Are you kidding me?, Democrats, Election, News, Politics
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.
The sum of genteel Miss Marcotte’s personal writings are a testament alright. And this whole situation is a testament to a disconnection with reality.
But let’s not confuse the effect with the rationale—which is both risible and insulting. Because were it really never Marcotte’s intent to malign anyone’s faith, she probably wouldn’t have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you know—maligning anyone’s faith.
Of course it was her intent. Just as it was McEwan’s intent. And worst of all, Edwards knows it. That he has pretended to take the two at their word, in an ostentatious gesture of “trust,” is precisley the kind of staged treacle that makes people doubt the sincerity of politicians; and that both Marcotte and McEwan have assured their own personal Patriarch that they’ll behave, now that he’s promoted them to the grownups’ table, is, to put it bluntly, one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I’ve ever seen.
And they lived happily ever after…
More from one of my favorites (Allahpundit).
And another favorite. (Mary Katherine Ham)
Karl from Leaning Straight Up, hips us to a little time switcharoo at William Arkin’s blog. The post that appeared mysteriously this morning, now has a new timestamp. Instead of 5:31 AM 02/01/07 – It is now 5:31 PM. Amazing – and now all is right with the world.
Come to think of it, there is a resemblance.
Where did that come from?
The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops
New Middle East Commander Correctly Stays in His Lane
See that post tucked in the middle – it wasn’t there yesterday. In fact, The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out, only appeared on his side bar on the front page for a short time yesterday and the post itself was on the front page for a very short time.
I popped over there today and see the Arrogant post along with this new mystery post A Note to my Readers on Supporting the Troops. And the timestamps make it VERY interesting.
Arrogant timestamp: Posted at 09:39 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
Note to my Readers timestamp: Posted at 05:31 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
First comment under Note to my Readers:
You’re a jerk, Arkin.
Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 05:47 PM
First comment under Arrogant:
Being subjected to such things isn’t fun, is it?…
…Keep in mind how all your words affect them, not just the ones you direct at them.
Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 04:08 PM
Now, it’s not so much that the timestamp of the comment on Arrogant comes before that of the Note to my Readers first comment – it’s the question of where are all the comments that were there before 4:08 PM yesterday for Arrogant and why were they removed? Is it because they want us to think that the “apologetic” Note to my Readers came first?
Leaning Straight Up analyzes the apology more closely.
It’s become sort of a “thing” to attend Super Bowl parties at churches – I’ve never done it and because of the NFL’s decision, I guess I never will.
The thousands of churches across the country that want to host Super Bowl parties Sunday night had better not pull out big-screen TVs, or they could face the wrath of NFL attorneys.
The NFL is telling Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis that the church’s plans to use a wall projector to show the game at a party for church members and guests would violate copyright laws.
NFL officials spotted a promotion of Fall Creek’s “Super Bowl Bash” on the church Web site last week and sent pastor John D. Newland a letter — via FedEx overnight — demanding the party be canceled.
Initially, the league objected to the church’s plan to charge partygoers a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words “Super Bowl” in its promotions.
Newland told the NFL his church would not charge partygoers — the fee had been intended only to pay for snacks — and that it would drop the use of the forbidden words.
But the NFL wouldn’t bite. It objected to the church’s plans to use a projector to show the game on what effectively was a 12-foot-wide screen. It said the law limits the church to one TV no bigger than 55 inches.
The league even took exception to the church’s plan to influence nonmembers with a video highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.
The message on Falls Creek Baptist Church website:
Fall Creek Baptist Church Family…
We regret to inform you that we have had to cancel our bash to view the Colts game this Sunday in a family friendly environment due to the fact that the NFL believes we would be in violation of the Copyright Act, because we had planned to show the game on a screen bigger than a 55 inch diagonal. We have appealed to their legal counsel and exhausted all options without success. We have been informed that the only exceptions to view the game are given to sports bars and restaurants. While we have argued that we only intend to provide a family oriented environment that will make no profit from the showing, the NFL claims that our event cannot proceed by law. Therefore, we have no choice but to challenge this in court or cancel the event. We choose to cancel the event. We deeply regret that we have been prohibited by the NFL from providing a family friendly environment for celebrating the Colts great season.