"Hard Times"
by Gillian Welch and David Rawlings

There was a Camptown Man who used to plow and sing
He loved that mule and the mule loved him
When the day got long as it does about now
I'd hear him singing to his muley-cow

Calling, Come on my sweet old girl,
I'd bet the whole damn world
That we're gonna make it yet to the end of the row

Singing hard times ain't gonna rule my mind
Hard times ain't gonna rule my mind, Bessie
Hard times ain't gonna rule my mind no more

He said it's a mean old world, heavy in need
That big machine is just a-picking up speed
We're supping on tears, we're supping on wine
We all get to heaven in our own sweet time

So come all you Asheville boys
Turn up your old-time noise
And kick 'til the dust comes up from the cracks in the floor

Singing, hard times ain't gonna rule my mind, brother
Hard times ain't gonna rule my mind
Hard times ain't gonna rule my mind no more

But the Camptown man, he doesn't plow no more
I seen him walking down to the Superette store
Guess he lost that nag and he forgot that song
Woke up one morning and the mule was gone

So come on, you ragtime kings
Come on you dogs and sing
Pick up your dusty old horn and give it a blow

Playing, hard times ain't gonna rule my mind
Hard times ain't gonna rule my mind, sugar
Hard times ain't gonna rule my mind no more
more...

Posted by: Monty at 05:49 AM | Comments (400)
Post contains 291 words, total size 3 kb.

Welcome to the Ninth Day of Blogging After America. Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

This chapter's theme is Life in the World After America. It pretty much sucks.

Previously in the series - Day One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:18 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 958 words, total size 6 kb.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:43 PM | Comments (510)
Post contains 621 words, total size 6 kb.

From The Blaze:

In a bombshell accusation, the government watchdog group Judicial Watch announced today that the Obama administration used taxpayer money to help orchestrate an internet search engine manipulation campaign specifically promoting Obamacare.

Judicial Watch obtained 2,328 pages of records pursuant to a March 23, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The FOIA information included correspondence between the Department of Health and Human Services and the Ogilvy Group, the public relations fire hired by the White House to push Obamacare on the American people.

The information suggests $200 million was spent in total. More at the link and at Judicial Watch.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 02:18 PM | Comments (436)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

I thought that when we elected Obama we proved we weren't racists. It seems that instead our elite have been inspired to search harder to root out every conceivable example.

Nordlinger at NRO noticed something about Raaaaacism in research grants.

"Black scientists lag whites in government funding." ... "Black scientists are less likely than whites to win research dollars from the National Institutes of Health,... "

Damn it! The NIH is a hotbed of racism! Who knew?

If I were head of NIH I'd strip out race and ethnicity information from the applications before they go to the peer review committees that evaluate and grade the funding requests. That'd fix things!

"No one is blaming overt racism. Race and ethnicity information is stripped from applications before they go to the ‘peer review’ committees that evaluate and grade the funding requests." "... peer reviewers may guess race from biographical information, and said NIH will study if ‘an insidious form of bias’ may be playing a role." ...

Oh. Eat Me.

Near the end of the article, we’re treated to this little fact, perhaps important: "There was no racial gap among the highest-scoring applications."

Eat Me^2.

"The study found no Hispanic gap, although Collins urged closer examination."

That is the most American - the most typical, the most delicious - thing in the entire article: "although Collins urged closer examination." It is almost offensive, you see, that there was no "Hispanic gap."

Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:15 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

Barack Obama is going to come forward with a new spendulus bill designed to be rejected by Republicans.

Why are we not pushing our own such offers?

ObamaCare is unpopular. It always has been. It helps us to demand its repeal. It helps us to always make the repeal of ObamaCare a concession to be extracted in exchange for anything Obama might ask for himself.

It does not hurt us to ask for this. It helps us. Because the public wants it repealed. The more times we get Obama to unreasonably refuse to bend to the public will, the better it is for us.

A long time ago a commenter asked, "Hey, why isn't the GOP doing this?" I answered, "Well, probably because it's a deal-breaker and Obama would never agree."

But that's no answer. Who cares if he won't agree? It's what we want -- and it is politically detrimental to Obama to refuse to do the public will.

It should be asked for every goddamned week. Every goddamned major legislation should have an ObamaCare repeal in its first paragraph.

Same thing with ANWR. We need the oil. We are paying billions to people who hate us because we have a hardcore contingent of luddite know-nothings who do not understand there is a direct relationship between the lights in their homes and the oil we pump up from the earth.

There is simply no reason to pre-concede these things. We are doing the Democrats a favor by pre-emptively taking these political wants off the table, without even troubling them to say "No" to our requests.

Why?

Here's a Question: Is there any one-sentence legislation that can do the following?:

1. Reduce the uncertainty and fear factor among businesses, and hence stimulate the economy

2. Save a trillion in spending

3. Add a half-trillion to Medicare without costing the taxpayers a dime

I know one. Repealing ObamaCare.

If this SCOAMF wants a "stimulus" -- thus putting our must-have (lower spending) in question -- then let us return that favor in kind and put his must-have in question.

You know why the Republicans suffered in the debt debate? Because the argument was always about how we wouldn't give on our top-priority items of keeping taxes low and cutting spending.

The argument was never about getting into the Democrats' top agenda items.

Now, if the Democrats and Obama balk at helping the economy over an unpopular law that only 40% (at most) of the public supports, whose fault is that?

But you can't have this happen unless you frigging ask.

Now, Obama won't agree to this. He'll destroy his presidency before hie repeals his Big F'n' Deal.

Fine.

Then let him.

Posted by: Ace at 12:44 PM | Comments (372)
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

This is mostly denied.

Since Tim Pawlenty ended his bid for the presidency last Sunday, his former staffers and key fundraisers have held off from endorsing another candidate or moving to another campaign. ThereÂ’s a reason.

Team Pawlenty is waiting on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to make a decision about entering the field as a presidential candidate, The Daily Caller learned Friday.

Key staffers who formerly made up the Pawlenty campaign have been in discussions with Christie all week and the talks are still ongoing, sources told TheDC. They are reportedly very anxious to have Christie officially place his hat in the ring.

In an update, the writer adds:

Christie adviser Michael DuHaime told TheDC, “They are not discussing it with me, and I would be the one they would need to discuss something with.” When pressed further, DuHaime confirmed that a call took place between Pawlenty and Christie on Sunday. DuHaime called the conversation a “condolence call to a friend. Nothing more than that.”

So, a denial, except for the confirmation that a call had taken place, but not about Christie entering the race.

I'm starting to wonder with all of these rumors, though.

Mark Levin, based on just his gut, says that Palin will enter the race, too.

It's more possible now than I thought before. With Obama looking very beatable, candidates previously thought unelectable become less so.

We could have Giuliani enter on a lark, and Paul Ryan too. John McCormack games out a Ryan pathway to the nomination at, where else?, the Weekly Standard.

Could wind up being an even more crowded field.

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (168)
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

I would explain the backstory, but Levy does here, so. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:15 AM | Comments (161)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Drudge is beating hell out of Obama. Probably most cutting is his photo selections lately. First the bike (with helmet), then the professorial supercilious sneer:

That should inch that personal favorability down some.

The WH wants you to know he'll attend a security briefing today. Not mentioned as prominently: Golf.

Aides said Obama would mix his official duties with rounds of golf, and activities with his family, but by lunch time he had not ventured off the property, which is surrounded by woodland and fields where cows graze.

Obama aides said that Americans would not begrudge the president a few days of rest with his family.

Except the economy seems to be in crisis point. It is nearly like Bush taking a vacation during the Lehman Brothers implosion. And yes, the situation is moving that quickly and that badly.

For no very good reason, Michelle and the kids traveled by a separate plane, adding to costs.

I have a theory about why politically powerful liberals are so unashamed about lavish living on the taxpayer dime. To the extent they think about it at all (and most people don't actually question their good fortune, they just enjoy it without bothering themselves if it's fair or deserved), I think they believe that other rich people get their bounty due to greed and irrational structures, whereas those, like Obama or the jet-setting luxe socialist Dominique Strauss-Kahn, believe they are afforded these perks due a rational system of reward, so there's no guilt.

While other those in those notorious "corporate jets" have gotten their tickets due to unfair, undemocratic, greed-filled misallocations of wealth, liberals at the top of the academic/political/media pyramid have instead advanced in the democratic, rational, altruistic meritocratic systems in those pursuits.

So, no guilt. No shame. Unlike the typical "corporate jet" passenger, the Obamas have earned their seats, and "The People" have democratically chosen to splash these riches at their feet.

Someone on the Brett Baier panel, I think, predicted he'd cut his vacation short (and make a big deal about this -- I'm so patriotic I'm coming back to work two days early!!!). I think that's probably a good bet.

Below, "Schwalbe: The" linked this Drudge headline gif in the comments.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:41 AM | Comments (219)
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.

Apologies for always linking this, but, again, I am looking for confirmation of my belief the last month constituted a tipping point or preference cascade, not just a short-term blip, but an enduring loss of support.

(Actually, per preference cascade theory, it's not so much a loss of support as an acknowledgement that support has been lost; the theory goes that some of the public has long doubted/opposed Obama, but only with the latest horrific news have they stopped concealing this and become comfortable saying aloud what they've long believed.)

So the approximate 39-40 approval, 51-54 disapproval level continues to hold.

This article claims that you'll know he's gone when his personal favorability rating starts to fall.

The theory is the personal favorability rating represents the upper bound of possible public support; that's the highest level, and will be reached (but not exceeded, or not by much anyway) when the President is helped by favorable news.

So the personal favorability rating is the ceiling of his plausible level of support or vote share in the elections. There is no real floor, except for the 36% of the public that will vote Democratic no matter what the hell happens.

A high personal-favorability rating can bolster a lousy job-approval rating. But once the personal rating falls, rehabilitating a president's professional image becomes much more difficult. Voters can decide they're simply done rooting for a president to succeed, as they did with [Bush after 2005].

...

For the moment, Obama's personal-favorability ratings have not followed the same downward trajectory [that his job approval ratings have]. The most recent ratings from Gallup show 52 percent of Americans viewed Obama favorably in late April....

Obama's high personal-favorability ratings show swing voters are rooting for him to succeed, while his low job-performance rating demonstrates they don't like where he's going so far. If Obama's favorability ratings start sinking to match his approval numbers, it may be a sign that those critical independent voters have washed their hands of his presidency.

The claim is made that job approval ratings fluctuate based on current news and mood, whereas personal favorability is both more enduring, and harder to get back -- once someone decides they're done with you, it's hard to ever get them back.

The difference is between "My employee is screwing up lately" -- an attitude that can be changed with better performance -- and "My employee is a screw-up" -- an enduring personal assessment of unworthiness which is harder to overcome by hard work.

While the article speaks of Obama's personal favorability still being high, I seem to read it as being at 52%, which does not strike me as terribly high.

Higher than 39 or 40%, of course.

I suppose the Maginot here is 48% -- once his personal favorability drops to that level or lower, that represents his best plausible vote share, which means under most plausible scenarios he's out of office January 2013.

Posted by: Ace at 09:31 AM | Comments (266)
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.