Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Masochistic Republicans Anonymous: Yes, We Watch MSNBC
it comes sealed in a black plastic bag
After returning home from the hockey game (an experience much more worthwhile than observing the pseudo-Reaganism Barack Obama was trying to pull off), I decided that I just had to watch some of the spin-down. Being a masochistic GOPer, I naturally had to go channel 356 on DirecTV. Comcast, I’m not sure. If you are reading this with a converter box, you’re simply out of luck, even with that government coupon coming in the mail.
This morning, wanting to truly wake myself up, I decided to peruse some transcripts and video of the president’s all-but-official propaganda arm. I learned some new rules. The mere presence of Bobby Jindal is sufficient to warrant an exclamation to deity. If you are successful, Keith Matthews (or is it Chris Maddow…I can’t keep them straight) believes you should feel bad about it. I also learned that congressmen and senators aren’t doing all that well, and that according to Rachel Olbermann Maddow Matthews … the liberal Hydra occupying the opinion desk at MSNBC, they are the proper audience to discuss keeping taxes low on the middle class.
Immediately after the show, there were no reports that any member head of that oh-so-real mythological beast of liberalism offered to take a cut in pay. Not a one. In that vein, I respectfully request all three stuff it. And deep.
To be fair, I realize that I do watch it for entertainment, and since I am aware that my household constitutes a full 25% of their ratings, and someone has to justify their salaries, I would feel guilty for watching something more respectable, even though no shower and no soap can make you feel fully clean after the experience. It’s like getting sprayed by a skunk. I get bored listening to those who always agree with me. It weakens the debating skills; however, even I have a breaking point, and last night, these three clowns just about reached it.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:16 am
With their ratings, or lack thereof, these ,( I’m searching for the right word, never mind), three people seem to be in a fantasyland all of their own. How can a sponsor with any business sense sponsor this “bafoonery”?, (if it is not a word, it should be)….. Well, the leaders of the auto industry and the banks come to mind, I guess there are those without much business sense out there,……never mind….
February 25th, 2009 at 11:30 am
How can you consider yourself a political blogger when you don’t even watch the state of the union ( or whatever they want to call it). I sat down and watched every one of Bush’s states of the union, because I was interested in where the country would go in the next year, regardless of whether or not I agreed with it.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:55 am
So I cannot call myself a political blogger if I miss the live shots of a smattering of partisan standing ovations? Besides, I’ve watched it by now, so you can relax. I do hope my credibility with those who buy into Obama’s awful policies can be restored!
Plus, there was a conflict – I actually wanted to watch the Predators play the Blackhawks. I asked them to delay the hockey game for me, but they said no, so I made the call and went to an event that celebrates competition instead of watching a man who derides it on principle.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Nathan, how dare you have a life!
February 25th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I must repent. I will make my own sequin covered Barack Obama sweatshirt – then my skills will be complete, and I will be worthy. I hope.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Sure must be nice to be a member of the let and get away with crap like this:
MSNBC screws up, reacts to Bobby Jindal by saying, Oh God
February 25th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Nathan:
You call your blog “Moore Thoughts” but the thoughts are few and far between. One would hope that they taught you critical thinking in school; but your conclusions, based on available evidence, indicates educational malpractice on the part of your teachers. Perhaps if they benefited from the support of an enlightened government, not the funds-starved one you Righties have given us these last twenty-five years, you’d be a sharper intellect. We can only mourn.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:59 am
“not the funds-starved one you Righties have given us these last twenty-five years”
(in thousands of dollars)
1984 Total, Department of Education 13,319,888
2008 Total, Department of Education 68,574,592
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf
February 26th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Ah, a numbers man.
1984 Department of Education budget: $56 per person per year.
That year, California, to choose one state as an example, spent about $7,000 per year per student.
2008 Department of Education budget: about $220 per year per American. California spent about $8500 per student that same year.
Yes, we are DROWNING in Federal dollars for education, apparently. I feel for your outraged howls. But another aircraft carrier group, now that’s PATRIOTIC.
Maybe you’d be happiest if our country became like Mexico, where we’d all have to hide behind razor-wire-topped walls from an ignorant, starving and heavily-armed peasantry. That would be freedom…to purchase whatever Kevlar clothing looks best, and damn the cost.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“2008 Department of Education budget: about $220 per year per American. California spent about $8500 per student that same year.”
From 2006:
“On average, the federal government contributed $974 per student enrolled in public school systems. Federal contributions ranged from $2,181 per student in Alaska to $627 in Nevada”
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/011747.html
Also, its a poor comparison. “$220 per American” vs “$8500 per stundent.” You compare Federal spending per American with CA spending per student. Not every American is a student.
Secondly, the Federal govt is not the main source of education dollars. According to the Dept of Edu:
“The U.S. Constitution leaves the responsibility for public K-12 education with the states.”
“Therefore, the federal government, through the legislative process, provides assistance to the states and schools in an effort to supplement, not supplant, state support.”
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html#chart1
Overall per pupil spending and overall spending has been increaesing quite steadidly over the last 25 years at the local, state, and federal level.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#2
While the quality of public education is certainly in need of improvement, the notion that education is “funds-starved” simply isn’t true.
One would expect state
The U.S. Constitution leaves the responsibility for public K-12 education with the states.
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html#chart1