Happy Birthday, Mr. Stimulus

It’s time to blow out the candle on the One Year Anniversary (Belatedly I know) of the Greatest Economic Recovery Program ever created, The Stimulus Package, Over $800 Billion dollars over pure Liberal love that saved not only the country but the universe itself!

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland: The Recovery Act has already worked to save or create as many as 2.4 million jobs, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  In one year, the Recovery Act has provided $120 billion in tax cuts for 95% of working families as well as businesses across the country; loaned nearly $20 billion to small businesses to expand and create jobs; funded more than 12,500 transportation projects nationwide; kept teachers, police officers, and firefighters on the job; and accomplished much more. (USAToday)

The Greatest thing since sliced bread!

“So far, the Recovery Act is responsible for the jobs of about 2 million Americans who would otherwise be unemployed.” — President Obama

  • Context:  Both government and private economists have made wide-ranging estimates for jobs created and saved by the stimulus. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), for example, has estimated that the stimulus was responsible for between 800,000 and 2.4 million jobs in 2009. The White House Council of Economic Advisers pegs the range at between 1.5 million and 2 million

What is “saved or created” but Orwellian BS??

“We gave relief to states that were struggling to balance their budgets — relief that has allowed 300,000 teachers and education workers to keep their jobs, as well as tens of thousands of cops and firefighters and first responders and correctional officers.” — Obama

  • Context: About 389,000 jobs were reported saved or created in the last quarter of 2009 by recipients of $25.5 billion in aid from the Education Department. But funding runs out in 2011, leaving some states and school districts worried that they will have to cut programs and lay off teachers. “That’s something that we’re watching and we’re concerned about,” Obama said. For example, Education Secretary Arne Duncan visited a Virginia school Wednesday, touting a stimulus-funded program that provides extra classroom time for students. That program will be eliminated next year, however. “It’s not because we didn’t think this was a good program,” Fairfax County school spokesman Paul Regnier said. “There isn’t enough money.”

So you’re just delaying the  inevitable.

Charles Krauthammer:  This idea of jobs saved or created — the Bureau of Labor Statistics has hundreds of numbers and statistics. It does not have a statistic dealing with, say, jobs. And the reason is that it can’t be measured. It doesn’t exist. It’s a fiction.

The administration repeats it saved a million jobs, a million and a half or two million. All we know for sure is that the huge expenditures that were given to states to bail out the ones that had overspent or were almost bankrupt did for a year or two of the stimulus keep a lot of bureaucrats and state governments employed.

So, perhaps you could say, well, in the midst of a real recession you wanted to bottom out the trough, but $1 trillion dollars is a high price for a very small and temporary effect.

Mort Kondrake: Now, the problem here is that if the Obama administration claims that 2 million jobs have been saved, let’s accept that, that number, although we can’t prove it. You spend $282 billion — if my math is correct, that’s something like $140,000 per job saved, which seems like an awful lot of money.

Brett BAIER: Charles, quickly, the administration and top Democrats on Capitol Hill are not calling it another stimulus, but the jobs bill is shaping up to be much like the first one, isn’t it?

KRAUTHAMMER: It’s exactly the same idea with a new name. They understand that stimulus is not good PR. People hate stimulus. As you said, six percent believe it worked, seven percent of Americans believe Elvis is alive, so it’s, you know, neck and neck in those two beliefs.

They rename it a jobs bill. It’s the same idea. And I think there is a lot of skepticism as to whether you can really have a government create a job that is going to be a real job as opposed to just hanging on to a bureaucratic job for a year or two.(FoxNews)

So here it is by the Numbers (atr.org):

$787 billion      size of the “stimulus” package as signed into law on February 17, 2010
$862 billion     size of the “stimulus” package per CBO’s updated January review
$288 billion     claimed total tax cut amount in “stimulus” package
$214.6 billion     actual total tax cut amount in “stimulus” package (some of the tax cuts were in fact spending)
3.6 million     jobs “stimulus” package was supposed to create per the Administration’s estimations
3.3 million     number of jobs lost since signing of “stimulus” package
67,000          number of federal civilian employees added since “stimulus” package was signed
$270.7          billion cost to taxpayers* for these new government employees
7.6 percent     unemployment rate at signing of “stimulus” package
8 percent     rate under which unemployment was supposed to be held with “stimulus” package in place
10.2 percent     highest unemployment rate since signing of “stimulus” package
9.7 percent     current unemployment rate
440             number of non-existing Congressional districts in which the “stimulus” package was supposed to  have “saved and created” jobs according to Recovery.gov
$224,525.22     cost per job “saved or created” in 440 phantom districts
94,341 (and counting) number of jobs clearly not saved/created by “stimulus” package
6 percent     number of Americans who think the “stimulus” package has actually created jobs
$17 billion     Cost added to “stimulus” package due to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements

It worked so well, let’s call Stimulus II: the Sequel a “Jobs” bill!

Orwell would be proud.

And aren’t you happy that all that debt was worth it!! 🙂

Putting Your Money Where His Mouth is

“After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he said. “It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend.”

To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.

They reveal these startling facts: When calculated by the average annual percentage of the Gross Domestic Product that he will spend during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the earliest year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP. When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP he will borrow during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the greatest debter president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Obama will outspend and out-borrow the admittedly profligate George W. Bush, a man Obama and his lieutenants routinely malign for fiscal recklessness and who, when in office, was often hailed even by his allies as a Big Government Republican. Obama will even outspend—but not quite out-borrow—his fellow welfare-state liberal FDR, who had to contend with both the Depression and World War II.

In determining this was the case, I credited the presidents prior to Obama with the federal spending and borrowing that occurred during the fiscal years that started when they were in office. I credited Obama with the spending and borrowing that his own OMB estimates will occur during the fiscal years from 2010 to 2013, which are the four fiscal years starting during Obama’s four-year term. (Before fiscal 1977, fiscal years ran from July 1 to June 30. Since then, they have run from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.)

FDR was inaugurated in March 1933 and died in April 1945. He is thus responsible for the 12 fiscal years from 1934 to 1945. During those years of depression and world war, according to OMB, federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of GDP. During Obama’s four fiscal years, OMB estimates spending will average 24.13 percent of GDP. That is about 25 percent more than under FDR.

In the first eight fiscal years of FDR’s presidency, before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, federal spending as a percentage of GDP never exceeded 12 (despite the Depression). During those years, it averaged only 9.85 percent. Under Obama, annual spending as a percentage of GDP will average almost two-and-a-half times that much.

In fiscal 1942, when the U.S. started dramatically ramping up expenditures to fight World War II, federal spending equaled 24.3 percent of GDP. In 2010, the first full fiscal year of the Obama era, spending will reach 25.4 percent of GDP.

Under current estimates, Obama will not beat FDR’s overall record for borrowing, although he will nearly double FDR’s pre-World War II rate of borrowing. From 1934-41, FDR ran annual deficits that averaged 3.56 percent of GDP. Obama, according to OMB, will run average annual deficits of 7.05 percent GDP. When you include the war years of 1942-45, FDR ran average annual deficits of 9.76 percent of GDP. Even without a world war, Obama’s overall prospective borrowing is at least competitive with FDR’s.

And Obama and FDR share one historic debt-accumulating distinction. By OMB’s calculation, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to run up annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP. Obama will run up a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of GDP. The last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945 — when Germany and Japan surrendered.

The U.S. won the Cold War without ever running a double-digit deficit. President Reagan’s highest deficit was 6 percent of GDP in 1983 — and he bankrupted the Soviet Union not the United States.

So how does Obama compare with the much-maligned George W. Bush? In Bush’s eight fiscal years, annual federal spending averaged 20.43 percent of GDP, significantly less than Obama’s estimated 24.13 percent of GDP.

Bush ran annual deficits that averaged 3.4 percent of GDP—and that includes fiscal 2009, when the deficit soared to 9.9 percent of GDP and Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill (some of which was spent in fiscal 2009) after Bush left office. Obama, according to OMB, will run deficits that average 7.05 percent of GDP—or more than twice the average deficits under Bush.

The bottom line on Obama: He puts our money where his mouth is.(CNSnews)

The Bush Deranged who will blame every ill in the universe on George W. Bush, who admittedly was a fiscal socialist like them in his last years.

The fact that Congress was taken over by The Reid-Pelosi types in 2007 didn’t help any.

Whether that was trying to buy off his legacy from people that had already spent years piling on him or just weakness., it’s hard to say.

Bush in his last couple of years was a train wreck.

But the current administration takes that train wreck and brings in Godzilla, King Ghidorah, Hedorah, and all the other monsters and has a stomping party on it.

Then proclaims not only is it the other guys fault but they have “saved us all”!

How great are we! 😦

BUT He made me do it!!! 😦

Bovine Fecal Matter!!

That’s like saying, after an all-night binge drinking session and getting pulled over for DUI that it was the bar’s fault or your friends who egged you on.

It’s complete crap.

So you have “fiscal responsibility” after the biggest spending binge in American History….then you propose EVEN MORE OR THE SAME  (aka Health Care, Cap & Trade, Amnesty for New Democrats,etc) and that’s supposed to work because you have re-imagined it!

The definition of insanity is doing exactly the same thing every time and expecting a different result.

They are insane.

But this is the wet dream of  several generations of socialist Democrats at precisely the wrong time.

But they can’t understand that.

Like children who have been lusting after a toy for Christmas since the day after Christmas from when they were 2 they think the message is not the problem, but how it’s phrased and delivered.

That somehow the 1000 lb. White Elephant in the room is not the problem, so let’s call in a stylist and call it a The Blanco Pachyderm Supreme, as if that will help sell there socialism.

In true Orwellian fashion, it’s not the ideas that are bad, it’s the presentation.

The almost child-like arrogance and stubbornness is not appealing.

Neither is the finger pointing.

But they can’t see that.

And that’s why they are headed straight for the iceberg aboard the Titanic.

Unfortunately, we are all the Passengers and we will all go down with them.

And it’s all those Damn Republican’s Fault! 😡

Vice President Joe Biden complains that Washington is “broken” and “dysfunctional.” In fact, Republicans blocking Democrats from further wrecking the economy is the American system at its best.

Appearing on the CBS Early Show, the vice president lamented that “Washington, right now, is broken,” adding that “I don’t ever recall a time in my career where to get anything done, you needed a supermajority, 60 out of 100 senators. … I’ve never seen it this dysfunctional.”

The man one heartbeat away from the presidency obviously has a conveniently short memory.

During the Bush administration, when Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the Senate but were lacking a supermajority, Democrats were only too happy to use the filibuster to block judicial appointees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown — because they weren’t liberal activists. (The courts are where liberals are able to wield the kind of sweeping powers that the people would never give them through the ballot box.)

Now, with the tables turned, Biden has come to think a lot less of the rules of that “world’s greatest deliberative body” where he spent more than 30 years.

Others on the left agree.

Lawyer Thomas Geoghegan, writing in the New York Times last month, charged that “the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional” and argued that the Founding Fathers “were dead set against supermajorities as a general rule, and the ever-present filibuster threat has made the Senate a more extreme check on the popular will than they ever intended.”

But the derailing of the radical health care revolution being pushed by the White House and the Democratic majorities in Congress is a perfect example of how America’s legislative system can rise to greatness — protecting the majority.

Defending the filibuster last month on the Witherspoon Institute’s thepublicdiscourse.com, Radford University political science Professor Matthew J. Franck noted: “The Senate has chosen a set of rules that prize the power of senators as individuals to shape and to slow down debate in the chamber, while the House has chosen rules that streamline debate and advantage the majority party.”

The Senate filibuster is “in purpose and effect, an aid to legislative deliberation” because, according to Franck, “the Senate has always prized the freedom of action of the individual senators, to speak at length during debate and to turn the deliberations on a bill in new directions by way of amendments.”

In the case of health reform, the people, who overwhelmingly oppose the Democrats’ plans, have indeed been deliberating.

Last month they used a special Senate election in one of the most dependably Democratic states in the Union to obstruct the Democratic majority’s locomotive running through Congress.

Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown’s 41st vote means the radical left will have to wait longer to get what they crave: extensive government control over the U.S. medical system.

What Joe Biden calls “dysfunctional” is American government working as it should — thanks to the Republicans doing their job in opposing still more spending and dangerous government intrusion. (IBD)

So let’s stay in Campaign Mode.

Democrats in charge of both the White House and Congress are firing all their guns at once to tout the benefits of the $862 billion stimulus package passed a year ago this week. They’ve even planned a 35-city tour to support it. Their message?

“One year later, it is largely thanks to the recovery act that a second depression is no longer a possibility,” President Obama said Wednesday. The stimulus act has created 2 million jobs, he claimed, predicting 1.5 million more this year from the program.

Is it just a coincidence that the 3.5 million jobs he is claiming is exactly what the White House predicted early last year? We doubt it. But whatever the case, Obama’s claims are false.

Start with this: Stimulus didn’t save us from an economic cataclysm. Obama himself said so back in March, noting that the economy was “not as bad as we think,” and that he was “highly optimistic.” It’s clear he didn’t think we were on the brink of a Depression.

He was right. In an editorial at the time, we pointed to 13 separate economic indicators signaling an imminent economic recovery — with all of them flashing before the stimulus was in place.

We knew at the time that our resilient private economy would climb out of its hole, and that politicians would try to claim credit. That’s why we wrote: “No politician who voted for these job- and growth-killing measures should claim any credit for our eventual rebound.” Following Wednesday’s fact-bending dog-and-pony show, we think that bears repeating.

The claim that stimulus has “created or saved” 2 million jobs is complete fiction. It rests on the obviously false idea that money can be taken from the productive private sector and given to the nonproductive public sector and create a net gain in jobs.

Based on the imaginary existence of a so-called “Keynesian multiplier,” this kind of thinking hypothesizes jobs that don’t really exist. Sadly, when we count actual jobs, the reality is a bit starker: 8.4 million jobs lost since December 2007, the start of the recession. And more than 4 million lost since the start of 2009.

So when Vice President Biden says Americans are “getting their money’s worth” from stimulus, it should be treated as a punch line — not a policy view.

Look Ma, how great I am. 😦

Worse is the administration’s claim that stimulus is responsible for the fourth quarter’s 5.7% spurt in GDP. This, too, is utterly false.

Two-thirds of that number was made up of inventories. Businesses had liquidated so much in inventories as Obama came into office, helping to make GDP declines last year deeper than expected, that when they finally stopped the economy appeared to be growing strongly. It wasn’t.

Real final sales, a measure that excludes short-term inventory swings, rose just 2.2% in the fourth quarter — hardly a boom.

What bothered us most, however, was Obama’s reference to a “lost decade” under President Bush — a now-popular insult Democrats use to imply Obama’s predecessor is to blame for everything.

So, let’s review the Bush record one more time.

As background, Bush’s presidency began after the largest stock market crash in history, which destroyed nearly $8 trillion in national wealth. Business investment had collapsed, in part due to the Y2K debacle. The economy in early 2001 was already in recession. And within nine months we were hit by the 9/11 attacks.

Thanks to Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the U.S. economy came back. From the end of 2000 to Bush’s exit from office, 4.6 million jobs were created, industrial output rose 5%, productivity soared 25%, real after-tax income jumped 21% and net wealth grew by $8.6 trillion. And that includes last year’s financial meltdown.

Calling this a “lost decade” is simply wrong. Curiously, the economy was far healthier before Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Is it just coincidence that the unraveling of our financial system took place just as they regained control?

Today, stimulus, TARP and other programs intended to boost the economy are instead adding trillions of dollars in debt and spending that our kids and grandkids will have to pay off in coming decades. And let the record show: They’re not creating jobs.

Recent polls show Americans overwhelmingly believe the stimulus is a failure. They’re right. And no amount of snake oil sold by slick White House salesmen from the back of a government truck is likely to convince them otherwise. (IBD)

But Don’t tell the Democrats or liberals that, it’s Heresy. 🙂

And they will be signing it’s praises regardless.

So, How do you want your $14 Trillion Dollar Blanco Pachyderm Supreme?

Take out or Delivery? 🙂

New Conditions to Be Sick On

LONDON, ENGLAND – Lost the remote control and can’t be bothered to get up to change the channel on the TV? Don’t worry, you’re not lazy, you simply have sluggish cognitive tempo disorder.

Or maybe you’re prone to a bit of a tantrum when you misplace the car keys? Possibly a sign of intermittent explosive disorder.

These are just two of dozens of extravagantly titled ‘conditions’ under consideration for the latest edition of the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – the psychiatrists’ ‘bible’.
People who are passive, dreamy or sluggish could be suffering from sluggish cognitive tempo disorder

Symptoms of sluggish cognitive tempo disorder include passiveness, dreaminess and sluggishness – traits that could easily be confused with laziness.

And with other potential entries including sex addiction there are concerns the revised manual will trigger a boom for drugs companies.

Richard Bentall, professor of clinical psychology at Bangor University, dismissed the new conditions as having ‘no basis in science’, adding: ‘The more disorders there are, the more private business psychiatrists get.’

But the American Psychological Association, which compiles the manual, says the new disorders simply reflect changes in our society.

Not all the proposals are so frivolous, with plans to include a new category for autism. Dr David Kupfer, of the revision task force, said the book aimed to be ‘based upon the best science available’.

So the next time someone complains that your room or house looks like a bomb went off in it, just tell them you have a sluggish disorder.

I’m sure some Drug company will come up with something so the Health Care industry can be charged for it.

Recommended Treatment : Kick in the Ass!

Then kick the idiots who came up with this in the teeth!

But that’s probably intermittent explosive disorder. 🙂

Some More:

‘Hoarding’ is just one of the new mental conditions being added to the psychiatrists’ bible, or the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM), to give it its proper name.

People who know me are probably smirking.

Well, these people at least have their own TV show. 😦

Then there’s: “Mary Whitehouse syndrome” — the thrill of being appalled by pornography and other obscenities. Absexuality appears to have been inspired by the zeal of Whitehouse, the campaigner who railed against smut on television.

Mary Whitehouse is probably England most famous violence and sex hysterical ever.

She also became famous for going after my favourite show, “Doctor Who”. The longest running science fiction show in the history of Television.

She was famous for taking on the show and is credited by some as one of the reasons Producer Philip Hinchcliffe got dropped by the BBC in the mid-70’s bringing to an end the wildly successful “Gothic” period of the show to an end.

But she continued to go after it even after that.

In a twist of irony she died on November 23,2001. Doctor Who’s 38th Anniversary!

The show continues in case you didn’t know. It’s on BBC America in the US and Season 31 in 46 years is coming around Easter.

More on this next week. 🙂

Back to our regular scheduled outrage…

The disorders, which also include hypersexuality — the desire for multiple partners, perhaps characterised by the golfer Tiger Woods — reflect changing social patterns. Critics believe, however, that their classification as psychiatric problems may lead them to be exploited for profit by drug companies.

Really, do you think so? 🙂

‘Once a condition has got a label you’ve got a better chance of being treated and researchers are more likely to investigate it,’ explains Professor David Cottrell, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Leeds.

Richard Bentall, professor of clinical psychology at Bangor University, in north Wales, said: “Most of these diagnoses are meaningless and have no basis in science. But the more disorders there are, the more private business psychiatrists get.”

So it’s about the  money.

Maybe this is how Global Warming got started.

Someone pass me the Cheetos and the remote I’m going to watch Attack of the Show and charge it all to Aetna. 🙂

Call Indoctrination What it is

“College graduates, whether it be current or graduated in the past, seem to have difficulty knowing basic things about our government and our history,” Mr. Brake said. “Does college share all the blame? Of course not — this is a systemic problem, from K through 12 and all the way up. But universities train our teachers and train our leaders, so they play a role.” (Chronicle of Higher Education)

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) released its fourth annual national Civic Literacy report today called “The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs.” In past studies, ISI has broken new ground by  demonstrating empirically the failures of colleges and universities to effectively teach their graduates the fundamentals of American history, government, foreign affairs, and economics.

MAJOR FINDINGS

  • While College Fails to Adequately Transmit Civic Knowledge, It Influences Opinion on Polarizing Social Issues
  • Compared to College, Civic Knowledge Exerts a Broader and More Diverse Influence on the American Mind
  • Civic Knowledge Increases a Person’s Regard for America’s Ideals and Free Institutions

Wanna Try, Here is the Test written by this group: http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx

FYI: I got 30/33.

The overall average score was only 49%, with college graduates also failing at 57%.

Here’s a question that less than 25% got right:

7) What was the source of the following phrase: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”?
A. the speech “I Have a Dream”
B. Declaration of Independence
C. U.S. Constitution
D. Gettysburg Address

YIKES!!

On an individual level, less than 60% (sometimes far less) of college graduates can identify on a multiple-choice test the three branches of government; seminal passages from the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address; basic events from the Revolutionary, Civil, and Vietnam Wars; and the primary features of our free enterprise system. Several of these questions are actually required knowledge for new American citizens, signifying their relevance to what we as a nation demand for informed citizenship.

On an institutional level, ISI discovered that at many of our most elite schools, like Yale, Princeton, Duke, and my alma mater Georgetown, not only did those surveyed fail to get above a “D,” seniors at these top schools did worse than freshmen on the same test, a phenomenon dubbed “negative learning”!

Conventional wisdom, along with the hard-earned savings of American families, has long supported the notion that “with more college comes more knowledge.” ISI’s research has punctured the validity of such simple claims, drawing back the curtain of academia’s Land of Oz to reveal the smoke and mirrors of a veritable vacuum of civic ignorance.

Still, until this new survey by ISI, it was unclear scientifically whether this clear ideological bias on the part of faculty spilled-out into the classroom. Maybe faculty were liberal, but their professionalism prevented them from injecting their politics into their disciplinary subject-matter?
So what does ISI’s new study reveal? How does college “Shape the American Mind?”

As you might suspect, the Academy’s liberalism has not been value-neutral. On the contrary, when ISI held all other variables constant in a graduate’s background, like their age, race, income, gender, religion, etc., and just looked at the independent impact of college, we discovered a clear leftward lurch. For example, on the issues front, college’s impact was almost exclusively on some of the most polarizing of matters. Not only did college make a graduate more likely to support abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage, but it made a person less likely to support prayer in schools, and remarkably, the notion that with hard work anyone can succeed in America.

In terms of political self-identification, college made a person much more likely to label him or herself as liberal and a Democrat, ranking only behind race (minority), gender (female), and marital status (single) in its leftward influence.

It is important to note that most college graduates are still skeptical of abortion-on-demand (only 21% approve) and same-sex marriage (only 39% approve), and they land squarely in the moderate/independent range. Clearly, there are other variables besides a college education that influence a person’s overall political worldview. But what ISI’s research proves is that when people do attend college, their political attitudes and opinions begin to shift in an identifiably leftward direction, much more so if they had not decided to go to college in the first place.

Interestingly, when a student scored higher on ISI’s civic literacy test it was found to have a very different impact on that person’s worldview. For instance, the more knowledge a student had about America, it did not seem to have any discernible impact one way or another on hot-button issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Instead, higher civic knowledge led individuals away from contentious social issues and towards more sympathetic perceptions of America in general, its founding documents, and its free market economic institutions. Apparently, greater familiarity with America, instead of breeding contempt, actually fostered more respect for key elements of America’s free society.

In the end, America is a free country, and everyone is entitled to their particular political point-of-view, including college professors and college graduates. And if colleges were adequately teaching their students about America’s history and its institutions, and the same leftward political influences were discovered, then it could be logically concluded that as citizens learned more about their country, this academic enlightenment leads naturally to liberal political enlightenment. But this peculiar combination of collegiate civic ignorance on the one hand, and collegiate liberalism on the other, suggests a wholly different story, one featuring academic neglect at best and political indoctrination at worst.

Clearly, American colleges and universities need to do a better job teaching the story of America’s free and prosperous representative democracy, and ISI’s civic literacy research would suggest two areas where we should start. First we should return to a tried and true core curriculum. Second, we should support the restoration of intellectual pluralism—ideologically, methodologically, as well as demographically. Otherwise, it will be hard for the wizards of academia to escape the growing perception that all they are producing are a cadre of intellectual munchkins who share the wizards’ political views.(FOX)

It gets better:

Previous surveys have found that, in general, college does not bring students up to a high level of civics knowledge. According to the institute’s 2008 report, based on a survey of 2,500, people whose highest level of educational attainment was a bachelor’s degree correctly answered 57 percent of the questions, on average. That is three percentage points lower than a passing grade, according to the survey’s authors.

Even earlier surveys showed that years in college were only slightly correlated to civics expertise. For a 2006 report the institute surveyed 14,000 college freshmen and seniors on basic civics questions. It found seniors answered an average of 53 percent of the questions correctly, just 1.5 percent higher than freshmen.

So what happened to that “diversity” and “college of ideas”

Well, in true Liberal fashion, diversity means only them exclusively. We wouldn’t want to pollute the colleges with “right wing propaganda” now would we. 🙂

Add to that the 2007 Harvard study of the Liberal Media Bias.

The bias of The National Teacher’s Union.

And you get  <<drum roll>> INDOCTRINATION. 🙂

Don’t teach them things you don’t want them to know.

Or as a CNN promo back in the mid 90’s said “All the News you need to know” 🙂

Link to interview on C-Span (41 mins): http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/02/10/WJE/A/29442/Richard+Brake+Intercollegiate+Studies+Institute+Civic+Literacy+Program+Chairman.aspx

Or as the fire-bearthing Liberal blog Daily Koz put it, “So I guess testing theories, hypothesis and postulates with critical thinking and true analysis makes you a liberal.  Having rules where we actually do critical thinking to prove or disprove an idea is liberal?”

Chew on that one for a moment.

No, I won’t pass you the barf bag.

Similarly, all else being equal, a college graduate will be less likely to:

  • Believe anyone can succeed in America with hard work and perseverance;

Now that’s not Liberal bias at all. 😦

But if you  teach people ignorance you get ignorant people.

And you get people who can manipulated.

The Orwellian Sheep to be sheared.

But don’t worry, ask any liberal, and they are the most diversity minded, open-minded, sensitive person out there unlike the narrow-minded, bigot right-wingers. 🙂

Now don’t you feel smarter.

Tired

I have been digging in a garden fro the last 2 days. I’m not convinced it’s entirely in vain.

But what I am convinced of is that I’m TIRED.

So here is an article by one of my favourite writers, Mark Steyn On the “Greening” of America.

The Eco-Terror coming. Like the EPA and it’s CO2 is “harmful to human life” statist takeover.

A man asks for a plastic bag at the supermarket checkout. Next thing you know, his head’s slammed against the counter, and he’s being cuffed by the Green Police. “You picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy,” sneers the enviro-cop, as the perp is led away.

Cut to more Green Police going through your trash, until they find … a battery! “Take the house!” orders the eco-commando. And we switch to a roadblock on a backed-up interstate, with the Green Police prowling the lines of vehicles to check whether they’re in environmental compliance.

If you watched the Super Bowl, you most likely saw this commercial. As my comrade Jonah Goldberg noted, up until this point you might have assumed it was a fun message from a libertarian think-tank warning of the barely veiled totalitarian tendencies of the eco-nanny state.

Any time now, you figure, some splendidly contrarian type — perhaps Clint lui-meme in his famous Gran Torino — will come roaring through flipping the bird at the storm troopers and blowing out their tires for good measure.

Don’t Fight It

But instead the Greenstapo stumble across an Audi A3 TDI. “You’re good to go,” they tell the driver, and, with the approval of the state enforcers, he meekly pulls out of the stalled traffic and moves off. Tag line: “Green has never felt so right.”

So the message from Audi isn’t “You are a free man. Don’t bend to the statist bullies,” but “Resistance is futile. You might as well get with the program.”

Strange. Not so long ago, car ads prioritized liberty. Your vehicle opened up new horizons: Gitcha motor running, head out on the highway, looking for adventure …

To sell dull automobiles to people who lived in suburban cul-de-sacs, manufacturers showed them roaring round hairpin bends, deep into forests, splashing through rivers, across the desert, invariably coming to rest on the edge of a spectacular promontory on the roof of the world offering a dizzying view of half the planet. Freedom!

But now Audi flogs you its vehicles on the basis that it’s the most convenient way to submit to arbitrary state authority. Forty years ago, when they first began selling over here, it’s doubtful the company would have considered this either a helpful image for a German car manufacturer or a viable pitch to the American male.

But times change. As Goldberg pointed out, all the men in the Audi ad are the usual befuddled effete new-male eunuchs that infest all the other commercials. The sort of milksop who’ll buy the TDI and then, when the Green Police change their regulatory requirements six weeks later, obediently take it back to the shop and pay however many thousand bucks to have it brought it into compliance with whatever the whimsical tyrant’s emissions regime requires this month.

9/11 ‘Complicated’

Let’s turn to an item from the Philadelphia Inquirer. A young American with a white-bread name (“Nick George”) and a clean-cut mien returns from Jordan to resume his studies at Pomona College in California, and gets handcuffed and detained for five hours by U.S. Immigration and Philly police. Why?

Well, he had Arabic-language flash cards in his pocket. Also, upon his return to the United States, his hair was shorter than on his Pennsylvania driver’s license.

“That is an indication sometimes,” explained Lt. Louis Liberati, “that somebody may have gone through a radicalization.”

Really? As Nick George’s boomer mom remarked, once upon a time long hair was a sign of radicalization.

But now it’s just a sign that you’re an all-American spaced-out doofus who’ll grow up to congratulate himself for driving an Audi TDI.

At any rate, the coiffure set off a Code Red alert, and Nick George found himself being asked: “How do you feel about 9/11?” According to the Inquirer’s Daniel Rubin, “He said he hemmed and hawed a bit. ‘It’s a complicated question,’ he told me by phone.” However, young Nick ended up telling his captors, “It was bad. I am against it.”

My, that’s big of you.

Take it as read that the bozos at the airport called this one wrong. The problem is not that Nick George, his radical haircut notwithstanding, is a jihadist eager to self-detonate on a trans-Atlantic flight. The problem is that he is an entirely typical American college student — one for whom 9/11 is “a complicated question.”

After all, to those reared in an educational system where the late Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States” (now back on the best-seller lists) is conventional wisdom, such a view is entirely unexceptional. It’s hardly Nick’s fault that the banal groupthink of every American campus gets you pulled over for secondary screening when you’re returning from Amman.

America can survive a few psychotic Islamic terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers. Whether it can survive millions of its own citizens mired in the same insipid conformo-radicalism as Nick George is another matter.

If you think “conformo-radicalism” is a contradiction in terms, well, such is the way of the world. It was reported last week that as many as a dozen men have been killed in disputes arising from karaoke performances of Frank Sinatra’s “My Way.”

Surely, bellowing out “I did it my way” to Frank’s backing track in a karaoke bar is the very definition of not doing it your way, but it’s marginally less pathetic than the song’s emergence in post-Christian Britain as a favorite funeral anthem:

For what is a man? What has he got? If not himself, then he has not? Nothing sums up your iconoclastic individualism than someone else’s signature song, right?

That’s Nick George: “9/11? I do it my way.”

That’s the metrosexual ninny in the Audi ad: “Thinking the way everyone else thinks has never felt so cool.”

The good news is, as in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” there are still a few holdouts.

Out Of Our Lives

The Washington Post ran a remarkable headline this week: “Europe Could Use Its Own Tea Party.” Underneath, David Ignatius went through the obligatory metropolitan condescension toward America’s swamp-dwelling knuckle-draggers before acknowledging that the Continent’s problem was that there was no similar populist movement demanding fiscal sanity from the governing class.

He’s right. I’ve been saying for months that the difference between America and Europe is that, when the global economy nose-dived, everywhere from Iceland to Bulgaria mobs took to the streets and besieged Parliament demanding to know why government didn’t do more for them.

This is the only country in the developed world where a mass movement took to the streets to say we can do just fine if you control-freak statists would just stay the hell out of our lives, and our pockets. You can shove your non-stimulating stimulus, your jobless jobs bill and your multitrillion-dollar porkathons. This isn’t karaoke. These guys are singing “I’ll do it my way” for real.

But it’s awfully late in the day. The end is near, we face the final curtain, and it’s an open question whether the spirit of the Tea Parties can triumph over the soporific, sophomoric, self-flattering conformism of that Audi ad: Groupthink compliance has never felt so right!

I fell better now, don’t you…

Round 3 of The Global Warming Lies Revealed

First We had ClimateGate.

Then We had GlacierGate.

We had Record Snowfalls in places that don’t have record snowfalls.

Now, whoops, they’ve stepped in it again.

And again, it only appears in English Newspapers.

The Mainstream Media largely ignores it.

The Religion of Global Warming moves on.

UK Guardian2/14/2010 : Climate experts have been forced to admit another embarrassing error in their most recent report on the threat of climate change.

In a background note – released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last night – the UN group said its 2007 report wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands lies below sea level. In fact, only 26% of the country does. The figure used by the IPCC included all areas in the country that are prone to flooding, including land along rivers above sea level. This accounts for 29% of the Dutch countryside.

“The sea-level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions,” the IPCC note states. Nevertheless, the admission is likely to intensify claims by sceptics that the IPCC work is riddled with sloppiness.

The disclosure will intensify divisions between scientists and sceptics over the interpretation of statistics and the use of sources for writing climate change reports, disagreements that have led to apologies being made by both sides of the debate. Last week a key climate-change sceptic apologised for alleging that one of the world’s leading meteorologists had deliberately exaggerated the dangers of global warming.

In an email debate in the Observer, Benny Peiser, head of the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation, quoted Sir John Houghton, the UK scientist who played a key role in establishing the IPCC, as saying that “unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”.

But in a letter to the Observer, Houghton said: “The quote from me is without foundation. I have never said it or written it. Although it has spread on the internet like wild fire, I do not know its origin. In fact, I have frequently argued the opposite, namely that those who make such statements are not only wrong but counterproductive.”

Houghton said he was incensed because he believed the quote attributed to him, and to the IPCC, an attitude of hype and exaggeration and demanded an apology from Peiser.

For his part, Peiser told the Observer that he welcomed the clarification. “For many years, the Houghton ‘quote’ has been published in numerous books and articles. I took Sir John’s failure to challenge it hitherto as a tacit admission that the ‘quote’ was accurate and reflected his view on climate policy. Now that he has publicly disowned the statement, I will certainly refrain from using it.”

Houghton’s “quote” has become one of the most emblematic remarks supposed to have been made by a mainstream scientist about global warming, and appears on almost two million web pages concerned with climate change. The fact that it now turns out to be fabricated has delighted scientists.

“We do not over-egg the pudding when it comes to the evidence about global warming – and I hope people will now appreciate this point,” said Alan Thorpe, head of the Natural Environment Research Council.

And it get’s better!

From Phil J0nes, IPCC science guru:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.


BBC Question:

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just.

H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.

I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?

No – see again my answer to D.

Answer D: This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled until recently and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Joness excuses for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and mates.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professors concessions over medieval warming were significant because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

So if it’s not settled, then there is no “consensus” and the “errors” just keep coming.

But that will not shake the faith of the Global Warming Religionist.

Just rational people.

V – If you have confidence in your science why didn’t you come out fighting like the UK government’s drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?

I don’t feel this question merits an answer.

‘Nuff Said.

Until the next time gentle reader… 🙂

Wearing that Union Label

You could be in a Union and not even know it.

Michelle Berry runs a day-care business out of her home in Flint, MI. (My hometown). She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry’s been told she is now a government employee and union member. It’s not voluntary. Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care subsidies the state sends them. The “union” is a creation of AFSCME, the government workers union, and the United Auto Workers.

Auto Workers?

This racket means big money to AFSCME, which runs the union, writes the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank.

Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in annual dues to the union….

The money should be going to home-based day-care providers — themselves not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once paid to her go to a union that does little for her…

Yep, a Union is stealing money from poor kids! 😦

Patrick Wright, a lawyer for the Mackinac Center, says the union was forced on the women after a certification election conducted by mail in which only 6,000 day-care providers out of 40,000 voted. Wright told me his clients, like Berry, say they were “shocked” to learn they were suddenly in a union.

They want nothing to do with the union. One of my clients has said, “Look, this is my home, I’m both labor and management here.” They’ve wanted nothing to do with this union and don’t think that it has any purpose besides than to siphon money away from them.

Michigan isn’t the only state funding unions this way.

Fourteen states have now enabled home-based day-care providers to be organized into public-employee unions, affecting about 233,000 people.

Mackinac sued Michigan on behalf of the day-care owners, but the case was dismissed. They have appealed. Neither Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, the Department of Human Services, nor the union would talk to me about this. Last month, Michigan Rep. Justin Amash proposed a law that would end “stealth” unionization of private entrepreneurs. (John Stosell)

Loar v. DHS. A Mackinac Center news release explains the Sept. 16 filing:

“…against the Michigan Department of Human Services in a case where a “shell corporation” was established to shanghai more than 40,000 home-based day care business owners into a government employees union. On behalf of two owners, Sherry Loar and Dawn Ives, the MCLF filed an action at the Michigan Court of Appeals seeking to stop the DHS from improperly siphoning ‘union dues’ out of state subsidy checks meant to provide assistance to low-income parents.”

The DHS and its director have since responded, asking that the case be dismissed on procedure, rather than principle. In essence, the DHS “is currently unwilling to defend its practice of collecting ‘union dues’ from home-based day care center owners,” according to Legal Foundation Director Patrick Wright. He said, “The defendants’ response shows that they lack the courage of their convictions.”(Michelle Malkin)

Now that’s how you create a “jobs” bill!!

Siphon money off from a small business helping poor kids to your Democrat Buddies in the Unions, but not tell them!

And undoubtedly claim that you saved or created their jobs!

By giving them even less money!!!

Genius.

There just went money that was supposed to got to small business that went to a Union instead.

Much like the Stimulus Money that went to the fake Congressional Districts.

Because this isn’t an auto union, it’s a GOVERNMENT SERVICES union,

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)

No fraud or coercion here. 😦

Wear that Union Label proudly. Even if you did know or didn’t want it!!

And this Government will stick by The Union.

Michigan is a very Union happy state.

When I was growing up there, the State by and large was run by the Auto industry, especially GM.

Everyone kind of knew that. It was implicit.

They are like the mafia.

Growing up I used to say there were only two kinds of people who drove Cadillacs (the fanciest cars I knew):

Pimps and Auto Workers.

The really rich didn’t live in Flint.

That way they could say they were from Grand Blanc, but only worked in Flint.

But now, with Obama, I guess it’s much more explicit, but stealthy, Just like him.

After all, Unions like this one are the guys who went and strong armed the White House last December to get themselves exempted for 5 years from the “Cadillac” health care taxes.

So what’s worse, the mafia in White House or the mafia going to the White House??

Loar is referring to the checks she regularly receives from the State of Michigan’s Department of Human Services on behalf of low-income parents who participate in a subsidy program. It turns out as of January, 2009, Sherry and some 40,000 home day care business owners in Michigan now belong to a public sector union called “Child Care Providers Together Michigan” (CCPTM). According to an announcement about the formation of this union, the CCPTM, formed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the United Auto Workers (UAW) is “an historic public service organizing drive.”

While being touted as “historic”, it’s hardly original. A 2007 report and power point presentation by the National Women’s Law Center describes how AFSCME and the Service Employees International Union began a nationwide effort to organize home day care providers, and struck a deal so as to not step on each other’s toes:

“In the summer of 2006, SEIU and AFSCME announced they had reached agreement on a plan under which one union or the other will take the lead in organizing FCC and FFN providers in sixteen states, and in one state, each union would take the lead in a different part of the state.”

The report explains that many of these unions siphon their dues from government subsidy payments to these day care owners. So as long as child care subsidies remain funded, there is a constant pool of money from which to draw these union dues. In Michigan, this meant $3.7 million in union dues last year, which ostensibly is to help day care ownersth news release, “Together, the child care providers of Michigan and their organization, work to encourage the quality child care options working parents and the businesses which employ them depend on.”  But home day care owner Michelle Berry says she has seen none of these promises fulfilled so far, “We don’t have monthly meetings. We don’t get newsletters. There’s no communication. There’s just-we have a deduction taken from a check and where that goes I have no clue.” get higher pay, health benefits and additional training. CCPTM Director Herb Sanders said in a January 12 news release, “Together, the child care providers of Michigan and their organization, work to encourage the quality child care options working parents and the businesses which employ them depend on.”

So get all that by getting less money from a Union they never knew existed?

The home day care unions in New Jersey, Ohio, Kansas, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Wisconsin were formed by executive order. Legislation in Maine and New Mexico allowed the formation of day care unions. A combination of both enabled the formation of unions in Washington, Oregon and Illinois. Michigan was unique in that it did neither. Instead, the Great Lakes State formed an “interlocal agreement” to create an employer with whom to collectively bargain.

All of this underscores the bigger problem facing unions. As representatives of the Mackinac Center wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial:

“It’s telling that in several states that have gone down this road, state and federal subsidies are the source of the union dues. In Michigan, the scheme is essentially throwing a cash lifeline to unions like the UAW, which are hemorrhaging members.”

AFSCME, the Michigan Home-Based Child Care Council, the Michigan Department of Human Services nor Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm replied to requests for comment. (Watchdog.org)

So what you have is scheme to take federal subsidies for poor children and siphon a portion of it off to Unions.

And the only way to stop it is to cut off funds to poor kids!

GENIUS! 😦

From AFSCME’s website:

Members of the new union, Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM), met yesterday in Detroit to prepare for their first-ever bargaining session with the state to strengthen quality care and service delivery to children and families.

“It’s all about the children,” said Pam Stewart, a child care provider from Benton Harbor, Mich. “The best way to give children in Michigan the best possible care is to make sure providers have a voice, because we work our hearts out for these children every day.”

In November, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission certified that a majority of home-based child care providers chose union representation. Members of CCPTM come from urban, suburban and rural areas and include both English and Spanish-speaking providers.

Stewart is one of 16 members on the CCPTM bargaining committee, whose members were elected by their co-workers in regional meetings around the state. Top priorities for their first contract include enhancing professional development opportunities and stabilizing the provision of child care through better pay and benefits for providers.

“I’m excited that we’re going to have a chance to improve our jobs, for my sake and for the sake of the children who are in my care,” said Arleen Hunter, a child care provider from Detroit. “If we can get better training and raise the pay a little, we can cut down on turnover and take better care of these kids.”

“We believe that improving the situation for providers will improve the quality of care,” said Mark Sullivan, executive director of the Michigan Community Coordinated Child Care Association (4Cs), an advocacy, referral and training organization. “As a child care advocate for more than 30 years, I have seen far too many qualified child care providers leave the field because of low pay.”

Can’t wait until they strike! 😦

I understand only 6,000 voted in this election. What do you want bet it was rigged somehow or manipulated??

The MHBCCC was created in September through an inter-local agreement between the Michigan Department of Human Services, which administers the state child care program, and Mott Community College, which has a long track record in training and developing child care providers. Inter-local agreements between different public entities are frequently used in Michigan to improve the delivery and efficiency of public services.

Well, now you know why DHS is not interested in the lawsuit. They are in on it!

The successful campaign in Michigan is part of a national movement among child care providers, who have recently won representation rights in a number of states, including Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. In Oregon, providers recently negotiated a groundbreaking contract with the state that includes a “Provider Bill of Rights.”

They are coming to a town near you. They want to absorb you!

You will become a part of the government union complex. Like it or not.

AFSCME represents more than 220,000 family child care providers, day care center workers, Head Start teachers and early childhood employees. The UAW represents more than 100,000 workers in government, higher education, automobile design and engineering, health care, child care, early childhood education and other sectors in its Technical, Office and Professional (TOP) Department.

And how many never knew or still don’t know?

And our President is a very Union Guy.

Democrats are VERY pro-Union.

And like the Government, the union is here to help you.

With a small contribution to their cause whether you wanted to contribute or not.

So proudly Wear That Union Label.

And Proudly Steal Taxpayer’s  Money from poor kids and their day car providers!!

OR ELSE we will come for you too!

Maybe some day soon, we will all work FOR the government!

Instead of it working for us.

Rejoice 🙂