So much ridicule, so little time. Today might be a two-fer on postings, both because I’ve got a lot of time on my hands over the next four days and because I’ve still got Krugman’s article from yesterday backlogged. Collins is an easier target though; she doesn’t even strive for thematic fluidity or logical consistency anymore. Someday I’ll get tired of shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel. Not today.
Sacred Cows, Angry Birds
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: February 18, 2011
The House of Representatives has been cutting like crazy!
Sweet! There’s a pun in here somewhere about Democrats in Madison “cutting class,” but I can’t get a handle on it. Oh well. Win some, lose some.
Down with Planned Parenthood
Would Democrats have ever funded the organization if it didn’t offer abortions? Trick question! Of course. Democrats will fund anything.
and PBS!
Also known as “that channel that’s taking up valuable space between Fox and the History Channel.”
We can’t afford to worry about mercury contamination!
Actually, that’s more of an acknowledgement that the EPA is chock full of self-righteous lunatics. I just can’t imagine that I have anything in common with those assholes—except the self-righteousness.
Safety nets are too expensive!
The deficit is approaching 10% of GDP both because of Obama’s misguided stimuli and ballooning entitlements. I would say that yes, they are most certainly too expensive.
But keep your hands off the Defense Department’s budget to sponsor Nascar
It’s NASCAR. Thanks.
racers.
It seems like the military should have the money to recruit for the armed forces. The determination of where to spend that money should be theirs. As long as you throw in a few auditors to make sure there’s no abuse or waste, I’m good with them spending that money on whatever they believe is acceptable.
“It’s a great public/private partnership,” said Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, a New Jersey Republican.
I believe that’s another way of saying “it works” but spruced up in the ludicrous vernacular of the leftist wing-nut to make it digestible to rhetorical wunderkinds like Collins. (See, it’s funny both because she’s and idiot and because she’s old.)
The Defense Department claims racecar sponsorships are an important recruiting tool for the Army. The House agreed — although this might be news to the Navy and Marines, which decided a while back that a Nascar
NASCAR!
presence wasn’t worth the money.
This isn’t complicated. There is only one pool of potential military recruits that watch NASCAR. By crowding the market with three service branches, each has opened itself to the likelihood of diminished returns. The fact that the marketplace can only support one service branch to be cost-effective doesn’t diminish the cost-effectiveness of the advertising medium. What’s more, the Navy and Marines willingness to break from an unfruitful partnership implies a strong tendency for fiscal discipline within the military’s recruitment vehicle. This concept eludes the whizzes at Planned Parenthood and PBS.
“What makes U.S. Army’s motorsports initiatives successful?” Ryan Newman, driver of No. 39 U.S. Army Chevrolet asked his Facebook readers as he urged a show of support for the program. “In a 2009 study among fans nationwide, 37% feel more positive about the Army due to its involvement in motorsports.”
NASCAR races average some 3 million viewers for important races. That’s 1,110,000 viewers per race that are reminded that there exists another door for their lives or their childrens’ lives. Army commercials in the past few years have been geared more towards parents than children, which suggests that recruitment has been strongly impaired by family reticence towards the dangers inherent to military service. Unlike recruitment centers, which offer effective one-on-one interactions between military recruiters and potential recruits, sponsorships give the military the opportunity to tailor a message to the people that have the ear of potential recruits on a daily basis.
Let’s stop right here and think about this posting. Is it likely that racing fans would think less of the Army for sponsoring racecars?
No. But it’s a virtual certainty that they would think about it less. What’s more, it’s entirely possible to support the military wholeheartedly and still feel that it’s not the best opportunity for yourself or your child. That’s why the reminders from the Army are essential: That it molds strong young men and women, That it pays for college, That it gives the opportunity for kids to develop life-long career skills. Basically, there are elements of the Army that are just like college, without the inane ramblings of a English 101 class.
Actually, wouldn’t you expect the percentage to be higher?
All advertisements are hit-or-miss.
Also, how many of you believe Ryan Newman actually wrote those sentences.
I do, but that’s because I don’t think all NASCAR drivers are illiterate hicks.
Can I see a show of hands?
Don’t be jealous that he’s got a stronger grasp on sentence composition than you. It’s not like you pretend to be a professional writer anymore.
Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota, who sponsored an amendment eliminating the military’s Nascar
NASCAR. You don’t write Mlb or Nfl.
connection, said it could save taxpayers “tens of millions of dollars.”
You would think she’d be able to be a little more precise. There is a finite cost to the sponsorship. In fact, it’s pre-determined in a contract. $7mm per year.
She got a flood of angry letters and one death threat.
It takes some chutzpah to bitch about death threats with what’s going on in Madison.
Also, her amendment was rejected, 148 to 281.
Meh. Truth be told, I wouldn’t have been upset at all if the Army had been forced to pull its NASCAR sponsorship. We need cuts.
The opponents didn’t bother with much debate.
It wasn’t worth much debate. It’s a tiny amount of money in the federal budget and it wasn’t a serious proposal—much like the proposal to cut off funding to Obama’s teleprompter. That one was at least funny though.
“This amendment is about politics in certain districts for certain groups of people,” said Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a tad obliquely.
So pick a better quote.
McHenry was probably
No. Pick a better quote instead of embarrassing yourself by trying to interpret this one.
referring to the Democrats, who’ve often been branded by the Republicans as tennis-watching snobs.
Actually, she did a pretty good job. Democrats don’t “get” real sports.
The Obamaites actually spend vast amounts of time and money trying to woo “Nascar dads,”
First, that term hasn’t been used since 2004, which means it was John Kerry doing the dude-wooing (and really, is anyone surprised?) Second, in a column about fiscal discipline regarding NASCAR money, you’d think Democrats would be demanding a higher return for their efforts. The “NASCAR dad” demographic would still spurn Democrats if Republicans campaigned exclusively on outlawing Slim Jims and Keystone Light. Third, maybe the party would get some more traction in the demographic if it understood that it’s NASCAR, an abbreviation, as opposed to Nascar!
although given car racing’s sinking popularity, it might make more sense to target some other fan base.
Good luck with baseball fans. We still remember that Obama throws like a girl and can’t name a single player from his “favorite team.”
What about all the people who play games on their cellphones and iPads?
Social-network gamers don’t count as a “fan base.” They barely count as people. I guess it’s good that 90% of them don’t get to vote.
Make 2012 the Year of the Angry Birds Dad or the Brickbreaker Aunt.
Are you trying to get me to punch a political strategist in the gut?
But I digress.
Yes. You do. Very often. It’s not charming or interesting. It’s just sloppy writing.
On Friday, the House was working its way through 129 amendments to its continuing budget resolution. There would have been 130, but Representative Steve Womack of Arkansas retracted his proposal to cut off financing for President Obama’s teleprompter.
That one still makes me chuckle. Props, Arkansas.
The majority did vote, however, to eliminate money for a park in Nancy Pelosi’s district. The former House speaker has been demonized to the point that it’s safe to do anything to her short of kidnapping the family dog.
Nah, I’d be cool with that. That dog has probably seen some terrible, terrible things. He deserves better, America.
Let’s give Speaker John Boehner credit for keeping his promise to give members more chance to debate and offer amendments. Really, if things get any more open, the members will start throwing themselves off the balcony.
So openness and transparency is only sort of a good thing sometimes?
But not such high marks on consistency.
Please show your work.
The newly ascendant Republicans have been howling that the deficit is so big, so threatening, that no target for cutting is sacred. “Everything is on the table. We’re broke,” said Boehner.
I’m digging me some Boehner these days. I immediately regret how dirty that sounded.
But the table is mainly crowded with stuff the Republicans didn’t like to begin with.
Is this supposed to be inconsistent?
Family-planning money and environmental protection,
This is what’s known as “low-hanging fruit.”
but not oil tax breaks
As soon as we quit subsidizing wind farms and ethanol (which, has been inflating food prices, in case you hadn’t heard) I’m so far down with eliminating tax breaks for oil companies it’s not even funny.
or Nascar
NASCAR.
sponsorships. “Sesame Street” is fair game,
Sesame Street is popular. I have no doubt that the program would get picked up by Nick Jr. or any one of 227 other channels designed for incontinent viewers.
but the Daytona 500 is untouchable.
Untouchable, no. Our elected officials simply believe that it is an acceptable use of military recruitment funds.
“Spending is out of control,” cried Jim Jordan, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, who argued for additional cuts in all nonsecurity discretionary spending — except aid to Israel.
They’re our staunch allies and they have been under siege for 60 years as the only stable democracy in a region dominated by fanatical neo-Neanderthals. For that alone they deserve consideration for their yeoman’s work to further our interests in the region.
In Wisconsin, the new Republican governor, Scott Walker, wants to strip state employees of their collective-bargaining rights
Now you’re confusing state debts with federal debts. See, I know this because you’re talking about a governor, who has absolutely no say in federal affairs (unless you’re talking about states ratifying amendments to the federal Constitution, which you clearly aren’t).
because: “We’re broke. We’ve been broke in this state for years.”
The difference is that Walker can’t print money to cover the government’s debts.
Wisconsin’s Democratic state senators went into hiding to deprive the Republican majority of the quorum they need to pass Walker’s agenda.
In other words, they whined like little girls, spat on the people of Wisconsin, and actively attempted to undermine the impact of last year’s elections and the democratic process in general. Who was it that said “elections have consequences?” Oh right. The guy who throws like a girl in the White House. Wait, that’s not specific enough…
The Senate majority leader, Scott Fitzgerald — who happens to be the brother of the Assembly speaker, Jeff Fitzgerald —
CONSPIRACY!!!
believes the governor is absolutely right about the need for draconian measures to cut spending in this crisis. So he’s been sending state troopers out to look for the missing Democrats.
The troopers aren’t out there because they want the proposed law. They’re out there because they value the rule of law and the legislative process. Democrats in Wisconsin have shown themselves to be irresponsible brats.
The troopers are under the direction of the new chief of the state patrol, Stephen Fitzgerald. He is the 68-year-old father of Jeff and Scott and was appointed to the $105,678 post this month by Governor Walker.
For the chief of the state patrol? That’s very reasonable. Chicago beat cops make $64,374 plus a few add-ons for various responsibilities.
Perhaps the speaker’s/majority leader’s father was a super choice,
I have no idea, and neither do you.
and the fact that he was suddenly at liberty after having recently lost an election for county sheriff was simply a coincidence that allowed the governor to recruit the best possible person for the job. You’d still think that if things are so dire in Wisconsin, the Fitzgerald clan would want to set a better austerity example.
The man runs the state troopers. $105,678 is not unreasonable in the slightest.
And if Big Bird goes, we can spare the U.S. Army Chevrolet, too.
No. You don’t get to do that. You have strayed so far off-topic that you don’t get to come back around and make a cute little one-off about NASCAR. The Wisconsin issues has virtually NOTHING to do with the federal deficit talks, at least until Boehner and McConnell decide that they have the juice to take on the federal public unions. (I’m crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.)
What’s more, there is no link between Big Bird and the Army. One is federally funded because…well no one knows why a show that’s perfectly viable on the open market is federally funded. The other is funded by the military with full knowledge of the other options and a full set of market constraints. What’s more, my guess is that if you cut $7mm from the Army’s annual recruitment budget that they would still keep the NASCAR sponsorship. That is how you know that one is about politics and the other is about cutting fat.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 19, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment