Wednesday, 20 April 2011

In Passing

Indiana RINO sighting

They’re everywhere!  Dept
The Hoosierpundit:
It has largely escaped notice... but the [Indiana] Senate budget rolled out by Senator Luke Kenley strips out the automatic tax refund (or ATR) provision that has been advocated by Governor Mitch Daniels as an important part of his legislative agenda.

Under Mitch’s ATR proposal, the state would automatically return to taxpayer dollars back to taxpayers whenever the state was running a budget surplus (and had a sufficient rainy day fund accumulated as a reserve).

Luke Kenley didn't like that idea...
Hey Teapartiers, somebody needs to get primaried...

UPDATE (110422 15:06) (HT: Roberta):
Yesterday, I wrote that Senator Jim Banks had filed amendment #11 to HB 1001 reintroducing the Automatic Tax Refund (ATR) in the Senate.  But word got out that the amendment was DOA because, get this, it didn’t have the votes!  So, doing some math, if you assume that all 13 Democrats would vote against it, that means at least 12-13 Senate Republicans were willing to vote against it too.  This now means that all hope for the taxpayers is now is in Rep. Eric Turner’s House amendment.  But when you break this down, at least 1/3 of the Senate Republican caucus is willing to stiff taxpayers and the Governor.  And this after he personally asked them for help! - Nick Barbknecht
It’s not your money, it’s theirs.

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 17:24:28 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 3 kb.


Piling on

Here-we-go-again  Dept
Instapundit linked this, but wotthehel...
New Dell Support Policy: Hang Up On Customers Who Ask to Talk To Your Supervisor

Oh, Dell.  I thought since Jeff kicked you around the block way-back-when, you had learned your lesson.  I thought you had changed.  But here you go, breaking my heart again.
Read on, for a blow-by-blow report.

One of his commenters suggested writing Michael Dell. Who is probably too busy making money off the taxpayers with George Soros to reply.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Linkage at 16:56:19 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Tuesday, 19 April 2011

In Passing

Tam approaches the big time

View From The Porch:

You know you’ve arrived when The Village Voice is snarking about you!
Personally, I’m waiting until she gets attacked by name in a New Yorker casual:

An excursion into the more unpleasant part of the world wide web last Tuesday found us perusing a website calling itself [the] View From The Porch.  Which porch this one might be remains unstated, but the “views” expressed thereon mark it as one located deep in the heart of the red-state backwoods.

The Porch’s proprietor, one “Tamara K.,” is (purportedly) a woman (tall, blonde) whose tastes run to firearms, red meat, right-wing politics, and Ayn Rand: In short, she is a perfect realization of the radical right’s wet dreams, for even Sarah Palin does not dare to be tall, while Ann Coulter remains a one-of-a kind freak.

Other characters are the site’s commenters, most of them bearing unimaginative names like “Uncle,” “Jacky,” “Lis,” and “Ogg”, who spend their time cackling over their garages full of high-capacity revolvers while sniping at anyone and anything they see as the least bit “liberal.”  All are cardboard, the “women” among them (“Brenda,” “Bridgitte,” and “Johanna”) being particularly badly realized and unbelivable.

So we refuse to believe it.  The View cannot be reality; instead, it must be an attempt at a clever satire, although not a particularly well-executed one.  And until proven otherwise, we shall be suspecting that its author is in reality our great-aunt’s grandson Irving, an aspiring actor, vegitarian activist, and Harvard dropout now living in Melrose, Massachusetts.  It’s on par with his past efforts.

  An earlier version of this (which was so slow to post I thought it had disappeared) has now appeared here.  Which is the better one is up to you.

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 20:13:59 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 4 kb.

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

In Passing

Sorry, not good enough

UPDATE (110412 22:35):
Ace: Suckers: We Were Fooled; Budget Barely Cuts Anything
If the Tea Party representatives abandon the deal, can Boehner crib together a lump-party of GOP establishment appropriators and enough liberals to pass it? [link added - o.g.]
Mike Hendrix:
It does seem to me that Boehner has fucked himself — and us — too completely, on too many fronts, to make it very easy to dismiss this whole business as just routine GOP blockheaded ineptitude...  I DO know that the stink rising from this deal gets more and more noxious with every passing day, one way or another.
Bill Quick comments:
The entire debate is pointless, meaningless, and designed to make it appear that Democrats and Republicans aren’t totally united in leaving the deficits almost entirely untouched.

All you need to know about last weekend’s budget “cut” deal:
The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight days preceding the deal made by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to cut $38.5 billion in federal spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which runs through September.
Drawing the obvious conclusion, Doug Ross:
That's right: even crediting the $38 billion in cuts, the deficit increased more than $15 billion over the last eight days.
Boehner:  Deal was “as good as we could get.”

Mark Levin:
Boehner’s argument for why conservatives should be satisfied with this 1/30th reduction of the deficit is that the House GOP is too weak to win.
Limbaugh (4/11 show, parapharased):
If you go into a contest with your objective being “as good as we can get,” you will lose.
Rand Paul, voice in the wilderness:
I didn’t come to Washington to settle for $6 billion less in spending than if I had not been here. I suspect most of my freshmen House friends didn’t either.  That’s barely half a day’s spending at our current pace.  This discussion is simply not credible or serious, and unfortunately, it has not been from the beginning, as the House leadership has made clear.

Think about it another way before you vote: The entire budget cut plans skim 3 percent off the top of our historic $1.65 trillion deficit. That means the side of Big Government got 97 percent of what they want.
Boehner:  Next time for sure!


Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 15:39:46 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 6 kb.

Monday, 11 April 2011

In Passing

Must be more of that “new internationalism” we keep hearing about.

If this is Tuesday, it must be Boston  Dept
Toronto Sun:
[Canadian Liberal Party leader, and likely prime-ministerial candidate Michael] Ignatieff now claims he has never voted in a foreign country, but quotations from his past suggest he voted Labour in Britain and would vote Democrat in the U.S.

“I am an American Democrat.  I will vote for Kerry in November,” Ignatieff told The Glasgow Herald in 2004.
They were running so short of dead people that they had to recruit foreigners...?
Ignatieff, a professor at Harvard at the time, was defending his record as a human rights advocate against charges that he had become a neo-conservative who backed then-president George W. Bush...

Despite the statement that he would vote for Kerry, Ignatieff now says he has never voted outside of Canada.

Asked to clarify why Ignatieff once said he would vote for Kerry and why he says now that he has never voted outside of Canada, Ignatieff's spokesman dodged the questions...

British law allows citizens of Commonwealth nations living in Britain to cast ballots. Residents aren't automatically registered to vote and are required to sign up to get their name on the voters list.  According to online records, Ignatieff was registered to vote in Britain as recently as 2002.
Canada, Britain, the United States... Dang, I always get those countries confused!  Must be the football.

HT:  Kate


Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 21:33:10 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 3 kb.

Saturday, 09 April 2011


15 Years? You don’t say!

Charles G. Hill tells all:

This site went live on 9 April 1996 with seven pages...

The domain was obtained in March 1999.  At the time, the counter service I was using had recorded 6,444 visits; I then switched to Site Meter, and set the starting number to 6,445.  The count is currently a bit over 2.1 million.
and what’s more...
Originally everything here was hand-coded.
Why, back in my day, we had to write out our posts on Western Union forms, then hand-carry them down to the telegraph office.  In the rain.  Uphill.  In both directions.

Seriously, in any terms (not just “internet years”) 15 years is a long time!  I don’t doubt that among Dustbury’s readers are one or two who weren’t even born when Charles put up his first post. 

15 years is (almost) longer than I’ve been on the internet.[1][2] (I arrived later than many, but in the mid-90s I was trying to build a business, and viewed the internet as a dangerous distraction. (I was right.))  Once online, I spent most of my time hanging around Slashdot[3] and some of the commercial sites; personal spaces like Geocities, AOL, and LiveJournal didn’t interest me.   But 9/11 changed my habits: My search for news that day led to discovering  Instapundit (probably via a Slashdot link), and, through him, the whole world of (what were then called) warbloggers.[4]  Someone along the way pointed me to Dustbury,[5] and I finally got around to adding Charles to my bookmarks on June 1, 2002.[6]

So congratulations and happy anniversary, Charles, and so much for all those whippersnappers who think they’re cool because they’ve been on the web for all of 10 years.

(And as this post turned out to be as much about me as about Charles- but isn’t that the usual way the web works?- I’ve moved most of the personal stuff into the footnotes, and slated the whole thing into the “Geezering” Dept.)

[1]  When I tried to determine a date, the earliest document I could lay my hands on was a July, ’99 printout I made of a web article by Tomi Engdahl about how to use a PC’s parallel port for I/O control.  (That was for a never-really-started project to assemble  some remote-control CD players.)   I know I have some earlier Usenet threads somewhere in the archives...

[2]  Using Netscape something-or-another on a Windows 95 PC, via a 25-(on a good day with the wind behind you)-K dialup pirated from a friend’s Ameritech account.

[3]  I posted there for several years under the nick Old_Grouch, but declined to sign up when they got around to offering memberships (thereby missing the chance for a coveted 3-digit registration number).  The advent of  “moderation” made it increasingly difficult for the non-registered to be heard; I gave up posting there two redesigns ago.

[4]  Where I was gratified to find common ground with such mugged-by-reality former liberals as Bill Quick and (pre Pajamas Media) Roger Simon.

[5]  The details having vanished into the mists of history- and crashed hard drives.

[6]  I finally got myself into the blog business in April of 2007, when Ambient Irony’s Pixy Misa posted an offer of beta subscriptions for a new blogging service called (Get Yer Own Blog here!).  My very first post went up April 10th (“now let's see how much software I can break”), but I consider my real start at blogging came two days later, with a “Dear Diary” post about April weather, followed by my first Review the next day.  (Hey, I need to do more of those...)

Posted by: Old Grouch in Geezering at 15:53:08 GMT | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 5 kb.

Friday, 08 April 2011


Clipfile - April 8, 2011

“I don’t want elites setting the rules, because when you look at your elites, they’re not the kind of wise men that they pass themselves off as.” - Mark Steyn

Posted by: Old Grouch in Clipfile at 17:28:07 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Thursday, 07 April 2011


Clipfile - April 7, 2011

“Does the fact that we no longer declare any sort of proper war have any impact on the fact that we never get around to peace, either?” - Smitty, at TOM

Posted by: Old Grouch in Clipfile at 18:34:28 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

In Passing

It helps if you remember the purpose of the HR Department is to keep the company from being sued

Dilbert==documentary  Dept
LeeAnn posts a dialogue from her past:
“How” I asked the Intern, “in the world does she think I’ve threatened her?”

Intern:  “You’ve made no overt action.  She feels intimidated by you, however, and wished to make an official complaint.  We felt it was better to discuss the matter with you before taking any action, if necessary.”

Me:  “Exactly what did I do?”

Intern:  “Er… nothing, really…. she said she’s intimidated by you, because you talk about people and events that she knows nothing about, and she said it makes her feel stupid.”

Me:  “You’re kidding, right?”

Intern:  “We have to take it seriously, it’s in the manual. ”
...and draws some responses:
...The most concrete statement I could get, after no specific offenses had been cited, was that “I walk around like I’m smarter than everybody.”
I didn’t quit that job until the review few months later wherein I was told, in writing, that I “lack initiative” and ‘frequently overstep my authority”.  In the same sentence.
I have gotten reprimanded for doing too much work and “making everyone else feel inadequate...”

Via Charles G. Hill, who wonders:
Is it time to throw some dirt on top of Western Civilization?
No, only the “corporate weenie” part.

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 17:04:43 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 3 kb.


I’ll bet Retrotechnologist wouldn’t mind having this...

If-I-only-had-the-cash...  Dept
The Register:
One of Britain's oldest tellies - set to go under the hammer later this month - is 75 years old and surprisingly still in working order.

When the Marconi Type 702 was made, in 1936, the BBC had only been broadcasting television shows for three weeks, offering just two hours of programming a day on one channel.

The set has a 12in screen wrapped in a oversized walnut and mahogany cabinet, with a mirror-fitted lid that pops open to reflect the upward facing display out toward the viewer.

It has the original 240/405-line selector switch in place... Around a third of the TV's parts are not original, however, though they were replaced with parts identical to the originals.
A 12" TV, in a cabinet the size of a small refrigerator.  Serial number 1007.

Included in the package, the original bill of sale, the owner’s manual, and a 625-to-405-line standards converter which brings the set’s capability up to the 1964 transmission standard (however, you’ll need an additional converter after 2012).  Excellent condition (maintained, not rebuilt), only two owners... estimated sale price £3,000 - £5,800.
Details (and more pictures) here.

Acknowledgments:  Pictures, Bonhams 1793 auction listing; Brochure page (background), TvHistory.TV (also).

Previously:  The mystery would be: How to pay for it.

Who is the Retrotechnologist?

Posted by: Old Grouch in Linkage at 02:23:09 GMT | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 4 kb.

<< Page 2 of 3 >>
109kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 0.2058 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.1527 seconds, 230 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.