The number one British single today in 1965 wasn’t just one song:
Today in 1970, five Creedence Clearwater Revival singles were certified gold, along with the albums “Cosmo’s Factory,” “Willy and the Poor Boys,” “Green River,” “Bayou Country” and “Creedence Clearwater Revival”:
The number one single today in 1973:
The number one British single today in 1979 was the last number one British single of the 1970s:
The number one British single today in 1984:
Corvette Forum asks:
It’s safe to say that no car in recent history has been more hyped up and talked about than the forthcoming C8 Corvette. But that’s what happens when you’re allegedly taking an American icon and changing the entire drivetrain layout. Thus, we’ve been awash with more rumors and conjecture than usual in regards to Chevy’s radical new Corvette. The latest of which popped up right here at Corvette Forum recently. And it’s safe to say that you probably won’t like it.
“$169,900 is a go,” said Zerv02. “If you’re in the under 100k camp, you will be disappointed. Let the madness ensue.”
Now, if you’re a regular around these parts, you already know that this is the same member who allegedly saw the C8 Corvette interior with his own eyes. Then, he shared a sketch and some additional info about it with us. This claim, however, is more than a little shocking. Especially for those who believe the Corvette will continue its position as a value-priced supercar. And most people just aren’t buying it. Starting with f-16pilotTX.
“I love all the contributions you shared with us Zerv02. But with all of the other evidence and credible sources, I just can’t see that happening, brotha.”
Others, like fasttoys, point out the many obvious problems this price point would present for GM.
“Lol I am out!!!!! Good luck GM. Zerv, you’ve lost your mind. If you’re correct, GM has lost their mind. Not buying a Chevrolet for 169k. I can buy a pre-owned 2017 Mclaren 570S for $145k with less than 4k miles and with a 3-year unlimited mile warranty. I can buy an Audi R8 for under that price. That is a hand-built car with a hand-built V10. Even the Viper was hand-built and came in at just $100k.”
Others, including Corvette ED, don’t necessarily see a problem with it. That is, of course, if this is the price of the range-topping version with world-beating performance.
“For the top-of-the-line 1,000 hp car, that price would be good. I see the base mid-engine car having a starting price of $65,000.”
And in that regard, it makes a little more sense, especially if GM is aiming to go up against the best the world has to offer in terms of performance. Which is what the OP believes will be the case.
“This will be a global car. An American GT to compete/rival the likes of Porsche, McLaren, the Italians, ect.”
In that regard, a high price makes a little more sense. If Chevy wants to build a halo car similar to the Ford GT, they could certainly do so and charge a hefty premium. In limited numbers, it would most certainly sell out, as the GT did with no issue.
Corvette Forum asked for opinions, and got them (abbreviations, misspellings and bad grammar not corrected):
I suspect that never in the history of the Corvette have there been so many negative reactions to a proposed new Corvette. If anyone at GM had a decent respect for the opinions of mankind — assuming these rumors are true, and you know what’s said about rumors — GM management would be concerned.
For that matter, those who love Corvettes should be concerned. The great thing about the fifth-generation Corvette — and if you’re looking for a Christmas present for your favorite blogger may I suggest …
… is that it is neither as mechanically complicated (front-engine rear-drive V-8 powered) nor as expensive nor as fussy as exotics that may deliver more performance but can’t really be used as daily drivers. GM has not built a mid-engine car since the Pontiac Fiero in the 1980s, so given GM’s quality reputation one should be suspicious it can pull this off, particularly given GM’s current problems. And given that GM makes money on every Corvette it makes now, a phrase about not fixing what isn’t broken comes to mind.
As I’ve extensively documented here before, the Corvette might be the best performance bargain in the entire world, but not so much north of $100,000. Even with tires not recommended for use below 40 degrees, a Corvette that breaks down can still be fixed at one of the thousands of Chevy dealers in this country. That statement does not apply to Porsches, Ferraris or Lamborghinis.
Former Packers vice president Andrew Brandt:
As I know so well from my near-decade of living Green Bay and working for the Packers, change is rare there, and when it does happen, it moves at a glacial pace. Not only are the Packers’ headquarters on Lombardi Avenue, but it often felt like as if team and the entire community were still living in an era when Vince Lombardi roamed the Packers sideline, a simpler time with the innocence of a bygone era.
Against that backdrop, the Packers’ firing of Mike McCarthy last week with four games remaining in the 2018 season was antithetical for a franchise and community often loathe to change. Having worked directly with Mike for three years, I will take you behind the Green and Gold curtain.
The Hire
Ted Thompson had come back to Green Bay (he worked there for years before) from the Seahawks in 2005 to become general manager, relegating then-head coach and general manager Mike Sherman to a coach-only role. For that entire season I witnessed a tense relationship between Thompson and Sherman, especially after we took Aaron Rodgers—a player who would not help us short-term—in the first round of the 2005 draft. Sherman’s fears about Thompson wanting “his own guy” to be the head coach were realized following that season, as he and his staff were dismissed.
Thompson led the subsequent head coach search, with input from his trusted personnel assistants John Schneider and Reggie McKenzie and, to a lesser extent, myself. After interviewing a list of candidates that included Ron Rivera, Brad Childress and Wade Phillips, we settled on two finalists: Mike, the 49ers’ offensive coordinator at the time, and Sean Payton, then the assistant head coach and quarterbacks coach of the Cowboys. Both had creative offensive minds, leading fascinating schematic conversations that would make a football junkie’s heart skip a beat.
It figures that after yesterday’s marathon musical compendium, today’s is much shorter.
The number one album today in 1959 was the Kingston Trio’s “Here We Go Again!”
The number one single today in 1968:
Today in 1977, the movie “Saturday Night Fever,” based on a magazine article that turned out to be a hoax, premiered in New York:
With her last name Emily Badger should be writing for a Wisconsin newspaper, but instead writes for the New York Times about what I have been calling Wisconsin’s “Axis of Evil” for a decade, when Democrats controlled all of state government and proved that their values are not values worth preserving.)
In much of Wisconsin, “Madison and Milwaukee” are code words (to some, dog whistles) for the parts of the state that are nonwhite, elite, different: The cities are where people don’t have to work hard with their hands, because they’re collecting welfare or public-sector paychecks.
That stereotype updates a very old idea in American politics, one pervading Wisconsin’s bitter Statehouse fights today and increasingly those in other states: Urban voters are an exception. If you discount them, you get a truer picture of the politics — and the will of voters — in a state.
Thomas Jefferson believed as much — “the mobs of great cities add just so much to support of pure government,” he wrote, “as sores do to the strength of the human body.”
Wisconsin Republicans amplified that idea this week, arguing that the legislature is the more representative branch of government, and then voting to limit the power of the incoming Democratic governor. The legislature speaks for the people in all corners of the state, they seemed to be saying, and statewide offices like governor merely reflect the will of those urban mobs.
“State legislators are the closest to those we represent,” Scott Fitzgerald, the majority leader in the Wisconsin Senate, said in a statement after Republicans voted on the changes before dawn on Wednesday. They’re the ones who hold town hall meetings, who listen directly to constituents across the state. Legislators should stand, he said, “on equal footing with an incoming administration that is based almost solely in Madison.”
That argument is particularly debatable in Wisconsin, where the legislature has been heavily gerrymandered. But Mr. Fitzgerald’s jab at Madison was notable, too.
Mr. Fitzgerald was essentially recasting the new Democratic governor, Tony Evers, not as the winner of a statewide mandate but as a creature of the capital city, put there by people in the cities. (Never mind that the outgoing Republican governor, Scott Walker, and the state legislature are based in Madison, too.)
Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the Wisconsin Statehouse, drew this distinction even more explicitly after the midterm election.
“If you took Madison and Milwaukee out of the state election formula, we would have a clear majority,” he said. “We would have all five constitutional officers and we would probably have many more seats in the Legislature.”
This is most likely true, depending on how you define Madison and Milwaukee. But it’s an odd point to make, given that Madison and Milwaukee can’t be removed from Wisconsin. Nor Detroit from Michigan, nor Pittsburgh and Philadelphia from Pennsylvania, nor Raleigh and Charlotte from North Carolina.
“It just is incredibly frustrating and really nonsensical to think about representation in those terms, especially when you’re talking about statewide results,” said David Canon, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin.
He pointed as well to comments by Mr. Walker arguing that his loss in the governor’s race wasn’t a rejection by voters so much as a reflection of unusually high turnout among people who weren’t part of the voting population in his previous victories. Mr. Walker lost the race by 29,000 votes statewide. In Dane County, home to Madison, about 42,000 more people voted in the governor’s race this year than did in 2014.
“How can that not be a repudiation by the voters?” Mr. Canon said. “It only isn’t if you don’t care about the voters in the parts of the state that are Democratic.”
Republican gerrymandering in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina have pushed the limits of how much the urban voter can be devalued.
In Wisconsin, Democratic candidates for the State Assembly won 54 percent of the vote statewide. But they will hold only 36 of 99 seats. They picked up just one more seat than in the current Assembly, a result of a gerrymander drawn so well that it protected nearly every Republican seat in a Democratic wave election.
In North Carolina, Democrats won 51 percent of the popular vote for the lower chamber in the statehouse but just 45 percent of the seats. In Michigan, where a lame-duck session fight similar to Wisconsin’s is playing out, Democrats won 53 percent of the vote but just 47 percent of those seats. (In states like Illinois and Maryland, where Democrats drew the gerrymanders, they won a disproportionate share of seats.)
For Republicans now, the argument that urban voters distort statewide races may justify policies urban voters do not want. But that comes at a political cost, too.
“When you clarify for people that it’s ‘Madison and Milwaukee’ versus the rest of the state, well, the people in Madison and Milwaukee hear that, too,” said Kathy Cramer, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin who has written about the state’s urban-rural divide. “And it’s just as mobilizing for them.”
Cramer wrote The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker, which might be worth a reexamination given last month’s (wrong) election results. There are many, many small towns in this state where the highest-paid people in town are government employees.
For their own selfish political reasons, Republicans are now the defenders of rural Wisconsin and its values, because the values of a majority of rural Wisconsinites are not the same as a majority of residents of the City of Milwaukee and Dane County.
All you have to do is pick one issue — gun control — to show the divide between the right side and the wrong side. Why, one wonders, are there so many shootings in Milwaukee and Madison, and hardly any elsewhere in the state? The gun laws are the same in all 72 counties, and yet in 70 of those counties guns do not load, aim and fire themselves. In fact, even if you include Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s 2016 gun death rate was lower than the national average, and this state’s homicide rate was substantially lower than the national average. Take Milwaukee (site of 142 homicides in 2016, more than 20 states) out of the state (256 total), and this state’s homicide rate (including but not limited to by gun) would be far less than half what it was in 2016.
But there is other evidence based on what Evers has done so far. First, from RightWisconsin:
The top official of the top abortion provider in the state of Wisconsin will continue to advise Governor-elect Tony Evers on “health care” despite a demands for her removal from a health care committee.
On Tuesday last week, Evers appointed Tanya Atkinson, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin, to his Health Care Advisory Council. The committee, according to parries release from Evers, “will help our transition team put together a comprehensive health care plan that takes steps to increase access to health care coverage, like taking the Medicaid expansion dollars, while bringing down costs.”
Recall that Evers compared abortion to tonsillectomies, a statement that should be abhorrent to even those who view abortion rights as a necessary evil. And of course Evers thinks your tax dollars should pay for abortions.
Then, also from RightWisconsin:
If Wisconsinites are wondering how different an administration under Governor-elect Tony Evers will be, one of his first transition team appointments may provide a clue. On Tuesday, Evers announced Dane County Supervisor Jamie Kuhn will be one of his policy advisors.
Kuhn is in her second stint as a county supervisor, after she caused a stir her first time as an office holder when she refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at county board meetings. Kuhn and another supervisor, Echnaton Vedder, were heavily criticized at the time for their decision to not to recite the pledge, causing Kuhn to write an op-ed in 1999 defending her decision.
“In a country that must deal with homelessness, violence, HIV, children shooting children, it seems to me ‘patriotism’ should be defined by what one does to help our country eliminate these ills rather than worrying about whether or not someone, who is standing respectfully before the flag, does not mouth the words of the Pledge of Allegiance,” Kuhn wrote in the Wisconsin State Journal.
Shortly after the controversy erupted, Kuhn left her position with the office of former state Rep. Sarah Waukau (D-Antigo). She would later join the staff of state Sen. Mark Miller (D-Monona) before leaving to become a lobbyist in 2012. She did not run for re-election in 2000.
As recently as 2017, Kuhn defended her behavior by telling the Capital Times that she was trying to challenge the traditional ways the county board operated.
“When I joined the board not only as a younger member but also who at the time was interested in lifting up other voices, I think there was some butting of heads and some challenges with that for certain,” Kuhn said.
So Evers has consciously decided by his hiring decisions to spit at traditional conservative values.
Republicans get criticized for, in the opinion of non-“establishment” Republicans, knuckling under to Democrats. They cannot be accused of knuckling under with the so-called “lame duck” session, but Democrats of course now believe that they should have unlimited power because a few thousand misguided voters voted for Democrats instead of Republicans. Most people’s definition of “bipartisan,” of course, is “your party does what my party wants your party to do,” which is surrender, not compromise.
What are the right values, you ask? Hard work and not relying on government, either for employment or welfare would be two of them. Constitutional rights, for another. Realizing the proper role of politics in your life, for another.
If I had drawing skills I’d create a logo of the state with Dane County and Milwaukee cut out. Yes, there are Democrats who live outside of Madison and Milwaukee. Madison has about six Republicans within its city limits, and there are maybe 12 in the Milwaukee city limits. Simple math says that if Madison and Milwaukee were not in Wisconsin, this state would be overwhelmingly Republican.
Readers may recall that I voted for Evan McMullin, not Donald Trump (don’t even ask if I’d consider voting for Hillary Clinton), in the 2016 presidential election.
McMullin then created the Stand Up Republic group, which instead of touting traditional (as opposed to Trump’s definition of) conservative ideals, has spent nearly two years doing nothing more than attacking Trump.
Yesterday, Stand Up Republic bent over for Wisconsin Democrats:
In a lame-duck session last week, the Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature voted in favor of sweeping measures that would significantly curb the power of incoming Democratic Governor Tony Evers and incoming Attorney General Josh Kaul. These measures include broadly restricting Evers’ and Kaul’s ability to roll back or alter policies passed by statewide Republican lawmakers. The move was a nakedly partisan effort to curb the effects of electoral defeats.
Wisconsin’s Republicans aren’t the first people to think of this tactic; Democrats and Republicans have done it before. But these blatant power grabs are anti-democratic, and they should garner bipartisan outcry. Actions like this undermine the power of incoming elected officials with whom the losing party disagrees. The cornerstone of functional democracy is the peaceful transition of power from one political party to the next, and the expectation that both sides will play by the same electoral rules for the same offices because neither side can anticipate who might win the next election. Using the power of an elected office to weaken other offices based on party affiliation is damaging to faith in the institutions themselves. The measures passed last week undermine the power of the American voter by attempting to deny the authority of elected office to incoming officials, based solely on their policy preferences.
Wisconsin Republicans didn’t stop there. Last week they also voted to restrict the early voting period to a maximum of two weeks statewide. Rather than allow counties to make their own decisions on election processes, the GOP took control of the process in order to limit it. Once again, the legislature is instituting broad changes aimed at protecting their own electoral interests rather than respecting the independence and integrity of the state’s institutions.
Unfortunately, what happened in Wisconsin last week is a successful attempt to undermine our democracy by trying to take power out of the hands of duly elected state politicians. This time, it’s Republicans; tomorrow it may be Democrats. Party affiliation simply should not matter in the peaceful transition of power. We as Americans should stand up to any such anti-democratic power grabs, even when – perhaps especially when – they advantage our own political preferences. Ultimately, it’s up to us as voters to hold our representatives accountable for putting the strength of democratic institutions above their own political interests.
You might think that a site that calls itself a “Republic” would know the difference between a republic and democracy, but in this case you’d be wrong. The fact is that Walker is governor and the current Legislature is in office until the new governor and Legislature are sworn into office Jan. 7. To claim that the current governor and Legislature must not do anything legislatively and bend over for the next governor is ridiculous and insulting to everyone who voted Nov. 6.
Moreover, it is appallingly ignorant to believe that the Wisconsin Democratic Party has any intention at all of respecting traditional conservative ideals of any kind, let alone what Walker did over the past eight years. The idea that anything is OK if passed by our duly elected representatives, which is what McMullin is essentially arguing, is a big steaming, asphysicating pile of slurry.
Back when McMullin was running, he listed 10 reasons to vote for him that included:
7. Win or lose, he has the power to carry the conservative principles away from the shark infested waters and to the shore.
Not anymore, it seems. Of course, McMullin then said …
If it’s down to Hillary and Trump, Trump is taking a loss. It would require a miracle for him to win (one that’s not beyond Hillary, I suppose).
… so he must be used to being wrong by now.
Today in 1961, this was the first country song to sell more than $1 million:
The number one single today in 1962:
The number one single today in 1970 (which sounded like it had been recorded using 1770 technology):
The number one album today in 1975 was “Chicago IX,” which was actually “Chicago’s Greatest Hits”:
The recent extraordinary legislative session in Wisconsin included significant reforms to the administrative-rule-making process. Lost among the objections from some (allegations that the current Republican government is kneecapping the incoming Democratic administration) is a simple reality: The reforms are but the culmination of eight years of thoughtful efforts on the part of the governor and legislative leaders to recalibrate the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. Other states, and even Congress, should take note of what Wisconsin reformers have accomplished.
Normally, arguments about the proper role of executive agencies play out at the national level. Particularly controversial are the Supreme Court cases Chevron and Auer, which give federal agencies wide latitude to interpret statutes and regulations as they see fit without interference from the courts. But as with many legal and policy questions, the states, our laboratories of democracy, are better positioned to serve as the tip of the spear on this issue. And as a proud Wisconsin guy, I like to think on all issues all roads lead to Wisconsin.
In 2011, much attention was given Act 10, Governor Walker’s signature reform to public-sector collective bargaining. Less well-known was Act 21, which can rightly be considered the beginning of an administrative-law revolution in Wisconsin. In 2017, Acts 39, 57, and 108 added to those reform efforts. And this past summer, the Wisconsin supreme court issued a significant decision in Tetra Tech v. Department of Revenue, creating a stricter framework for courts to apply when considering the amount of deference to provide agency interpretations.
Much of what we now consider the standard rule-making process in Wisconsin was first set out in 2011 Act 21. At its core, Act 21 provides that no agency may implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold (including as a term or condition of any license it issues) unless such action is explicitly required or permitted by statute or rule. Gone are the days of implied or perceived authority.
Additionally, for each proposed rule, the act required agencies to submit a “statement of scope” to the governor for review and prepare an economic-impact analysis relating to specific businesses, business sectors, public-utility ratepayers, local governmental units, and the state’s economy as a whole.
Six years later, Act 39 addressed concerns over the lengthy periods of time that agencies were given to promulgate rules. An agency must now submit a proposed rule to the legislature before a scope statement expires, resulting in a 30-month deadline. This requirement adds certainty to the process for the regulated community.
Act 57 is the state version of the federal REINS Act, which several Congresses have considered but none have passed. Wisconsin is the only state thus far to adopt such a reform. Wisconsin agencies must now determine whether a proposed rule will impose $10 million or more in implementation and compliance costs over a two-year period. If there is such a finding, an agency may not promulgate the rule absent authorizing legislation or germane modification to the proposed rule to reduce the costs below the $10 million threshold. In addition, the Department of Administration must review an agency’s scope statement prior to presentation to the governor to ensure an agency has explicit authority to promulgate a given rule (note the connection to Act 21).
Act 108 created an expedited process for the repeal of certain “unauthorized rules.” (If the law that authorized a rule’s promulgation has since been repealed or amended, the rule is considered “unauthorized” — again, note the connection to Act 21.) Any such rules, in addition to rules that are obsolete, duplicative, superseded, or economically burdensome, must be included in a biennial report to the legislature’s Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules. The report must also describe any actions taken by an agency, if any, to address each of the problematic rules listed.
Yesterday, presented without comment:
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 