Today in 1969, Leslie West and Felix Pappalardi created Mountain:
Birthdays today start with Paul Williams of the Temptations:
Today in 1969, Leslie West and Felix Pappalardi created Mountain:
Birthdays today start with Paul Williams of the Temptations:
This was the tease of the new Under Armour designs …

Jim Polzin previewed Thursday night’s unveiling of UW’s new Under Armour apparel with interesting background about the UW athletic business:
Friday is also significant in that it marks the start of contracts between UW and Fermata Partners (trademark and licensing), Aspire (sports beverage) and Fanatics (online retail), as well as the renewal date for UW’s contract with Gold Country Inc., which operates Bucky’s Locker Room.
“Excited is an understatement,” said Chris McIntosh, an associate athletic director for business development at UW. “We’ve been counting down to July 1 for a long, long time. It’s kind of like tick-tock-tick-tock right now.”
McIntosh, who was a standout offensive lineman under [now-athletic director Barry] Alvarez, was an entrepreneur in the fitness and wellness industry prior to being hired at his alma mater in late 2014.
One of McIntosh’s primary objectives was to cultivate new partnerships, and he immediately set his sights on finding innovative companies who would help UW move forward.
McIntosh believes the athletic department’s newest relationships will help fulfill that goal.
In the deal with Under Armour, which is worth around $100 million, UW has found a partner that has become a giant in its industry in large part because it catches consumers’ attention through story-telling.
Under Armour made an unannounced visit to Madison while it was courting UW and spent four days gathering information for a brand audit. When it made a presentation to Alvarez and others in Maryland in February 2015, the UW contingent was impressed by how well Under Armour’s vision aligned with the athletic department’s.
But not everything the Under Armour representatives said that day was pleasant to hear for the visitors from Madison. The company pointed out some of UW’s shortcomings, particularly when it came to inconsistencies on uniforms and in fonts and logos used by UW.
“But they did so in a tactful way,” McIntosh said, “and they quickly made a convincing case that they could help us with it.”
In Aspire, UW has joined forces with a company that is relatively young — it was founded in 2012 — yet has earned its way onto shelves at major retailers such as Target, Costco and Sam’s Club, among others.
What impressed McIntosh the most about Aspire, which replaces Badger Max Inc. as UW’s official sports drink, was its dedication to being a healthy alternative compared to its competitors. Aspire has 35 calories and 8 grams of sugar per 12-ounce serving with no artificial colors, flavors or sweeteners.
In Fermata Partners, which takes the place of the Collegiate Licensing Company, McIntosh believes UW, which generates more than $60 million in annual retail sales, has found a company with bright minds that will help the Badgers both protect and grow their brand.
The list of programs Fermata has partnered with since forming in 2012 is impressive: Kentucky, Notre Dame, Oregon, Georgia and Miami (Fla.).
“They’ve got a different way of doing business than their competitors,” McIntosh said. “Fermata’s strategy is, ‘We don’t want 125 partners; we want the right partners and the right brands.’ So they’ve been very selective about the brands that they partner with.”
McIntosh sees a common thread among Under Armour, Fermata and Aspire: All began as underdogs who weren’t intimidated by established powerhouses in their respective industries, whether it was Nike or Collegiate Licensing Company or Gatorade.
“At some point, there’s a moment of truth when you have to believe you can,” McIntosh said before tying those companies to the UW athletic department’s own rise from underdog status.
“Barry Alvarez, the same way. What he was successful at doing here is convincing some kid from Pewaukee that, ‘Why not us?’ And that we could compete with Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State.”
The process of forming new relationships has led to UW taking a step back to look at itself in the mirror, according to McIntosh.
“All these partners are looking at us and telling us what they see in us,” he said. “And, honestly, all of them were pretty darn close. But I think it just caused us to pause and say, ‘Here’s an opportunity for us to clearly articulate what we’re all about.’ ”
At a department-wide meeting this month, McIntosh made a presentation with the intent of starting what he calls “a journey” for an answer. The question: Why Wisconsin?
Let McIntosh explain:
“Wisconsin, our program, our brand, stands for something,” McIntosh said. “We value it. People talk about it. But it’s something that’s kind of felt and it’s difficult to articulate. It’s hard to really put your finger on exactly what it is.
“So we’re kind of in the middle of this exercise. It’s ongoing. Basically everybody in our organization has been asked that question, and we’re going to hopefully get to the point where we can put our finger on that one simple sentence — for me, for me it’s elevating the lives of these (student-athletes).”
The way McIntosh sees it, the convergence of partnerships in the different facets of the athletic department has given UW an opportunity to be better equipped to tell its story.
“It’s really kind of an exciting time,” McIntosh said, “because there’s a lot of optimism about the potential of the future.”
So what was unveiled Thursday night?
There’s a new Camp Randall Stadium end zone design. There are not, apparently, new uniforms yet, or last night’s event was for the purpose pf hype and selling more fan stuff.
Read through McIntosh’s comments about fonts and one could conclude that the football jerseys, when they show up, might use the Badger font. There are no comments about whether Badger red is actually cardinal or Nebraska red (there are claims that the previous red is Adidas’ red), and you can’t really tell from a Tweeted night photo whether the red is the same red or not.
The question was asked of Bob Lutz, former GM vice chairman and now the answer man of Road & Track’s “Go Lutz Yourself”:
Dear Bob,
Does Chevy need a mid-engine Corvette and Cadillac a mid-engine sports car? You can’t have Ford selling a $450,000 GT while GM has only a Z06, right?Well, neither Chevrolet nor Cadillac “needs” a mid-engine car. A mid-engine Corvette would likely coexist with the regular model but be priced at least $30,000 to $40,000 higher, my guess, about $130,000 to $150,000. A logical assumption would be 700 to 750 hp, massive torque, and decent fuel economy. GM won’t do it unless it’s a world-beater, so we should expect it to suck the doors off all the Europeans (Veyron excluded) and the Ford GT, which, while a nice car, would soon seem poor value. A possible Cadillac execution would have to exceed the Corvette and would be priced higher. I’m all for it, and I definitely “need” at least the Corvette.
Well, Lutz may get his wish, because, Motor Trend reports:
It’s time to clear those eyes and lean into the screen because these grainy spy photos reveal what is likely the mid-engine Chevrolet Corvette that’s coming sooner rather than later. These photos, along with recent rumors, further solidify that General Motors is serious about producing the most balanced Corvette we’ve seen yet.
This mule was caught at GM’s Milford Proving Grounds. It’s disguised in C7 Corvette body panels and heavy camouflage, but there are a few clues suggesting this isn’t a normal Stingray. The mule’s rear hatch appears to be missing its glass cover, likely to provide enough cool air to the engine sitting behind the seats. The prototype is lapping the track alongside a C7 Corvette and a few Caddies like the CT6, which the photographer says should provide some perspective on the test mule’s stance and size.
A number of recent events have given hope to ‘Vette fans clamoring for a mid-engine version. Early last year, GM was caught testing a strange prototype that was essentially a mashup of a C7 Corvette and a Holden Commodore SSV, which the rumor mill suggested was housing its engine behind the front seats. In 2014, GM trademarked the name “Zora,” which could hint at a future Corvette moniker. The name is a reference to Zora Arkus-Duntov, the father of the Corvette who made numerous attempts to produce a mid-engine version.
Many GM engineers and executives have also tried to make a mid-engine Corvette a reality and it appears it could happen by the end of the decade. The 650-hp Corvette Z06is already pushing the limits of the current front-engine, rear-drive platform, which means a mid-engine layout is perhaps the only option GM has to take the ‘Vette to the next level.


If your mind reels at the prospect of a $150,000 Chevrolet, well, assuming the spy photographers are correct, there it is. Readers know I have a number of questions, beginning with why there’s a need for this car when GM sells every Corvette it builds now, and at a profit. The nitpickers about the current Corvette, over its brand and the subpar interiors, seem to me unlikely to choose a Chevy over a Ferrari or a Porsche because it’s a Chevy.
Unless it isn’t a Chevy. Michael Austin is properly skeptical:
Call me crazy, but I’m not convinced the mid-engine Corvette is the next Corvette. The rumor is strong, yes. And, contrary to some of the comments on our site, Car and Driver – leader of the mid-engine Corvette speculation brigade – has a pretty good record predicting future models. But it’s another comment that got me thinking: or maybe it’s a Cadillac.
There is clearly something mid-engine going on at GM, and I think it makes sense for the car to be a Cadillac. First off, check out how sweet the 2002 Cadillac Cien concept car still looks in the photo …
Second, there are too many holes in the mid-engine Corvette theory.
The C7 is relatively young in Corvette years, starting production almost three years ago as a 2014 model. Showing a 2019 model at the 2018 North American International Auto Show would kill sales of a strong-selling car before its time. Not to mention it would only mean a short run for the Grand Sport, which was the best-selling version of the previous generation.
More stuff doesn’t add up. Mid-engine cars are, in general, more expensive. Moving the Vette upmarket leaves a void that the Camaro does not fill. There’s not much overlap between Camaro and Corvette customers. Corvette owners are older and enjoy features like a big trunk that holds golf clubs. Mid-engine means less trunk space and alienating a happy, loyal buyer. Also, more than 60 years of history. The Corvette is an icon along the likes of the Porsche 911 and Ford Mustang. I’m not sure the car-buying public wants a Corvette that abandons all previous conventions. And big changes bring uncertainty – I don’t think GM would make such a risky bet.
Chevrolet could build a mid-engine ZR1, you might say, and keep the other Corvettes front-engine. Yes they could, and it would cost a ton of money. And they still need to fund development of that front-engine car. I highly doubt the corporate accountants would go for that.
But a Cadillac? Totally. Cadillac is in the middle of a brand repositioning. GM is throwing money at this effort. A mid-engine halo car is the just the splash the brand needs to shake off the ghosts of Fleetwoods past. And it’s already in Cadillac President Johan De Nysschen’s playbook. He was in charge of Audi’s North America arm when the R8 came out. A Caddy sports car priced above $100,000 isn’t that unreasonable when you can already price a CTS-V in that range.
Switch the NAIAS debut rumor to Cadillac, maybe even make it for 2017. Remove the conflict of abandoning Corvette history or running two costly model developments for one car. Heck, a mid-engine Cadillac could even act as a Trojan horse if the rumored demise of the current small-block engine is true. Launch a high-powered overhead-cam V8 in the Caddy and after a few years Corvette fans will be begging for an engine swap instead of grabbing their pitchforks and demanding more pushrods.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Corvette engineers, or former Corvette engineers, are working on a mid-engine car. There’s a lot of talent working on GM’s performance vehicles, and people move between teams on a regular basis. And the Corvette’s Bowling Green, Kentucky plant is a great place to make a low-volume sports car with advanced materials. But it’s not clear that GM plus mid-engine equals Corvette. While we’re still making random guesses, my money is on Cadillac.
Whether this is the next Corvette or the next Cadillac XLR-V: I understand bulletproof reliability is not common with supercars, but I would be extremely hesitant to purchase a mid-engine vehicle from a company famous for sending new technology into the marketplace before it’s ready. (Remember the Vega and its melting engine? The Oldsmobile diesel? The Chevy Citation and the other X-body cars? Computer Command Control? The Cadillac V-8-6-4? The Pontiac Fiero?) And it seems strange to combine a mid-engine design and probably all-wheel drive (also commonplace in supercars) with the usual pushrod V-8. And yet the usual pushrod V-8 has powered every Corvette since 1955 except the C4 King of the Hill, powered by the Mercury Marine-built 32-valve double overhead cam V-8, which was eventually superseded by the pushrods, which obviously work quite well, old tech or not. (Which might confirm Austin’s suspicions about an engine GM currently doesn’t offer in this Caddivette. One hopes that Cadillac wouldn’t emulate Ford’s mistake of throwing the Ecoboost V6 into the Ford GT by using the ATS-V’s 3.6-liter twin-turbocharged V6.)
At least for those of us who have enough money to consider a Corvette (which once again doesn’t include me), the rear-drive Vette will remain available if Lutz is correct.
Today in 1963, the Beatles recorded “She Loves You,” yeah, yeah, yeah:
Four years later, the Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” reached number one, and stayed there for 15 weeks:
Jonah Goldberg has new respect, as I do, for newspaperman and caustic cynic H.L. Mencken:
Believing in my bones, as I do, that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are unworthy and unqualified to be president of the United States has inspired me to do a lot of soul searching, and that has drawn me more and more to the writings of the legendary H.L. Mencken and less-than-legendary Albert J. Nock.
The two Tory anarchists, as some called them, were friends and intellectual comrades-in-arms who stood athwart the progressive and populist passions that defined American politics in the first half of the 20th century.
The domestic madness of World War I galvanized both men. Under Democrat Woodrow Wilson, the United States established the first modern ministry of propaganda, the Committee on Public Information. The Wilson administration jailed political dissenters by the thousands, encouraged the brown-shirt tactics of the American Protective League and censored newspapers and magazines with abandon.
Wilson demonized “hyphenated Americans” — i.e. Irish Americans or German Americans — as enemies of the state. “There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American,” he proclaimed. “The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.”
Nock wrote a scalding editorial for The Nation criticizing labor leader Samuel Gompers for supporting the government. The Wilson administration responded by temporarily banning the publication.
The government also banned booze — an effort led in Congress by Republican Andrew Volstead. Prohibition further demonstrated for Mencken and Nock that the zeal to muck about with peoples’ lives was a bipartisan affair.
“The more obvious the failure becomes, the more shamelessly they exhibit their genuine motives,” Mencken wrote in 1926. “In plain words, what moves them is the psychological aberration called sadism. They lust to inflict inconvenience, discomfort, and, whenever possible, disgrace upon the persons they hate — which is to say, upon everyone who is free from their barbarous theological superstitions, and is having a better time in the world than they are.”
What united Nock and Mencken most was a sense of homelessness in the intellectual establishment. Franklin Roosevelt, who campaigned on the promise to use the war-fighting methods of the Wilson administration to fight the Great Depression, further cemented their alienation. “Communism, the New Deal, Fascism, Nazism,” Nock wrote in his memoirs, “are merely so-many trade-names for collectivist Statism, like the trade-names for tooth-pastes which are all exactly alike except for the flavouring.” This was an exaggeration, but one can only exaggerate the truth.
Once again American politics is threatening to become a competition between rival factions of statists, eager to use the government to reward themselves and punish their enemies, with “enemy” defined as anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Today, America looks very different from the America of Mencken and Nock’s era, but the similarities are hard to ignore. Liberal elites have decided that if you have a problem with men using women’s bathrooms, you’re not just wrong, you’re a bigot. A registered Democrat murdered 49 Americans at a gay nightclub, in the name of the Islamic State, and the smart set insists conservative Christians are somehow to blame.
The zeal of Prohibition has multiplied like a cancer cell, with reformers wanting to ban everything they don’t like: vaping, free speech, coal, Uber, refusal to bake cakes for gay weddings, and, if they could, guns.
On the right, the presumptive GOP nominee promises not limited government but stronger, more protectionist government enlisted to remedy the grievances of his constituencies. His white working-class supporters represent “real” America, and their problems are always somebody else’s fault. I’ve lost count of how many times his most ardent fans have called me a “bigot” for opposing Trump.
True to their reputations as curmudgeons, no constituency was above reproach for Nock and Mencken. Business elites were Babbitts, eager to chart the course of least resistance. The people, in Mencken’s famous phrase, were the great “booboisie.” The decent and right-thinking were, according to Nock, a silent and tiny “remnant” hiding away from politics.Democracy itself, according Mencken was “the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
My cynicism is not yet as great as theirs. I have some cause for optimism. But one only looks for signs of hope when there’s ample reason to despair.
Ignore for the moment the CNN report of a supposedly closer presidential race and focus on the deeper numbers:
Quinnipiac found an alarming statistic: 61% of those surveyed say the 2016 election has increased the level of hatred and prejudice in the United States — compared to just 34% who say it has had no impact.
Of that 61%, 67% blame Trump and 16% blame Clinton.
The survey also found a majority of voters — 58% for Trump, and 53% for Clinton — said each would not be a good president.
“It would be difficult to imagine a less flattering from-the-gut reaction to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll, in a memo accompanying the poll results. “This is where we are. Voters find themselves in the middle of a mean-spirited, scorched-earth campaign between two candidates they don’t like. And they don’t think either candidate would be a good president.”
The majority in a poll is not always right. They are this time.
Here’s an odd anniversary: Four days after Cher divorced Sonny Bono, she married Gregg Allman. Come back to this blog in nine days to find out what happened next.
Birthdays start with Florence Ballard of the Supremes …
Ed Rogers may or may not have written the headline “Everything is Obama’s fault,” but Rogers explains why the headline is accurate:
One of the questions I get all the time is: “How did we get here?” How did Donald Trump get the most votes? What is it that made a gadfly like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) come so close to picking off Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries? Why did their messages resonate? Well, there are political consequences to economic malaise. But don’t take my word for it. Leon Wieseltier, the Isaiah Berlin senior fellow in culture and policy at the Brookings Institution, wrote a smart, in-depth piece outlining how the white working class, in particular, has suffered economically in the past decade, with that personal suffering translating into “the enthusiasm of these despairing and deluded millions” for Trump. In other words, the rise of Trump and a host of other problems are President Obama’s fault. Let’s face it: There aren’t many problems that money won’t help solve. A lot of our country’s problems are because Obama deprived the economy of a lot of money. Period.
This month, Obama stood in Indiana and claimed that the U.S. economy is better than it was eight years ago. That may be true for Wall Street, but eight years ago we were in a recession, and today, many Americans on Main Street can’t tell the difference between the recession and the so-called recovery. The fact is, the economic recovery under Obama has been historically weak. TheJoint Economic Committee calculated that GDP growth under Obama has averaged only 2.2 percent. Well, GDP growth in the United States since 1948 has averaged approximately 3.2 percent. So during his time as president, if Obama had just managed to achieve the average economic growth since 1948, GDP growth would have been at least 1 percent higher each year. In 2015, an additional 1 percent of GDP growth translated to an approximately $170 billion increase in economic activity, give or take. If you multiply that by six, you get an idea of how much money is missing from our economy because of this administration’s failed policies.
Imagine what the United States and even the world would be like today if we would have had another $170 billion of economic activity per year for the past six years. Imagine all the paychecks that weren’t cut, the raises and bonuses that weren’t given, all the goods and services that were not purchased and the inequality that festered. Think about the erosion of the middle class and how much the national debt has skyrocketed. That all created the conditions for the rise of Trump and Sanders as well as a lot of uncertainty and unrest. And that’s just here at home. Our stagnant economy has also had a global impact, slowing the world economy and creating untold other consequences. What about the Brexit referendum? The mounting tensions with China? Who knows what would have been different if economic growth in the United States had been average or better than average under Obama.
The president and the Democrats are either oblivious or dishonest when they talk about their “economic success.” In what will probably be Obama’s most lasting legacy, he has run up the national debt by $10 trillion — more than all our other presidents combined — leaving future generations weighed down by the Obama debt. He has stifled small businesses with excessive taxation, perpetuated a punitive regulatory regime enhanced by a pointless passion for global warming initiatives and acted with an anti-business bias that has all amalgamated to slow growth and spread discontent across the country.
A bad economy has political consequences. Donald Trump is just one of them, but unfortunately, we won’t know the price we will ultimately pay for Obama’s destructive and reckless economic policies for years to come.
Jonathan Rauch has a cover story in The Atlantic – “How American Politics Went Insane” – which is getting positive links from a lot of otherwise intelligent people. In it, he claims American political system was reformed to death, and that the effects of transparency and openness in government has undermined the elites who prevent political insanity.
“Parties, machines, and hacks may not have been pretty, but at their best they did their job so well that the country forgot why it needed them. Politics seemed almost to organize itself, but only because the middlemen recruited and nurtured political talent, vetted candidates for competence and loyalty, gathered and dispensed money, built bases of donors and supporters, forged coalitions, bought off antagonists, mediated disputes, brokered compromises, and greased the skids to turn those compromises into law. Though sometimes arrogant, middlemen were not generally elitist. They excelled at organizing and representing unsophisticated voters, as Tammany Hall famously did for the working-class Irish of New York, to the horror of many Progressives who viewed the Irish working class as unfit to govern or even to vote.”
Rauch’s solution to the rise of Trumpism comes down to bringing back earmarks. Really.
“I don’t have a quick solution to the current mess, but I do think it would be easy, in principle, to start moving in a better direction. Although returning parties and middlemen to anything like their 19th-century glory is not conceivable—or, in today’s America, even desirable—strengthening parties and middlemen is very doable. Restrictions inhibiting the parties from coordinating with their own candidates serve to encourage political wildcatting, so repeal them. Limits on donations to the parties drive money to unaccountable outsiders, so lift them. Restoring the earmarks that help grease legislative success requires nothing more than a change in congressional rules. And there are all kinds of ways the parties could move insiders back to the center of the nomination process.”
Jon Ward has a followup with him.
Rauch’s claims flatter the establishment with sweet nothings. But there is one thing very notable about his piece, which is too lengthy given the vacuity of his explanation: it is bereft of data and thoroughly at odds with the data we have. If you agree with Rauch, understand the basis of your agreement is sentiment. It’s all you have. He is mounting an emotional and tribal argument in defense of the Washington elite that has no basis in measurable statistics and polling. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it does mean his argument is very uphill, at odds with a lot of data on the other side.
The core of Rauch’s argument is that the Washington establishment on right and left was previously good at its job prior to a period of agitation and reforms which denied them the tools they had used to bring populists to heel. But the truth is that the elites were only good at their jobs according to their own assessment, not according to the electorate. The stability the elites maintained was a stability that accrued to the benefit of Washington and its attendant Versailles on the Potomac hangers-on. For roughly the past two decades, it did not accrue to the benefit of the electorate.
Rauch’s piece is a whitewashing paean to a leadership class in both parties that once had the power to manage and mitigate the disruptive tendencies of populist movements. But how did they lose that power? It didn’t happen overnight. It happened after incident after incident where they proved themselves feckless and incapable of responding to the interests of the people.
The steady decline of confidence in institutions that began with Watergate and Vietnam is due to real failures of the elite leadership class. These failures undermined confidence not just in capacity to do good but in capability to represent interests. The list is familiar to you by now: Impeachment. 9/11. Iraq. Katrina. Congressional corruption. Financial meltdown. Failed stimulus. Obamacare. Stagnant wages. Diminished hopes. But oh, the party establishment was doing good? These middlemen Rauch puts on a pedestal – they were responding and managing and running things well? No. They were looking out for the interests of people other than those they were elected to serve. They were responding to the donor class and to the party leadership – the very people Rauch views as responsible balances against the populist tendencies of the electorate.
Let’s be clear: Rauch’s argument requires you to believe elites were doing just fine running the country until about 2010. Rauch’s darkest day comes in 2011, when earmarking was banned. But there’s no data to support the contention that removing earmarking contributed to any level of American political insanity. He has nothing in his corner at all – it is an argument based in a mawkish nostalgia for kinder days, not fact.
Square Rauch’s frame with the Benjy Sarlin report this week on the people who elected Trump, which is also quoted below. You can’t, because the latter offers actual data to show why people supported Trump, and I’ll give you a hint: it’s not because they’re angry about the lack of earmarks. It’s not that people believe their leadership class is corrupt – it’s that they know they’re stupid. It’s not that people are angry because a parking garage didn’t get built, it’s that they’re angry because the FBI can’t keep track of a terrorist’s wife.
Sarlin’s piece illustrates, in clear data-driven reporting, the real basis for the breakdown of our Cold War era political reality: an utter collapse in the belief that our elites, elected or otherwise, have the capacity to represent. They no longer believe our elites will ever look out for the interests of an anxious people. The “he can’t be bought” frame for Trump’s rise is best understood as code for “he’ll look out for me, not [pick your group]”.
This is not about ideology. If people trusted elites and institutions they defend to look out for them, in a non-ideological sense, the breakdown of our systems would have been mitigated or confined. The fact that it is so sweeping is due to a generation of elites who didn’t do their jobs well, or pretended things weren’t their job for too long.
We have breakdown, chaos, and upheaval in our politics today not because the people are “insane”, as Rauch writes, but because they are sane. They know the leadership class which held power for the past generation has not looked out for them. Don’t blame a people for turning on elites who thought they knew better but proved over and over that they didn’t. It is thoroughly rational to want something else instead. Even if that something else turns out not to deliver either, at least you know it’s not the same as what’s failed.
If you disagree with Rauch, there is a mountain of evidence on your side. If you agree with Rauch, you’re left arguing that what Washington really needed was more Eric Cantors. And that, my friends, is truly insane – the sort of desperate argument one only advances if you can’t make sense of what you’re seeing in America’s politics.
There was a definite horn rock theme today in 1968, as proven by number seven …
… six …
… two …
… and one on the charts:
Today in 1971, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were sentenced on drug charges. And, of course, you could replace “1971” with any year and Jagger’ and Richards’ names with practically any rock musician’s name of those days.
Or other people: Today in 2000, Eminem’s mother sued her son for defamation from the line “My mother smokes more dope than I do” from his “My Name Is.”
Birthdays start with LeRoy Anderson, whose first work was the theme music for many afternoon movies, but who is best known for his second work (with which I point out that Christmas is less than six months away):