Now on Pandora

My Alt Country station is playing Jay Farrar and out comes this verbal nugget:

It’s been said before,
But it’s worth saying,
No one could dream a place like California

(California from Terroir Blues by Jay Farrar)

Which leads me to this question - how many songs have the name "California" in them? I must have at least 2 dozen in my own MP3 Collection. Off the top of my head:

California Stars - Wilco and Billy Bragg
California Girls - Beach Boys
Californication - Red Hot Chili Peppers
California Dreaming - The Mamas and the Papas
Goin Back to Cali - LL Cool J
California Love - Dr Dre and Tupac
California - Rufus Wainwright
California - Phantom Planet

Which state has the most songs written about it? I'm going to bet it's between California and Texas with Texas taking the edge - just because "Texas Country" is an entire sub-genre of the broader country music industry.


UPDATE: Man, I love Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_about_California

But it doesn't have the same list about Texas. Google sent me here:

http://www.listology.com/list/songs-about-texas-andor-its-cities

And how could I have forgotten "Hotel California"?

Feed test

And they (Democrats) never will

Instapundit on a Detroit Freep article about growing dissatisfaction with Obama's stimulus package: "Maybe reducing taxes and regulation would help. Michigan hasn’t tried that — and neither has Obama . . . ."

It would require an enormous role-reversal for Democrats at the state or federal level to embrace tax increases in an effort to spur economic growth. As JD Foster at Heritage wrote last year, it was the tax cuts of 1997 not the widely heralded tax increases of 1993 that produced the huge economic boom of the 90s.

Proponents of tax increases often reference the Clinton 1993 tax increase and the subsequent period of economic growth as evidence that deficit reduction through tax hikes is a pro-growth policy. What these proponents ignore, however, is that the tax increases occurred at a time when the economy was recovering from recession and strong growth was to be expected. They also ignore that the real acceleration in the economy began in 1997, when economic growth should have cooled. This acceleration in growth coincided with a powerful pro-growth tax cut.

One Hell of an Exit

Man Drives off Edge of Grand Canyon, plunges 600 ft to death

For reference, the height of the Golden Gate Bridge roadway is 220 ft above water and the height of the tower is 746 ft. The Empire State Building is 1200 ft.

Just awful.

Ugh

The economy is even worse than you think:

"Job losses may last well into 2010 to hit an unemployment peak close to 11%. That unemployment rate may be sustained for an extended period."

Clark Howard of talk radio and HLN (or CNN?) has suggested that unemployment could hit 14%. One of the greatest problems we have in this environment is the same problem that those of the 1930s faced - uncertainty. Obama pushed through a bloated, ineffective stimulus package in such a rush that, 6 months later, we're collectively realizing it was a mistake. That realization sows the kind of uncertainty that FDR's theory testing did during the New Deal. If Obama wants to effect real change, he can do it by giving business the incentive to hire and grow not save and shrink.

What is Facebook for?

So, I joined. I connected with a bunch of "friends" from high school, college, old jobs, etc. People I haven't spoken with in years. I "became a fan" of several things I like - beers, cities, Pandora. Now what?

I can't really post updates to my status because there are so many people with whom I'm "friends" that shouldn't need or want to know the intimate details of my life. To add more complexity to what should a be simple web application, I cannot reveal a whole lot of my interest in politics as so many of my friends are vehemently liberal and would probably reject my friendship if they found out I do not subscribe to Progressive policies.

Wait, what?

Let me get this straight... for 8 years, the Left has been repeating the mantra that Bush didn't exert enough effort in capturing or killing bin Laden. Then it comes to light that the CIA under the Bush administration considered a program that would have captured or killed al Qaeda operatives. Someone should fill in the gaps for me because I'm at a loss here.

Spending Doesn't Work

After almost 7 years of FDR, FDR's Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said the following regarding New Deal spending:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

Look Over There

Tigerhawk: Obama's popularity declines, and the investigations begin

Might I add - As we get closer to the elections of 2010 (16 months away), you'll see more and more investigations, especially if the unemployment rate continues on its march toward 14%.

The administration already went toe-to-toe with Dick Cheney once, explicitly scheduling an Obama speech so as to take the spotlight away from Cheney's message. They lost that battle. They'll lose the next one too.

UPDATE: So, let me get this straight... the secret program that Obama's media has been buzzing about for the last 3 days -

A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill Al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

Steyn on Newsweek on Demography

In response to a Newsweek piece which labels Mark Steyn a gloomy writer feeding arguments based on "alarmist and highly speculative projections", Steyn posts the following @ the Corner under Wishing will make it so:

"So a trend predicated upon current behavior is "speculation upon speculation", but a belief (stated without supporting evidence) that current behavior will change the way you think it will is far more scientific and rational?"

Sure, it's possible that the birth rate of immigrants to Europe drops to the levels of the native European but what evidence do we have that this is happening. The article cites one study from the Netherlands which suggests there may be some indicators that this is happening but it's far from overwhelming. Furthermore, I quote the following from the Newsweek piece:

"For the number of Muslims to outnumber non-Muslims by midcentury, it would require either breeding on a scale rarely seen in history or for immigration to continue at a pace that's now politically unacceptable. More likely, new controls will slow Muslim immigration. "

Correct me if I am wrong, but how can something become "politically unacceptable" at the same time that a particular group is increasing its share of the European voice?

What's politically unacceptable is that Euro-bureaucrats will crackdown on immigration from Islamic countries. Fear is debilitating.