You do know that doth is singular, and as a result, your verb is not in agreement with your subject.
Go to hell. Actually, you are right, and the Czar would change it if he had the muscle to do so. But what is done...is done. And if you are tired of tautologies, read on.
Your Czarness (I always prefered Tsar to Czar, but ‘z’s’ are cool, so I’ll let it slide:
I must beg to differ with you on the use of ‘Eye of the Tiger’ as Newt’s entrance as having no clue, however.
I suspect that the Newt-inator has quite a big clue what he is doing. He is pandering to Gen-X.
The reality is that Gen-X has come of age and now that the parents of the Baby Boomers, who bankrolled them into power are no longer here, the Baby Boomers have looked to the next generation, Gen-X now that we’ve come of age to bank roll their socialist paradise as they waltz into retire-ocracy.
Just as halcyon 50s nostalgia swept in during the dark days of the 1970s (think Grease, Happy Days and Sha Na Na) ‘80s nostalgia is creeping into our culture now that we’re in our late 30s, and successful. As our economy is tanking (like it did in the 70s) and and American Exceptionalism is being put on the back shelf (like in the 70s) we are yearning for the brighter days of conservative ascendency, a prospering economy, and American Exceptionalism laying the smackdown on Grenada, Libya and the Berlin Wall.
You see it in the fashion (my daughter’s wardrobe looks like my Jr. High Girlfriend’s), in all of the TV and movie homages and remakes (Phineas and Ferb, Battlestar Galactica, V, and Red Dawn and A-Team remakes for crying out loud).
I think Newt is on to something by taping into the subconscious of Gen-X in a manner befitting the Mandarin or ŒV. It’s more subtle than the Czar’s approach, but nonetheless valid.
I hope that this doesn’t cause a revoking of my Operative status.
First, only цьсарь is correct, but some of us still like the older spelling of цѣсарь. And so even tsar is incorrect.
But to your main point: this is very much a fantastic consideration. 80s nostalgia is huge right now, and you are absolutely correct that the GOP would smartly tap into it. Hey, we can bring back Reagan if you vote for us.
Still, though, Eye of the Tiger? How about Hello Again by the Cars, or Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) by the Eurythmics, or Modern English I Melt With You as better choices?
Meanwhile, love the signature line here:
Oh wise, mighty, and infinitely knowledgeable czar. Your humble operative was thinking last night (please dont beat me... I blame the single-malt)... and attempting to recall some basic economics from my youth. Now, I admittedly slept through quite a bit of economics class, but I am a tad confused over some of the justification for the Healthcare bill that just passed.
According to the president and congress, one of the major benefits of the healthcare bill is that it will drive a reduction in overall health expenditures because everyone will now have access to preventative care. So, my understanding is that 40 million-ish people that did not previously have healthcare coverage will, under the bill, get healthcare coverage. Granted, the number that didnt have coverage that actually *wanted* coverage is probably closer to 10 million (and the number that *need* coverage is probably a fraction of that), but lets say 40 million people who, previously, did not have health insurance now enjoy its benefits. I also understand that those people always had *access* to healthcare and would frequently avail themselves of that access for catastrophic issues (broken limbs, pneumonia, gunshot wounds, etc.). But, now that they have low co-pays and in-network provider discounts, I suspect that those 40 million people will now being going to the doctor for less than catastrophic issues (colds, hang nails, stubbed toes, whatever).
For the sake of this discussion, I humbly request that you now couple that with all the data saying that healthcare providers and prospective providers (generally disgusted by the whole thing) are declining. So, to my feeble, Oban-addled noggin, this appears to be a huge increase in DEMAND while SUPPLY will (at best) remain flat. When demand increases while supply remains flat... doesnt that mean the market will react by increasing the cost of a good or service?
Gormogoned for life,
GD is of course correct, and alas, it is something we have been saying around here for some time. The only way to check demand with a flat supply? Rationing (click to see how many times we have called it).
The Czar wants GD to understand that he, too, is Gormogoned for life.