————————–

THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF JOLLITY AND HUMOR ADMINISTRATION
EVERETT DIRKSEN FEDERAL MERRIMENT CENTER
3000 JAMES EARL CARTER PARKWAY SOUTH
WASHINGTON, DC

FORM US/BJHA-1106(d) : AARA Budget Procurement Code LOL-431[ROFL]

APPLICATION FOR HUMOR CONSULTANT / CONTRACTOR

This space for official use

SYNOPSIS:

The purpose of this announcement is to seek qualified private contractors to provide amusement and humor-related services to career employees within a wide range of federal agencies, including but not limited to the Treasury Department, Department of Education, The US Census Bureau, and USDA Mohair Subsidization Board. Winning applicant(s) shall perform presentation program demonstrating mirth as defined herein and in BJHA document (k)670-110, “FY 2009 Federal Levity Handbook.” In particular, guidelines specify services rendered by applicants shall be funny “ha-ha,” not funny “peculiar.” 

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:

Recent studies have shown that appropriate levels of workplace humor and supervised jokery provides organizational benefits in areas of employee stress reduction, enhancement of communication flow, and greater regulatory throughput metrics (BHJA document C-11-k.101.t). Two year implementation of described program is forecast by analysis staff to reduce federal employee stress and random murder sprees by 14% over FY2009 benchmarks.

ADDENDUM: pursuant to EO guideline [6.09(vt)-5], explanation of solicitation of bids from outside contractor 

Understaffing; current Undersecretary for Mirth Training Affairs on administrative leave until completion of murder spree trial.

DATE(S) OF CONTRACT: 10-01-09 : 09-30-11

SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS: AARA section 351(t), National Humor Recover and Funnybone Stimulus Fund

Read and fill out all sections as completely as possible. Write legibly in black ink or fixed width font not to exceed pica 10 pitch. Mail 3 (three) completed application to the BHJA, attn: Office of Jocularity Assessment.

–

You can read the rest of this post here.

There was no debate, no discussion; in fact the bill wasn’t even finished when they started voting on it. Yet they all knew they would like everything in the bill, and rushed the vote. I’m somewhat envious of the common goal they all seem to share, but I’m also suspicious of why nobody bothered to read it. Granted it was fifteen hundred pages, Fourth of July recess, and the deposit on the Martha’s Vineyard cottage wasn’t refundable.

I think there is also something else at work here: Democrats tend to have more faith in the system than they have in the individual. When President Reagan tried to close the Department of Education, he was considered to be against education. It’s not just spin, Democrats really think that way. They feel it’s important to keep the Department of Education, because without it, there will be no education. Without the Department of Health, we would all be sick; without the Department of Commerce, the economy would fold. Ditto for the FDA, the FCC, FAA, and the rest of the alphabet soup.

I’ve been a fan of Rush Limbaugh for quite some time; he is an incredible source for information and salient points. Unfortunately, I can’t repeat anything I hear in front of Democrats, because once you do, your point is considered moot. It doesn’t matter if the statistic you quote comes from the Congressional Budget Office or the United Nations, if you say you’ve heard it on Rush Limbaugh, your point is dismissed, and the conversation is over. (Not only don’t Democrats want to listen to Rush, they don’t want to listen to anyone who admits to listening to Rush.) Yet, these same people claim to know everything about Rush. How is that possible?

Democrats don’t have to listen to Rush, (or Fox News either) because there are other people charged with that task. Organizations like Media Matters do all the dirty work then translate it for all the Lefties. So they never have to soil their mind by exposing it to a contrary opinions, or risk being converted to Conservatism. (For some reason, people on the Left believe they are incredibly susceptible to brainwashing, so they feel it is better not to listen to anything contrary.)

I assume the same thing happened with the energy bill. Like the trust they put on Media Matters to tell the truth about Rush, there are people in the Party they trust to read the bill. Since it had the Waxman-Markey brand on the label, Democrats knew there was nothing but good old-fashioned Marxism inside.

There is nothing more secure to Democrats than a big bureaucracy–it makes them feel safe. Perhaps that’s why so many of them linger on in colleges longer than the average American. Inefficient bureaucracies and musty old buildings with union swept halls are warm fuzzy places for them.  These people are the kind that like being looked after–it is the natural state of the Left.

They want to live under a huge bureaucracy that will direct their life, from the time they are born into a government hospital through their time in government schools, then punch the clock at a government job until a government appointed doctor gives them an assisted suicide. A Democrat Utopia would be like a human zoo where the lions are kept separate from the zebras, every one is fed, and the doctor comes round once a year. Just keep re-electing Democrats who will insure the air is clean, your food is safe, your retirement is secure, and the tithe is paid.

That’s a big one. When you decide to become a Democrat, the need for you to ever contribute to charity is completely eliminated. Every election cycle Democrat candidates are exposed for being skinflints when the 1040s are released. There is always a ridiculously small number on the lines of where charitable deductions are listed. The contribution is always so small you would think it was an accident, like they thought their $100 donation to the Breast Foundation was a subscription to a porn site.

In actuality, I think they believe that membership in the Democrat Party is their donation to charity. The Party is their Church and the leaders are their clerics. Why should Al Gore give more than a couple hundred bucks to charitable causes when he has made his life work saving the earth from prosperity? (That could explain why so many of Obama’s appointees didn’t feel the need to pay taxes–churches are tax-exempt.)

Never mind that Gore’s “charitable’” works have netted him billions. That’s just a bonus, and as most people like Gore will tell you, the nature of his job requires certain amenities. The Pope doesn’t fly coach either.

I’ve yet to meet a public “servant” that didn’t whine about being underpaid and brag about how much more they could make in the private sector. Personally, I think it is the duty of Americans to help out these dedicated “servants” by removing them of their obligation and set them free to find their fortune.

If you don’t want to read your assignments, it’s time to get a job. We need to make Democrats learn responsibility. Call it “tough love.” We need to lock the Democrats out of Government, the same way that a parent might eventually need to change the locks on the house while a 30-year-old child is at the Arcade. We need to tear down their posters, throw away the bongs, and put their X-boxes out on the back porch. Let’s turn the basement into an exercise room.

Our next opportunity is coming in 2010.

A: 24th

Every education reform effort since the National Defense of Education Act signed in 1958 has begun with soaring rhetoric, big promises, and massive budgets and delivered not much in the way of results.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education; George H.W. Bush promised to “map a new approach to education”; Bill Clinton signed his “Goals 2000″; and George W. Bush had his “me too” moment with “No Child Left Behind.” Yet in spite of all these efforts and billions upon billions of dollars only 23% of American students were proficient in reading by graduation in 2005. In fact, according to the most recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), reading scores have remained flat while real federal spending per pupil has more than tripled since 1985. The average freshman graduation rate has also remained flat according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

These statistics give the lie to the myth that increases in educational spending will result in improved academic performance. Moreover, they suggest that it is high time that we recognize the distinction between public schools and public education. Public schools are schools run through the political process while public education is a commitment to spend public dollars wherever children receive the best education, whether that be in the basement of a church or the dining room of your neighbor’s home.

The point is expertly driven home in the new documentary, “Flunked” produced by Steven Maggi of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. The stars of this 49 minute long peek at education in America are the educators and schools that are achieving results by thinking outside of the box and pissing off the organized, entrenched interests in the process.

Highlighted in the film are Howard Lappin, former principal of the Foshay Learning Center in Watts, California. When Lappin arrived at Foshay, he noticed that the kids in 7th and 8th grade were basically at a 3rd and 4th grade remedial math level. He insisted that they be made to do grade appropriate work much to the chagrin of the parents and school unions who all complained that algebra was too difficult for them.

And there is Karen Jones, principal of the Sisulu Children’s Academy in Harlem. Jones has taken this school filled with Title I or at risk children and turned it into one of the top performing schools in all of Manhattan.

However, the star of this film is the outspoken Dr. Ben Chavis, principal of the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, CA. Chavis, a Native American raised as a sharecropper, holds no punches when it comes to his ideas on educating minority children in low income areas: “they need structure and discipline and no excuses!” When Chavis arrived at the Indian charter school in 2001, it was the worst school in the district. Chavis describes it as defined by multi-cultural nonsense – “a bunch of Indians sitting around in a circle weaving baskets.”

Chavis immediately began to challenge all of the orthodoxy. Gone went the middle school rotation of classes. With the exception of gym class, students now spend the entire day with one teacher. Gone went the computers. Says Chavis with a chuckle, “They can’t read. They don’t need a computer.” Forget small classes. Chavis has an average class size of 28. Chavis began to emphasize the basics. The first three hours of each day is devoted to math and English. When Chavis noticed that the North Carolina math curriculum was superior to that proscribed in California, he dumped the California books and began teaching the North Carolina curriculum. Chavis’ unorthodox methods have turned the Indian school into the best middle school in Oakland.

The approach of Chavis may not work for every student. “Flunked” makes clear that there is no single solution to the problems of our education system or one school delivering the goods. The one size fits all approach to education does not work. What does work, however, is dynamic leadership, high standards and high expectations for students, flexible curriculum and personnel practices and parental participation.

Public education must empower parents to spend public dollars on education that works. Without options, we can devote all of our GNP towards education and it will only be throwing good money after bad.

Joseph C. Phillips is the author of “He Talk Like a White Boy” available wherever books are sold.