Two questions:
1) Who really gave a damn about a Cowboys football game? and...
2) Among that group, who really, really, watched the halftime crap? For that matter, who watches the halftime crap during a Packers game? Don't you have bladders?? Hungries??
Be honest, now.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
The Long List of Crony Capitalism Criminals
Carney's been on this for years, and he conveniently published a list of Crony Capitalism Criminals at the bottom of his article.
Mattel, Phillip Morris, GE, Nike, American Bankers Ass'n, the American Transport Ass'n (Big Trucking)...
And of course, the cab companies--joined by the brick-and-mortar stores who are demanding that online consumers pay more taxes.
Mattel, Phillip Morris, GE, Nike, American Bankers Ass'n, the American Transport Ass'n (Big Trucking)...
And of course, the cab companies--joined by the brick-and-mortar stores who are demanding that online consumers pay more taxes.
Another Effect of Citizens United
One must admit that the sympathy factor will be near zero.
...In what could be the biggest threat to their livelihood, Washington’s lobbyists are about to be challenged by the very same Super PACs that flooded millions of dollars into the 2016 presidential and Senate campaigns.
... Rules-constrained lobbyists, limited on how much they can spend on entertainment and campaign contributions, will soon face competition from Super PACs that can spend freely to lobby. Several are eyeing big-dollar, media-heavy campaigns on issues like taxes and spending to move public opinion, threatening K Street’s traditional approach of dispatching lobbyists to woo individual lawmakers with persuasion and donations....--AmSpec quoting Paul Bedard
That's why the K Street gang was so all-fired hot to void Citizens United.
Having said that, the problem is Federalization of every damn thing in the country. Lobbyists are a natural result of Federalization.
...In what could be the biggest threat to their livelihood, Washington’s lobbyists are about to be challenged by the very same Super PACs that flooded millions of dollars into the 2016 presidential and Senate campaigns.
... Rules-constrained lobbyists, limited on how much they can spend on entertainment and campaign contributions, will soon face competition from Super PACs that can spend freely to lobby. Several are eyeing big-dollar, media-heavy campaigns on issues like taxes and spending to move public opinion, threatening K Street’s traditional approach of dispatching lobbyists to woo individual lawmakers with persuasion and donations....--AmSpec quoting Paul Bedard
That's why the K Street gang was so all-fired hot to void Citizens United.
Having said that, the problem is Federalization of every damn thing in the country. Lobbyists are a natural result of Federalization.
Ryan Knows Funny Lines
Paul Ryan spoke last night at a the [Jack] Kemp Foundation award dinner; Rubio received the award.
...congratulations to Senator Rubio on receiving this well-deserved honor.
You’re joining an elite group of past recipients – so far, it’s just me and you. I’ll see you at the reunion dinner – table for two. Know any good diners in Iowa or New Hampshire?
I’m sure the press won’t read too much into that.
And then another one:
...[I met Kemp] at Empower America, where I was lucky enough to work with Jack and Bill Bennett, another mentor of mine. Jack and I both served in the House of Representatives, and over the years we both took our share of tough hits – Jack from playing quarterback in the NFL, and me from accidentally knocking into Bill Bennett.
And finally:
...Jack and I share something else in common: We both used to be the next vice president of the United States....
Ryan re-iterated his theme of 'subsidiarity'--which is excellent.
...congratulations to Senator Rubio on receiving this well-deserved honor.
You’re joining an elite group of past recipients – so far, it’s just me and you. I’ll see you at the reunion dinner – table for two. Know any good diners in Iowa or New Hampshire?
I’m sure the press won’t read too much into that.
And then another one:
...[I met Kemp] at Empower America, where I was lucky enough to work with Jack and Bill Bennett, another mentor of mine. Jack and I both served in the House of Representatives, and over the years we both took our share of tough hits – Jack from playing quarterback in the NFL, and me from accidentally knocking into Bill Bennett.
And finally:
...Jack and I share something else in common: We both used to be the next vice president of the United States....
Ryan re-iterated his theme of 'subsidiarity'--which is excellent.
Should Sensenbrenner Be Primaried?
Sensenbrenner sent out his "STFU" letter, just like Suntan Boehner told him.
...Instead, Republicans have suggested broad-based tax reform. Reform can actually encourage growth, and with it, more tax revenue. This reform also means finding new revenue through capped deductions and closed loopholes....
No word about chopping the allocations to Energy, Education, EPA? Not one word?
...We all agree that we must avert the fiscal cliff. The stakes are too high, and we cannot allow this responsibility to our citizens to go unmet. ...
Really, Jim? There's no "cliff." There are horrific tax increases (you voted for this, remember??) and there are some very mild reductions in future spending plans. Did I say you voted for this? Defense "cuts" are smaller than those following any other war in the last century--they're pish-posh.
...we should not accept a rash deal that will cripple our economy with higher taxes and prolong our debt crisis by excluding credible spending reform....
You've had plenty of time to do that, Jim--during the Bush 1 and Bush 2 regimes. Frankly, you didn't do a good job.
Now tell me, Jim: did Boehner at least give you a kiss before he made you write this drivel?
...Instead, Republicans have suggested broad-based tax reform. Reform can actually encourage growth, and with it, more tax revenue. This reform also means finding new revenue through capped deductions and closed loopholes....
No word about chopping the allocations to Energy, Education, EPA? Not one word?
...We all agree that we must avert the fiscal cliff. The stakes are too high, and we cannot allow this responsibility to our citizens to go unmet. ...
Really, Jim? There's no "cliff." There are horrific tax increases (you voted for this, remember??) and there are some very mild reductions in future spending plans. Did I say you voted for this? Defense "cuts" are smaller than those following any other war in the last century--they're pish-posh.
...we should not accept a rash deal that will cripple our economy with higher taxes and prolong our debt crisis by excluding credible spending reform....
You've had plenty of time to do that, Jim--during the Bush 1 and Bush 2 regimes. Frankly, you didn't do a good job.
Now tell me, Jim: did Boehner at least give you a kiss before he made you write this drivel?
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Monday, December 03, 2012
Even More ObozoCare Costs!!
Eventually, the costs of ObozoCare will outrun any other single expenditure in the history of the Universe.
And "eventually" could be next week.
This week's chapter:
The Obama administration said Friday that it would charge insurance companies for the privilege of selling health insurance to millions of Americans in new online markets run by the federal government.
The cost of these “user fees” can be passed on to consumers. The proposed fees could add 3.5 percent to premiums for private health plans sold in insurance exchanges operated by the federal government. --Hot Air quoting NYSlimes
This line is a scream:
...Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said that fees charged by the federal government would be “sufficient to cover the majority of costs related to the operation of federally facilitated exchanges.” She did not say how the remainder of the money would be raised....
Well, a "majority" begins at 51%. So what IS the operating cost of FFE's?
Don't ask NumbskullNancy. She hasn't read the law yet.
HT: Grim
And "eventually" could be next week.
This week's chapter:
The Obama administration said Friday that it would charge insurance companies for the privilege of selling health insurance to millions of Americans in new online markets run by the federal government.
The cost of these “user fees” can be passed on to consumers. The proposed fees could add 3.5 percent to premiums for private health plans sold in insurance exchanges operated by the federal government. --Hot Air quoting NYSlimes
This line is a scream:
...Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said that fees charged by the federal government would be “sufficient to cover the majority of costs related to the operation of federally facilitated exchanges.” She did not say how the remainder of the money would be raised....
Well, a "majority" begins at 51%. So what IS the operating cost of FFE's?
Don't ask NumbskullNancy. She hasn't read the law yet.
HT: Grim
May I Have Another Gummint Spending, Please??
Not news, if you're paying attention. Not even text. Just the graph.
Yup. Inflation-adjusted, the school administrations and teachers have done very well, indeed.
Who cares about the kids, anyway??
Who cares about the kids, anyway??
Sunday, December 02, 2012
"FEAR the .22 Long Rifle!!!"
On a par with TurboTimmy's "unlimited Presidential national-debt authority" proposal, we find another Obozoite whose youthful indiscretions with mind-altering substances now produces the predictable results.
Rifles, even .22 caliber models many young people receive as their first gun, are “among the greatest threats to the reliability of the nation’s power system,” U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff claimed at a Tuesday Bloomberg Government Breakfast, Bloomberg News reported yesterday.
Citing “inadequately protected” transformers as easy targets, Wellinghoff told the group that terrorists in "coordinated" actions committed to destroying them “could get 200 yards away with a .22 rifle and take the whole thing out.”
That's what he said. You can look it up.
HT: The Captain
Rifles, even .22 caliber models many young people receive as their first gun, are “among the greatest threats to the reliability of the nation’s power system,” U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff claimed at a Tuesday Bloomberg Government Breakfast, Bloomberg News reported yesterday.
Citing “inadequately protected” transformers as easy targets, Wellinghoff told the group that terrorists in "coordinated" actions committed to destroying them “could get 200 yards away with a .22 rifle and take the whole thing out.”
That's what he said. You can look it up.
HT: The Captain
The Next Kirk?
This is a medium-length interview with a number of juicy one-liners about the (D)/Meliorists.
Unfortunately, the Professor's outlook for America is a bit dim. But, like Kirk, Babbitt, Madison, (et al), he understands "why"--something the (D) chipmunks cannot do.
...[Leo] Strauss had studied ancient Greek texts, which emphasized among other things that "within democracy there is good and bad, free and slave," and that "democracy can produce a slavish mind and a slavish country." [Belloc's Servile State, e.g.] The political task before every generation, Mr. Mansfield understood, is to "defend the good kind of democracy. And to do that you have to be aware of human differences and inequalities, especially intellectual inequalities."
American elites today prefer to dismiss the "unchangeable, undemocratic facts" about human inequality, he says. Progressives go further: "They think that the main use of liberty is to create more equality. They don't see that there is such a thing as too much equality. They don't see limits to democratic equalizing"—how, say, wealth redistribution can not only bankrupt the public fisc but corrupt the national soul....
Stop to think about this next statement:
..."The Republicans should want to recover the notion of the common good," Mr. Mansfield says.
Ummnnhhhh, ya' think? Now--to be clear--Prof. Mansfield defines "common good" in a different way than I might--but it is also a useful, if utilitarian, tool, and certainly should be part of the toolbox.
He does get the Big Things right:
..."Democrats have their cultural argument, which is the attack on the rich and the uncaring," Mr. Mansfield says. "So Republicans need their cultural arguments to oppose the Democrats', to say that goodness or justice in our country is not merely the transfer of resources to the poor and vulnerable. We have to take measures to teach the poor and vulnerable to become a little more independent and to prize independence, and not just live for a government check. That means self-government within each self, and where are you going to get that except with morality, responsibility and religion?"
Where, indeed?
Unfortunately, the Professor's outlook for America is a bit dim. But, like Kirk, Babbitt, Madison, (et al), he understands "why"--something the (D) chipmunks cannot do.
...[Leo] Strauss had studied ancient Greek texts, which emphasized among other things that "within democracy there is good and bad, free and slave," and that "democracy can produce a slavish mind and a slavish country." [Belloc's Servile State, e.g.] The political task before every generation, Mr. Mansfield understood, is to "defend the good kind of democracy. And to do that you have to be aware of human differences and inequalities, especially intellectual inequalities."
American elites today prefer to dismiss the "unchangeable, undemocratic facts" about human inequality, he says. Progressives go further: "They think that the main use of liberty is to create more equality. They don't see that there is such a thing as too much equality. They don't see limits to democratic equalizing"—how, say, wealth redistribution can not only bankrupt the public fisc but corrupt the national soul....
Stop to think about this next statement:
..."The Republicans should want to recover the notion of the common good," Mr. Mansfield says.
Ummnnhhhh, ya' think? Now--to be clear--Prof. Mansfield defines "common good" in a different way than I might--but it is also a useful, if utilitarian, tool, and certainly should be part of the toolbox.
He does get the Big Things right:
..."Democrats have their cultural argument, which is the attack on the rich and the uncaring," Mr. Mansfield says. "So Republicans need their cultural arguments to oppose the Democrats', to say that goodness or justice in our country is not merely the transfer of resources to the poor and vulnerable. We have to take measures to teach the poor and vulnerable to become a little more independent and to prize independence, and not just live for a government check. That means self-government within each self, and where are you going to get that except with morality, responsibility and religion?"
Where, indeed?
The Extremely Generous Rep. Rogers
I think Mr. Rogers (R-MI) is being far too kind in his assessment.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday there was "gross negligence" in the handling of security for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
..."What went wrong was that the policy and decision makers at the Department of State did not make the right security call, and I argue it's gross negligence."
First off, if the term "criminal negligence" means anything, it should be applied here.
Secondly, we notice that Mr. Rogers does not address the second "negligence": the C-in-C's decision NOT to issue cross-border authority to the SF team which was (reportedly) already over Libya--and which team had to return to Sicily as a result, while 4 Americans were slaughtered defending US territory.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday there was "gross negligence" in the handling of security for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
..."What went wrong was that the policy and decision makers at the Department of State did not make the right security call, and I argue it's gross negligence."
First off, if the term "criminal negligence" means anything, it should be applied here.
Secondly, we notice that Mr. Rogers does not address the second "negligence": the C-in-C's decision NOT to issue cross-border authority to the SF team which was (reportedly) already over Libya--and which team had to return to Sicily as a result, while 4 Americans were slaughtered defending US territory.
ObozoCare Now Approaching Fetid
....ain't exactly what anybody knew, especially Obozo and Numbskull Nancy.
...The Obama administration’s congressional allies
botched the drafting of this aspect of the health care overhaul, as the
plain language of Obamacare doesn’t empower federal exchanges to
distribute taxpayer-funded subsidies to individuals; it empowers only
state-based exchanges to distribute the subsidies. (The administration
pretends otherwise.) Moreover, the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) is lagging behind in developing the federal exchanges.
"We don't NEEEEED your steeeeenkin' laws...."
You've heard of "crony capitalism," right? Read on for a bit of education on the topic!!
It gets worse. HHS has contracted with a subsidiary
of a private health care company to help build and police the very
exchanges in which that company will be competing for business. The
person who ran the government entity that awarded that contract has
since accepted a position with a different subsidiary of that same
company. An insurance industry insider (speaking on the condition of
anonymity) says that HHS, in an attempt to hide this unseemly contract
from public view until after the election, encouraged the company to
hide the transaction from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Which is OK, b/c SEC personnel are too busy watching porn on taxpayer dollars, anyway....
... and Guess Who is the company which purchased the prime contractor??
...QSSI, apparently realizing what a valuable asset it had in the contract,
started shopping itself around. Meanwhile, Larsen left the CCIIO [the Feds overseeing ObozoCare] and
took a highly paid position with Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth
Group, in June. Sometime this summer, UnitedHealth Group bought QSSI.
....therefore,....
...UnitedHealth Group, through QSSI, would be able to police the same field in which it would be a competitor.
HT: Hot Air
"But When a Long Train of Abuses...."
Grim points to this essay.
Is the train long enough yet? Or do we have to wait for the boxcars filled with Catholic Bishops?
Is the train long enough yet? Or do we have to wait for the boxcars filled with Catholic Bishops?
Saturday, December 01, 2012
More About "The Box of Chocolates ObozoCare"
Think you've seen all the crap that ObozoCare will make you eat in your sandwich?
You haven't even begun.
About that "free" annual exam, e.g.:
...An annual exam is one specific code; you can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding. This annual visit covers the exam and “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code — insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.
If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss any new ailment or unstable condition. I cannot bait and switch to another code — that’s illegal. We, the physicians, are audited all the time and can lose our license for insurance fraud....
Oh, yes, there's more!!
...On top of all of that, doctors will be obligated — that’s right, obligated — to talk to you about things you may have no interest or need to talk about.
You may just want to have a pap smear or check your cholesterol. However, I am now mandated by the government to talk to you about your weight, exercise, family life, smoking, sexual abuse(!), and even to ask if you wear seat belts. And I am mandated to record your answers.
I am a physician. But I need to tell you to wear a seat belt and then record your answer.
(Quoted at Belvedere's place)
If you think that your doc really, really, really wants to be an unpaid agent of Big Brother, you're wrong.
But that's what your doc will become, under penalty of law.
You haven't even begun.
About that "free" annual exam, e.g.:
...An annual exam is one specific code; you can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding. This annual visit covers the exam and “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code — insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.
If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss any new ailment or unstable condition. I cannot bait and switch to another code — that’s illegal. We, the physicians, are audited all the time and can lose our license for insurance fraud....
Oh, yes, there's more!!
...On top of all of that, doctors will be obligated — that’s right, obligated — to talk to you about things you may have no interest or need to talk about.
You may just want to have a pap smear or check your cholesterol. However, I am now mandated by the government to talk to you about your weight, exercise, family life, smoking, sexual abuse(!), and even to ask if you wear seat belts. And I am mandated to record your answers.
I am a physician. But I need to tell you to wear a seat belt and then record your answer.
(Quoted at Belvedere's place)
If you think that your doc really, really, really wants to be an unpaid agent of Big Brother, you're wrong.
But that's what your doc will become, under penalty of law.
The Recession, Graphed
Barry has a nice little graph here, telling you that since Obozo's election, things have gone VERY badly for household income.
I expect the usual idiots to tell us that it's all Bush's fault, too.
I expect the usual idiots to tell us that it's all Bush's fault, too.
Schooling the Moderates, Again
Jeff Lord smacks a neo-con around the block with history.
...No conservative in his right mind goes onto a notoriously liberal television show of a notoriously liberal network, sits next to John Podesta and promptly turns on his own team. Which is exactly what you did when you went on Meet the Press and slammed Rush Limbaugh....Your previous attacks on South Carolina's Senator Jim DeMint and Governor Sarah Palin are typical of how moderate Republicans play this game....
...this is the kind of nonsense that was preached all the way back in 1950 by New York Governor Tom Dewey in his Princeton lectures. Dewey, as you recall, lectured Republicans about the "vociferous few" and the "impractical theorists" -- meaning the Reaganesque-Rush Limbaugh-style conservatives of the day -- in the GOP who were intent on driving out all the GOP moderates and liberals and into the arms of Democrats. Concluded Dewey: "The results would be neatly arranged, too. The Republicans would lose every election and the Democrats would win." Dewey said all of this, of course, following his own two defeats against FDR and Truman. In both of which elections he ran as the Great Moderate Hope -- and got clobbered.
...When you note in your Time piece that "we still design campaigns to prevail in the America of 25 years ago" you are incorrect. Every single campaign beginning with the Bush 41 re-election campaign of 1992 - 20 years ago - has run head-long from Ronald Reagan and conservatism. And the results are, accordingly, dismal. Say again, dismal....
And a warning to the rest of the (R) Quislings (or Benedict Arnolds, if you prefer that):
...saying, in essence, that Republicans should campaign for the dissolution of marriage and get on with supporting the legalization of polygamy, polyamory, bigamy etc. (the inevitable legal consequences of gay marriage, as Justice Scalia has noted) is only the modern version of Dewey or Ford saying conservatives of the day were too extreme and out of touch.
Once again, we wish to thank the Farrow-Moderates for handing Tammy Baldwin the Senate seat. /sarcasm
...No conservative in his right mind goes onto a notoriously liberal television show of a notoriously liberal network, sits next to John Podesta and promptly turns on his own team. Which is exactly what you did when you went on Meet the Press and slammed Rush Limbaugh....Your previous attacks on South Carolina's Senator Jim DeMint and Governor Sarah Palin are typical of how moderate Republicans play this game....
...this is the kind of nonsense that was preached all the way back in 1950 by New York Governor Tom Dewey in his Princeton lectures. Dewey, as you recall, lectured Republicans about the "vociferous few" and the "impractical theorists" -- meaning the Reaganesque-Rush Limbaugh-style conservatives of the day -- in the GOP who were intent on driving out all the GOP moderates and liberals and into the arms of Democrats. Concluded Dewey: "The results would be neatly arranged, too. The Republicans would lose every election and the Democrats would win." Dewey said all of this, of course, following his own two defeats against FDR and Truman. In both of which elections he ran as the Great Moderate Hope -- and got clobbered.
...When you note in your Time piece that "we still design campaigns to prevail in the America of 25 years ago" you are incorrect. Every single campaign beginning with the Bush 41 re-election campaign of 1992 - 20 years ago - has run head-long from Ronald Reagan and conservatism. And the results are, accordingly, dismal. Say again, dismal....
And a warning to the rest of the (R) Quislings (or Benedict Arnolds, if you prefer that):
...saying, in essence, that Republicans should campaign for the dissolution of marriage and get on with supporting the legalization of polygamy, polyamory, bigamy etc. (the inevitable legal consequences of gay marriage, as Justice Scalia has noted) is only the modern version of Dewey or Ford saying conservatives of the day were too extreme and out of touch.
Once again, we wish to thank the Farrow-Moderates for handing Tammy Baldwin the Senate seat. /sarcasm
Jury Trials Are Still Bi-Partisan
The odious NDAA, signed by GWBush and injected with steroids by the current tyrant, has been modified to preserve the jury trial.
Thursday night, the Senate passed an amendment, authored by Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Mike Lee (R-UT), which altered the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to protect citizens from warrant-less arrest and preserve the right to jury trial. The amendment passed 67-29.
This is not the first slap at the "Unitary Executive" theory (and practice), and I expect that the (D) folks are going to deliver a few more in the next year or so.
Not because they disagree with the current tyrant on most issues.
It's because they prefer that they share in the tyranny. That's called "comity."
However, Obozo doesn't like sharing--so you can look forward to another Big Batch of EO's.
Thursday night, the Senate passed an amendment, authored by Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Mike Lee (R-UT), which altered the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to protect citizens from warrant-less arrest and preserve the right to jury trial. The amendment passed 67-29.
This is not the first slap at the "Unitary Executive" theory (and practice), and I expect that the (D) folks are going to deliver a few more in the next year or so.
Not because they disagree with the current tyrant on most issues.
It's because they prefer that they share in the tyranny. That's called "comity."
However, Obozo doesn't like sharing--so you can look forward to another Big Batch of EO's.
Heads Will Explode in Baby-Killer Camp
Suddenly, the Baby-Killer Camp will turn all "states' rights". Just you watch.
Republican Senator Rand Paul says he wants to pass a Life at Conception Act to “end abortion on demand once and for all.”
Senator Paul, R-KY, recently recorded a message for the National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA), talking about the legislation, which would declare unborn babies legal persons from the moment of conception and give them Constitutional protections.
The senator says Congress can legislatively overturn the Supreme Court‘s Roe v. Wade decision by passing a “personhood” law called the Life at Conception Act.
But the Baby-Killers will conveniently forget SCOTUS' asininity.
Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the 1973 ruling that if a fetus can be defined as a person, the “right” to abortion “collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
Blackmun was a hack, but he opened the door.
Now there's a Senator with the courage to do what is right. Far more than we can say for the alleged "conservatives" in the (R)-controlled House, eh?
Republican Senator Rand Paul says he wants to pass a Life at Conception Act to “end abortion on demand once and for all.”
Senator Paul, R-KY, recently recorded a message for the National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA), talking about the legislation, which would declare unborn babies legal persons from the moment of conception and give them Constitutional protections.
The senator says Congress can legislatively overturn the Supreme Court‘s Roe v. Wade decision by passing a “personhood” law called the Life at Conception Act.
But the Baby-Killers will conveniently forget SCOTUS' asininity.
Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the 1973 ruling that if a fetus can be defined as a person, the “right” to abortion “collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
Blackmun was a hack, but he opened the door.
Now there's a Senator with the courage to do what is right. Far more than we can say for the alleged "conservatives" in the (R)-controlled House, eh?
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Mencken's Statement, for Oyster Farm
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats" --H L Mencken, quoted at AOSHQ in the masthead.
Yes. Well. Watch the video here. See how the Park Service lies through its teeth, stopping only to think up MORE lies--or to lie about FOIA rejection-reasons, putting 30 people out of work permanently.
Yes. Well. Watch the video here. See how the Park Service lies through its teeth, stopping only to think up MORE lies--or to lie about FOIA rejection-reasons, putting 30 people out of work permanently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
