You know what? The one thing that sticks with me after all this time is this one image. Not of the planes hitting, or the burning, or the Pentagon with a hole, or a crater in Pennsylvania. That’s all there, and it will never go away. The feeling of total helplessness is still fresh in my memory like it just happened this morning.
But there’s one image. One image that if I live a million years will still be seared in every detail in my mind.
News: They use the phone company as their strap-on.
My phone bill should be pretty simple. $77.49 a month for everything. It’s not.
Not including itemized calls, there’s one line of actual services. One line is some service credit. The last seven lines? Fees and taxes.
The bottom line just went up by $2.61 a month. $2.00 of that was actual service fee increase. The other $0.61? Surcharges and sales taxes. Something called the “Universal Service Fund”. And guess what? The state sales taxes go up too, because they are charging you sales tax ON TAXES AND FEES!
By the time you add up all the fees and taxes, they comprise more than 15% of the total check I write to the phone company. And these fees go up every quarter.
For the greater good, no doubt.
Excerpted from Instapundit:
Fair enough. Of course, Obama’s plan — and Big Government in general — is all about ensuring that we don’t have the right to decide how to spend our dollars but should instead let somebody else take them at gunpoint and decide how they’re spent.
This was his response to a post elsewhere about the Whole Foods CEO not supporting “the most important progressive cause of the moment.”
Glenn, you hit on the core of progressivism. The idea that everyone’s money should be taken from them and given back in approved programs by benevolent government masters.
The mental defect that allows them to support such bullshit is simply that they believe that they will be the masters, and therefore exempt from having their money taken from them.
Can someone tell me how we have “Global Warming” when the northeastern United States has been between 5 and 10 degrees below long-term average temperatures for the past six weeks?
Yesterday was July 13th, 2009. The recorded daytime high for central Connecticut was 78°F. The daytime high for the same day last year was 86°F. (historical data are available from here. No direct link as they update multiple times per day.)
The forecast high temperature for today in central Connecticut is 78°F. In mid-July.
And the Congress has just passed the single largest tax in the history of civilization to (it is stated) stave off catastrophic global warming.
Someone needs to point out to these idiots in DC that it is not getting warmer anywhere around here.
“Behind the log at the 13th tee” is not the correct answer to “where should I put this empty bottle”. Please have the courtesy to carry your detritus to the waste baskets, or don’t bring disposable stuff on to the course. And if you see garbage strewn about, pick it up. The $5 admission fee to the park does not grant you license to litter.
Your mother does not work here. Please clean up after yourself.
But liars figure.
Just got a robocall – an automated survey on “health care reform”.
First question – “Press one if you have insurance through your employer or your spouse’s employer. Press two if you are uninsured or on Medicare or Medicaid.”
I pressed 0 and it hung up on me.
But if you want to know where that stupid fucking “47 million uninsured” shit comes from, this is it. Lump all the Medicare and Medicaid in with uninsureds, and leave no option for self-insureds (even if I had an actual insurance policy, it would still not be “through” my employer, I’m self-employed).
Argentine glacier says “What global warming?”
How many times does a “scientific” theory need to be falsified before the scientists go back to the drawing board?
It would appear that in the case of Anthropogenic Climate Change (the phenomenon formerly known as Global Warming™) that there is no amount of counter-evidence sufficient to require a review of the premises of the theory.
At this point, the warmists are just winging it and hoping that nobody notices.
Given the new rules of the game, I have to say that this cartoon by Lalo Alcaraz is an incitement to shoot Republicans.
Liberal means never having to be consistent.
The double standard of who is responsible for language, that is.
For instance, when an ACORN-affiliated group gathers up a bunch of disaffected citizens to take them on a tour of wealthy financiers houses, there’s no concern from the media (like Don Wright) that someone might do something bad. In fact, I think Don Wright might be responsible if someone from AIG gets hurt by one of these people.
How about when Obama says to a meeting of the bank executives “This administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” Hell, that almost sounds like a threat.
So, Don, will you or any of your compadres in Obama’s sycophant corps call him out on his “irresponsible” language if some bank executive ends up with a pitchfork in his belly? Didn’t think so.
Of course, cops get shot all the time. Sometimes they get shot by people who can’t be painted with the “dread conservative brush”. Like Lovelle Mixon. Suspected in the sexual assault of a 12 year old girl, he was pulled over by Oakland police. He proceeded to kill both of them, and kill two more before being killed. Media reaction? Sympathy. Indymedia – disgusting shows of “the cops had it coming” and worse. Marches in support of a murderer, rapist, and thief. But we’re not allowed to say that media glorifying such behavior influences children.
Nope. Only Rush Limbaugh can do that.
And you get this shit. (Don Wright)
This is the ultimate endgame of what Jeff has been going on about for some time.
Who controls meaning? Is meaning guided by the intent of the speaker? If it is, then the speaker cannot be responsible for the way his meaning is misinterpreted (intentionally or otherwise). Is meaning controlled by the listener? If so, when does liability attach to the listener and not the speaker?
Can anyone point me to a single sentence that Limbaugh, Beck, Norris, or Bachmann has said or written that even implies that it’s ok to shoot cops?
Whatever happened to the reasonable man standard? Are we now supposed to limit what we say, what we think, what we draw, based upon how some unbalanced person might interpret it? Should we outlaw dogs because there might be another Son of Sam? Ought we ban video games because an unbalanced child might decide to kill people at some later date?
Don, your argument is as stupid as it is dangerous. Your abject hatred for conservatives has caused you to draw some pretty foolish stuff before, and no doubt it will again. But for you to imply that someone talking on the radio is responsible for how a deranged person interprets what is said is inherently dangerous to liberty.