Sunday, September 25, 2011

DHS Waiting to Move Into Insane Asylum

This is delicious…

From the LA Times:
Five miles southeast of the gleaming Capitol dome, on a scenic bluff overlooking the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, the future office of the secretary of Homeland Security sits boarded up and abandoned.

Four years ago, U.S. officials announced plans to renovate the dilapidated, castle-like structure —opened in 1855 as the Government Hospital for the Insane — to anchor Washington's largest construction project since the Pentagon was built 70 years ago.

The goal was to unite on a single campus the 22 agencies that were stitched together to form the Department of Homeland Security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But the $3.4-billion headquarters project stalled as Congress tried to cut the federal deficit. Lawmakers debated this month whether the nation could afford such a massive home-improvement project, and the House has voted to eliminate the funding in next year's budget. Homeland Security operating without a real home

Someone forwarded this with some comments from an email list that has been discussing it. I don't know who said this or what list they were writing on, but they captured the essence of the situation perfectly:
"The Dept of Homeland Security has plans to make former Government Hospital for the Insane its new headquarters. This is proof that either: a) Somewhere deep inside the utterly humorless DHS, someone actually has a sense of humor, or b) the DHS bureaucracy is so utterly devoid of humor that the irony utterly escapes them."

I'm afraid b) is the only plausible answer.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know you're trying to sucker me in, Jim, but I won't take the bait

I'm not going to say anything like "oh, this reminds of the place nasty Priya lives"

nah gonna do it

September 25, 2011 9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

speaking of insanity, the President;s claim that the rich are not paying their fair share is truly insane.

I double dare you Jim to start a topic on this on Friday (I don't have time before then) because I will pulverize this argument.

I ran the numbers and man, oh, man. I know now why Bea wouldn't say what she paid in taxes.....

September 26, 2011 12:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, I made a couple of comments after yours the other day, which were deleted

the President knows he's wrong

he's desperate and hopes to stir up resentment against the successful to give himself a chance to do what has only been done once, in 1984:

be re-elected as President with unemployment above 6%

September 26, 2011 7:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they don't need St Elizabeth's anymore because the White House become the big nuthouse in DC:

"President Obama took aim at Republicans on Sunday while speaking at a fundraiser in Silicon Valley and shared his reaction to the audience at a recent GOP presidential debate booing a gay soldier who had asked a question about "don't ask, don't tell."

"You've got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don't have health care and booing a service member in Iraq because they're gay."
"That's not reflective of who we are," Mr. Obama said. "This is a choice about the fundamental direction of our country. 2008 was an important direction. 2012 is a more important election.""

man, could it be that the girls and the boys are trying to be heard above your noise?

"At the Fox News/Google GOP debate last week, Stephen Hill, a gay soldier in Iraq, said he had to "lie about who [he] was" to serve in the military up until the recent repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." In his recorded question, he asked the GOP presidential hopefuls if they would work to walk back the recent change in policy. When the question was presented to the candidates participating in the event, some members of the audience booed loudly.

Obama's comments came during a weekend fundraising tour in which the president took a noticeably more aggressive tone against Republican politicians and the conservative media.

Obama specifically criticized Texas Governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry on Sunday. He jabbed the Lone Star State Republican for continuing to deny climate change while catastrophic fires ripped through his state.

"We're going to have a stark choice in this election," he asserted. "This is a choice about who we are and what we stand for and whoever wins this next election is going to set the template for this country for a long time to come.""

they always say that, Barry

still, I don't think you're going to like the answer you get from the American people

September 26, 2011 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"speaking of insanity, the President;s claim that the rich are not paying their fair share is truly insane."

Apparently a lot of insane Americans agree with him:

"Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they support President Barack Obama's proposal to tax households making $1 million or more at the same or higher rate as middle-class households, according to a recent poll from website Daily Kos.

The poll found two-thirds of Republicans also support the so-called "Buffett Rule" –- named after famed investor Warren Buffett, who proposed increasing taxes on wealthy in a recent op-ed in The New York Times. But the measure faces stiff opposition. After Obama unveiled the Buffett rule earlier this month as part of a proposal to cut the national deficit through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, Republican leaders derided the plan as "class warfare."

The report’s findings parallel the results of a Gallup poll released earlier this month, which found that two-thirds of Americans favor boosting taxes on households earning more than $200,000 per year."

September 29, 2011 7:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

problem is that voters have been deceived into thinking that rich are paying less than them

on average, those who make over a million pay taxes at a higher rate than those who make less

what is true is that about 400 of the top individuals pay lower individual rates but that doesn't take into account that most of their money is in huge corporations and is taxed at the corporate level

as we have a national discussion, this will be discussed and people will come to understand this

the rich pay for most of our government, charities and arts

if the government tries to cease their wealth, it will hurt charities and arts groups

I'd prefer more help for the poor and more support for the arts than more government employees

call me crazy

September 29, 2011 7:24 AM  
Anonymous gimme shelter said...

looks like I had a "nasty Priya" moment


if the government tries to cease their wealth, it will hurt charities and arts groups

should say:

if the government tries to seize their wealth, it will hurt charities and arts groups

although, I guess the comment works either way

btw, despite these polls, you may notice that Dems in Congress aren't falling all over themselves to endorse Obama's Buffett bomb

they know as well as anyone that a complete discussion will reveal the fallacy of Obama's contention that the rich are paying less tax than other Americans

Barry is claiming that his tax hikes will add 2 million jobs

but we have 25 million out of work and his past claims have proven to be not only exaggerated but flat-out wrong

so, even if his plan works as he says, it's unlikely he could be re-elected

he's not even giving himself a chance

let's face it:

Obama could do more for the US economy by announcing he will not seek re-election than by passing his jobs bill

it's a well-known secret

September 29, 2011 8:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home