where they belong.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is asking lawmakers not to seat ObamaCare consultant Jonathan Gruber next to Medicare’s top official when the two testify on Capitol Hill next week.
And Grubers' nameplate should have 'Architect of the ACA' on it.
You may not have heard, but the "RAPE CULTURE! FRATERNITY GANG RAPE!" story that Rolling Stone pushed has imploded. As in "It's bullshit." Lots of "This will make things harder for real rape victims" yelling, which is true; not one damned word to I see about the damage done to the accused by these lies.
You'll also notice that a lot of the people moaning loudest were the loudest at saying anyone questioning the story was a 'rape apologist' and other idiotic things.
Long time ago I read of a man saying that "Any time you say 'There oughta be a law!', you should think about that law being used against you by your own worst enemy, and think about whether it's a good idea after all. This is a good way to put it:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year
students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce.
Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and
puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
Part of the problem, Husak suggests, is the growing tendency of
legislatures -- including Congress -- to toss in a criminal sanction at
the end of countless bills on countless subjects. It’s as though making
an offense criminal shows how much we care about it.
Well, maybe so. But making an offense criminal also means that the
police will go armed to enforce it. Overcriminalization matters, Husak
says, because the costs of facing criminal sanction are so high and
because the criminal law can no longer sort out the law-abiding from the
non-law-abiding. True enough. But it also matters because -- as the
Garner case reminds us -- the police might kill you.
Throw in that there are so damned many laws and regulations already that YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW. The saying used to be 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse', but when there's no practical way for you TO know it, then yes, it is.
We're supposed to trust the DoJ about anything why, again?