Speaking of nanny-state idiots,

they'll steal your kids lunch if it doesn't meet their 'standards'.  And most of the bureaucrats running the schools don't care.


Since I can't get on Fecesbook, someone needs to pass this along to Michael Z. Williamson:
First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Social Democrats, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Social Democrat. And then they realized that all their problems had pretty much been solved, so they stopped coming for people.
-Slavic Nationalist on GAB


Also stolen from Ace,

And this is why it's not just the Stupid Party, but the Backstabber and Treacherous Bastard party:
Take, for instance, McConnell’s botched response to the Orlando terrorist attack this summer. Self-described master-parliamentarian that he is, the Senate majority leader carefully maneuvered legislation so as to allow Blunt and other vulnerable GOP senators to get on record supporting a bipartisan gun control measure while staying loyal to the deep pockets at the NRA.

McConnell first brought up a bill from Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine (F, 10%), prohibiting people on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms. This measure was deeply unpopular among conservatives and the gun lobby. Blunt and company voted against it. McConnell then allowed a vote on a bill from Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. (F, 56%), which, because it had no chance of passing, earned a yay vote from the Blunt cohort.

Not only did McConnell succumb to the Left’s pressure to schedule a gun control vote — thus capitulating the election season narrative and forcing conservatives to play defense — but he also did it so that his underling loyalists could go home and campaign on a bipartisan record without ticking off their financial pipelines. This is special interest politics at its worst.
And the bastards can't count on hiding it anymore, or denying it.


From the control freaks in Seattle,
"All types of micro-housing," he writes, "unlock more affordable and small but independent homes for people who want them. They are one more option to serve the broad spectrum of housing needs."

But soon after the trend started, the Seattle government stepped in with a series of rules and regulations designed, presumably, to protect renters. In 2014, Neiman says, a Seattle court ruled that all micro-housing projects had to go through a cumbersome design review process.
And on, until
Neiman says that, as a result, a building that could have accommodated 40 apartments at 175 square feet each that rent for $900 a month can now hold only 21 of the government-mandated larger units, with rents of around $1,400 a month.

"Spread over dozens of proposed small unit development projects, this represents the loss of hundreds of affordable dwellings and a huge increase in average rents," he notes.
So the question is, is it simply control-freak bureaucrats screwing people for their own good, or is there some payoff from people building regular houses and apartments?