Fortunately ObamaCare covers mental health treatment. The Washington Monthly alerts us that 54 year old secretaries and 55 year old retired firefighters from New Hampshire are whining yuppies. Back when I was young, urban and professional "yuppie" stood for something. In fact, we stood for plenty. Changing times.
We looked at the Times coverage of the subsidy cliffs in ObamaCare yesterday.
anyone else notice how the courts are throwing out the Christian ethical system out wholesale?
The Canadian Supreme Court just legalized prostitution nationally, and a judge just opened the door to legalized polygamy in Utah.
In the meantime, North Dakota of all places is struggling with bisexual three way "marriages".
In the meantime Phil Robertson is being vilified as a secular sinner.
What in God's name are we becoming?
Posted by: matt | December 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM
--What in God's name are we becoming?--
I don't think we're becoming anything "in God's name", matt.
Posted by: Ignatz | December 22, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Preexisting conditions, notwithstanding.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-21/us-sailors-assisting-fukushima-clean-crippled-cancer
Posted by: why do you hate the military? | December 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM
That North Dakota thing sounds like Lawrence; a set-up for the courts to legislate morality and our system of government away.
Posted by: Ignatz | December 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM
As I wait to depart, I want to wish you all a very merry Christmas! Thanks to you for welcoming me and explaining all the little quirks of type pad.
All the best to all of you. I will try to check in from time to time.
Posted by: miss Marple | December 22, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Finally getting around to looking at the original NYT piece. There's a frustrating lack of detail in the reporting about what these policies really cost, since we don't know deductibles, copays, etc. It's like talking about the entrance fee to an amusement park without mentioning what the rides, parking, etc. cost. The actual costs (and benefits) may have changed by a lot more or less than the premiums.
And cherry-picking Dean Baker no doubt will immediately forget about the "total compensation" concept when he next whines about lack of wage growth.
But the main lesson is that if you have a household income of $100,000 or more, shut up. You have no right to complain if an idiotic policy needlessly costs you thousands of dollars.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 11:26 AM
It's a catastrastroke.
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/ted-cruz-budget-deal/2013/12/20/id/543133?promo_code=11604-1&utm_source=11604BALLOON_JUICE&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
Posted by: Booz Cruz | December 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Jazz saxophonist Herb Geller died on the 19th. His Arthur Schwartz songbook is one of my favorite CDs.
Posted by: peter | December 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM
That Washington Monthly piece has some mysterious sources for the numbers and generalizations they are tossing about. Links to links to PageNotFound. Hmmm.
I really wish people who write about what is affordable/win would disclose 1) how much their own premiums are and 2) whether they are subsidized by employer or Govt.
In this case, I suspect the author is either a new medicaid customer, still on her parent's policy, or covered under her husband's employer-provided insurance.
Posted by: AliceH | December 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM
Scratch #2 - she mentions ex-husband's insurance. She also bruits about how costly COBRA is - well, YEAH - it's the most expensive way to be insured. Or rather, it was -- Obamacare makes COBRA pricing look cheap.
Posted by: AliceH | December 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM
8.5" snow. I'm not up for shovelmageddon. Ergo, TCFAB! Plus football on TV.
Posted by: henry | December 22, 2013 at 12:04 PM
If the NYT existed to inform rather than mislead or journalism had any objective standards whatsoever, the article would begin by noting the impact of BOzocare on a 37 yo couple with one kid and $64k income in Kansas. They paid $4500, or 6.9% of their income in 2013 for a plan they found satisfactory and they will pay (should they choose to) $7,200, 11.25%, for the "cheap" BOzocare option in 2014.
Median family age, median family size and central location all give a better idea of why Progressive Democrats are scurrying like rats on a sinking ship.
Posted by: Account Deleted | December 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Isn't the cost of COBRA basically just the combined employer and employee contribution? I would think that would still be cheaper than going out and getting the same plan in the open market. Otherwise why would anyone choose COBRA?
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Safe travels and Merry Christmas, Miss Marple!
Posted by: AliceH | December 22, 2013 at 12:27 PM
"Otherwise why would anyone choose COBRA?"
Jeebus. you must be far removed from preexisting conditions.
Posted by: tattler | December 22, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Merry Christmas, Miss Marple. Have a wonderful trip.
Posted by: centralcal | December 22, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Some years ago I worked with a woman who had a COBRA plan and the employer contribution transitioned out to where the woman was picking up total payment for insurance. So I believe that is where the plan gets pretty expensive for the individual. And she had health problems which increased the cost/price.
Posted by: glasater | December 22, 2013 at 12:32 PM
jimmyk - I really never understood exactly how COBRA rates were determined - however, in my case, my (very large) employer's insurance offering for employees were based on a national pool that, to be simpler, were set up with minimal regional variation in order to meet the most onerous state regulations.
The COBRA rates, therefore, were massively inflated compared to what was available to me on the individual market in my relatively lightly regulated state. It was also a pain in the butt from start to finish - just about every process handoff was screwed up requiring me to be on the phone with them a dozen different times. I'd have gotten rid of sooner if I weren't trying to make sure I left an accurate record of cleared payments and coverage.
Posted by: AliceH | December 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM
As to why I elected COBRA in the first place... I thought it would be a smoother transition allowing me more time to assess my long term options. That part didn't work out for me, but I imagine convenience/assurance of no gaps in coverage is not uncommon reason.
Posted by: AliceH | December 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM
And this is the seat of knowledge about HC?
Cobra keeps you in the group without employer subsidy.
Sheesh
Posted by: tattler | December 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Cobra keeps you in the group
No kidding, Mr. Obvious. Now get lost.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Forgive us, tattler. COBRA is something that becomes relevant and important when one is between jobs with employer-provided insurance. Most of us here seem to have spent our adult lives managing to stay gainfully employed without any gaps.
Posted by: AliceH | December 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Dana becomes expert in another field via wiki.
Posted by: Ignatz | December 22, 2013 at 12:45 PM
It clearly doesn't Robert Pear, does his 'it's just a fleshwound' piece, deep inside, in the Op Ed section Elizabeth Rosenthal does her, trust us again we'll get it right, like those folks who ignored 'there be monsters' on the old time navigation charts.
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 12:47 PM
"No kidding, Mr. Obvious."
Weren't you the author of the previously unremarkable question?
Posted by: tattler | December 22, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Steyn Preparing Strong Letter to NR Editor
Posted by: Account Deleted | December 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM
@ManTran / Ig: The blue closed-wheel vehicle from a few days ago was a Lola. The open-wheel tube-body, as Ig pointed out, was a Ferrari.
Posted by: Beasts of England | December 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM
Merry Christmas, Mrs. Marple;
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Heads-up: Duke & Duke just started on Comedy Central.
Billy Ray Valentine. Capricorn.
Posted by: Beasts of England | December 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Gosh I don't what could have gone wrong;
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/the_fall_of_nbc_news.html
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Tattler/Cleo, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. You know the meaning of the word "else"?
Posted by: jimmyk on iPad | December 22, 2013 at 01:04 PM
Heros retire at age 55.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmC26RuO26g
Posted by: Threadkiller | December 22, 2013 at 01:05 PM
You tell those appeasers, Mark Steyn!
Posted by: anonamom | December 22, 2013 at 01:08 PM
From the Steyn link:
Next step for Steyn?
Birtherism.
Posted by: Threadkiller | December 22, 2013 at 01:09 PM
Steyn makes the good rebuttal for the glad people to consult a few imams see how that goes'
from a link of that link, we see some people are
not entitled to their own facts;
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353992/zimmerman-martin-obama-america-jason-lee-steorts
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 01:16 PM
Merry Christmas, Miss M. We will miss you.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | December 22, 2013 at 01:25 PM
Merry Christmas and safe travels, Miss Marple!
Posted by: Beasts of England | December 22, 2013 at 01:26 PM
OMG, it's hard to get past the opening line of narc's 1:16 link:
Is he vying for a spot as the token "conservative" on the NYT op-ed pages? Even Jesse Jackson understood probability better than this guy.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 01:28 PM
It's turtles all the way, down from there jimmy,
isn't that the point of probability.
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 01:31 PM
Steyn runs afoul of the NR squishes? I didn't see that coming!
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 22, 2013 at 01:32 PM
Re; the Red Fortress, I got some notion about Russia's sense of unwariness, re Rutherford, but those first chapters in Merridale, bring it to light, you kind of see, why 'Bloodlands' is not a recent phenomemon, over there.
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 01:36 PM
Now this fellow, a little too daring for his own good;
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/12/a-film-joins-the-fight-between-the-syrians-and-saudis.html
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 01:39 PM
Yes, I just finished the first chapter and they had a rough go of it before the Mongol Horde decided to set its aim on the west.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 22, 2013 at 01:43 PM
This is called not evaluating your demographic;
http://twitchy.com/2013/12/22/cracker-barrel-does-a-180-today-we-are-putting-all-our-duck-dynasty-products-back-in-our-stores/
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 01:47 PM
From the looks of that article, Steyn sure knows how to fight back against the NRO Squishdom.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet | December 22, 2013 at 01:49 PM
Again I ask the question,
since Robertson was virtually quoting scripture and stating his religious views how is he not protected from disciplining by his employer through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?
Posted by: Ignatz | December 22, 2013 at 01:50 PM
Just for rse via Twitchy-
Common Core in practice;
Posted by: Ignatz | December 22, 2013 at 01:54 PM
A bit surprised that Cracker Barrel misread the tea leaves on this kerfuffle. I know they endured a racial shakedown a few years back (it is, however, the Cracker Barrel...) but, frankly, you see about as many gay folk in the Barrel as you do in duck blinds.
Posted by: Beasts of England | December 22, 2013 at 01:54 PM
Is there a current oped from Steorts about the DD thing that caused Steyn to pen that page of awesomeness? I'm on the iPhone and can't see something at NR that crumpled Steyns boxers. Link if anyone had one please.
Looks like Cracker Barrel got wind of the church buycott starting this morning. What time did they release their oops? They give 10% off every Sunday if you bring in your church bulletin for that morning. Guess maybe CB can count?
Posted by: Stephanie | December 22, 2013 at 01:55 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366912/steyn-speech-jason-lee-steorts
Posted by: boris | December 22, 2013 at 01:58 PM
Good Morning. Just saw that Insty has posted TM's E-mail to Insty on why Dem's are grumpy. (Glenn's 10:39 post.)
Posted by: daddy | December 22, 2013 at 02:00 PM
Stephanie, Steyn links to it in his piece, but here it is:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366912/steyn-speech-jason-lee-steorts
Ig, that's a good question. I'm not sure that civil rights protection extends to making statements in a magazine interview, as that's not intrinsic to practicing one's religion. But it would be good to have a test case.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 02:01 PM
Here's more good PR for the JEF: Drag queens for Barrycare.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 02:03 PM
Now that has to be a parody. Right, jimmyk?
Posted by: Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet | December 22, 2013 at 02:08 PM
He uses all the weapons, metaphor, simile, litote's, Steorts didn't have a chance, with such a dull knife. By Ctluthu, jimmy, why?
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 02:08 PM
"partnering to get everyone covered"
I have an extra tarp that might be large enough to cover one of them.
Posted by: henry | December 22, 2013 at 02:10 PM
probably not...
a #634 million ad budget ...
facepalm of the old one
Posted by: rich@gmu | December 22, 2013 at 02:14 PM
No, that is not a parody. I've seen it elsewhere.
Posted by: matt | December 22, 2013 at 02:14 PM
Thanks guys. Back home now. Read that drivel last night and figured Steyn would let him have it with both barrels. I didn't assoc the column last night with the name steorts as it was so piss poor as to not stick in my memory. I'll bet Goldstein has a field day with this NR tool.
Posted by: Stephanie looking forward to the bowl games | December 22, 2013 at 02:19 PM
wow ... Steyn .... that's the way to tell the boss off.
Posted by: rich@gmu | December 22, 2013 at 02:29 PM
maybe Steorts was hoping to get a few bags of cash from one of the bathhouse billionaires if he put on his red footies ...
Posted by: rich@gmu | December 22, 2013 at 02:31 PM
Well I'm glad Cracker Barrel backed down. Don't see any Cracker Barrels in Los Angeles, but I do occasionally get to small towns in Arizona. And now, next month, I can go have breakfast in the Cracker Barrel next o the motel I'll be in in at Casa Grande without having to put a sack over my head. Otherwise would have had to try to find a Chik Fil A place.
Posted by: Comanche Voter | December 22, 2013 at 02:32 PM
Can you imagine which public relations, didn't make it out of the 'break out session'
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 02:33 PM
lol...all those thought leaders and $634 million in graft...
and speaking of a bag of dicks bowl the cowpies and foreskins are stinking up the television, and unsurprisingly, the foreskins are losing.
Posted by: rich@gmu | December 22, 2013 at 02:38 PM
Rest assured her previous offerings have been promising;
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_03/its_the_system_man036414.php
it appears that actual awareness of how government works, is not a requirement to working at the Washington Monthly
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 02:38 PM
Great pieces, Clarice! The bloom is off the rose and some of us couldn't be happier!
Posted by: Beasts of England | December 22, 2013 at 02:39 PM
The Washington Monthly lady tells us that single-payer is great, like the NHS was before the Tories screwed it up.
They simply refuse to learn. Nothing systemically flawed about their fantasies; we just never seem to put the right people in charge.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | December 22, 2013 at 02:40 PM
But what's important is her credentials are in order;
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kgeier
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 02:42 PM
She writes like a college student, lots of "we" and "our," like she's writing only to her own inner circle--which in fact she is. She couldn't possibly persuade anyone who didn't already agree.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 02:51 PM
>>>Even a president who was much further to the left than Obama would have problems enacting his agenda. President Bernie Sanders would also have to confront the same issues as Obama, in terms of a reactionary Republican party which is completely intractable and wants him to fail, Blue Dog Democrats who aren’t much better, the necessity for filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a profoundly hackish and conservative-dominated media, and (now, it appears) a hostile Supreme Court which seriously threatens his signature domestic policy achievement.<<<
the wit and wisdom of Kathleen Geier
Posted by: rich@gmu | December 22, 2013 at 02:53 PM
jimmy k-$75 K is the new standard for all and after that you should do community work instead. http://www.slideshare.net/TheHappinessInitiative/personal-happiness-handbook-25-actions-along-10-domains-of-happiness came from the Happiness Institute yesterday wishing me a happy winter solstice. This is the assumptions we are combatting except most are not aware this is all going on.
matt-I have had this conversation with other layers who like me went to law school between 25 to 40 years ago. We missed the current emphasis rejecting the common law as too limiting a concept and using the law as a normative tool for unaccountable social policy change.
Ignatz-cute except too many teenagers would look at that satire and ask if there is a video explaining the game instructions.
jimmy-one more comment from what I am dealing with today published in 2012 by a journalist who works for the NYC planning commission, Alex Marshall. He insists economies do not fund infrastructure, but infrastructure creates economies. And guess who the social scientists are listening too because it fits their 21st century druthers?
Posted by: rse | December 22, 2013 at 02:59 PM
Hail to the Redskins,
Hail Victory,
Braves on the Warpath
Fight for old DC.
Alfred Morris rushing TD. Pierre Garcon sets Skins single season reception record with his 107th catch passing Art Monk by one. Plus he has a quarter and half to go and of course, the last game next week.
Posted by: JIB | December 22, 2013 at 03:01 PM
Perhaps I'm a "Whining Yuppie" but I have some questions about "Non-Whining Yuppies" in an AP story appearing in my local ADN paper: Venezuela car owners unfazed by planned fuel hike
The story tells us that the Venezuela Govt is going to raise fuel prices since the Govt is broke, and it also tells us that because gas is currently cheap there, as compared to the rest of the world, Venezuelans drive big old gas guzzling vehicles which are not environmentally friendly.
But then it tells us that motorists seemed unfazed by the idea of paying more at the pump because it's unknown how much prices will rise, and Many Venezuelans seem similarly unconcerned about the prospect of higher fuel prices.
How does that work? The Govt says it's going to raise gas prices nobody knows how much, yet reporters are able to tell us that nobody in the nation of 30 million is fazed by it? How the hell would they know that?
And why is that story "Venezuela car owners unfazed by planned fuel hike", headlined in my paper in Alaska, and as far as I can tell from a google search, presented the same way with the exact same headline in every newspaper in America? Is AP doing some prep work for the Obama Administration, getting us primed for a Gas Tax increase that we should all be "unfazed" about?
Beats me, but you have to go all the way over to Abu Dhabi's newspaper, The National, to read the exact same story with a different headline: Fuel hikes may see Venezuela’s gas guzzlers go thirsty. Whoa! That sure sounds faze-worthy to me.
Anyhow, I am just putting in my 2 cents here. If our Govt decides to raise gas prices to some unknown amount because they say we are broke and we shouldn't drive gas guzzlers, I'm gonna' be "fazed." How about you?
Posted by: daddy | December 22, 2013 at 03:05 PM
I thought he had gone 'Norwegian Blue;
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/19/212220/leader-of-al-qaida-linked-nusra.html
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 03:11 PM
If our Govt decides to raise gas prices to some unknown amount ... and we shouldn't drive gas guzzlers, I'm gonna' be "fazed." How about you?
Personally, I'd not be fazed much. But then I don't even drive 4,000 miles per year.
It sure would hit all those people who have crazy commutes in LA and the Bay Area, though.
Posted by: DrJ | December 22, 2013 at 03:12 PM
Heh. I'd forgotten this Mencken gem.
" “We must respect the other fellow's religion but
only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his
wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
Posted by: bogey | December 22, 2013 at 03:16 PM
Funny, in 7 or 8 NR cruises and a visit to the NYC offices, I have never encountered this Jason Lee Steorts. Nor have I even heard his name.
Heh. I am not even inclined to google.
Posted by: caro | December 22, 2013 at 03:16 PM
Clearly they are worth every penny, oy vey:
http://therightscoop.com/meet-the-press-obama-a-bottle-of-whiskey-and-a-box-of-kleenex/
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 03:16 PM
I don't want to sound like a whining yuppie, but almost unnoticed was 404Care's tax increase of couple of thousand dollars on many people who use Flexible Spending Accounts. The limit went from $5000/person to $2500/person, meaning, for those who took the maximum, somewhere in the vicinity of $2000 in higher taxes.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 03:20 PM
Right now I think we can frack faster than they can faze...
Posted by: henry | December 22, 2013 at 03:22 PM
It is a feud
http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/366950/re-re-education-camp-jason-lee-steorts
Posted by: Threadkiller | December 22, 2013 at 03:24 PM
henry, there's been rumbling for some time that the gas tax is too low and should be raised substantially. Fracking wouldn't affect that in any way.
Posted by: DrJ | December 22, 2013 at 03:24 PM
Which is the gas guzzler the civic with one or two passengers aboard and an EPA rating of 28 mpg or the suburban with 6 (or 8) passengers and an EPA rating of 14 mpg? Or worse, once the suburban and other larger capacity cars are outlawed, TWO civics with the same rating to ferry the same 6 (or 8) passengers to a destination?
Idiocy thy name is liberalism #643.
Posted by: Stephanie looking forward to the bowl games | December 22, 2013 at 03:27 PM
After reading a few of his columns, I can say with certainty that you are much better off without encountering him, caro.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet | December 22, 2013 at 03:28 PM
"Personally, I'd not be fazed much. But then I don't even drive 4,000 miles per year."
Yes, but rises in fuel prices affect other industries, making things more expensive so it would not be just those that have to drive but everyone that will be affected.
"
... 7 out of the 8 postwar U.S. recessions had been preceded by a sharp increase in the price of crude petroleum. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 led to a doubling in the price of oil in the fall of 1990 and was followed by the ninth postwar recession in 1990-91. The price of oil more than doubled again in 1999-2000, with the tenth postwar recession coming in 2001. Yet another doubling in the price of oil in 2007-2008 accompanied the beginning of recession number 11, the most recent and frightening of the postwar economic downturns. So the count today stands at 10 out of 11, the sole exception being the mild recession of 1960-61 for which there was no preceding rise in oil prices. [Hamilton, 2009. Rv. 2010]"
Posted by: boricuafudd | December 22, 2013 at 03:29 PM
If our Govt decides to raise gas prices to some unknown amount ... and we shouldn't drive gas guzzlers, I'm gonna' be "fazed." How about you?
They are trying to pass an automatic gas hike in MA - tied to inflation, I think. I was outraged when I heard about it, then I forgot about it til I read Daddy above.
Posted by: Jane | December 22, 2013 at 03:29 PM
Steorts digs deeper:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366950/re-re-education-camp-jason-lee-steorts
"The point is basic courtesy, Mark. It’s that you could mount your opposing argument without insulting people."
I'm trying unsuccessfully to find the insults in Steyn's original column.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 03:30 PM
bori, you are of course correct to link fuel prices with economic health.
Posted by: DrJ | December 22, 2013 at 03:31 PM
Jim R, as of now, I am counting it as a blessing.
Posted by: caro | December 22, 2013 at 03:35 PM
"bori, you are of course correct to link fuel prices with economic health."
we're going deep, today.
Posted by: gabby haze | December 22, 2013 at 03:36 PM
Jimmyk
That let's take the "higher road" has worked wonders for Conservatives.
Posted by: boricuafudd | December 22, 2013 at 03:38 PM
And George Will swings and misses on the first pitch, then manages an infield hit.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/12/22/george-will-new-biggest-american-entitlement-go-through-life-without
Steyn's point is that it's naive to limit our concerns to government infringement of speech. Will says, "This is an argument between him and his employer. Let them sort it out." Technically, yes, but people's lives can be ruined by PC run amok.
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2013 at 03:40 PM
But we can count on Steortz's toga being always immaculate.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet | December 22, 2013 at 03:42 PM
"if the govt decides to raise"
http://nypost.com/2013/12/21/utah-senator-slashers-commute-tax-break-for-nyers/
Does anyone know how many taxes there are?
How many tax breaks there are?
The whole thing is insane. Cut government spending and reduce taxes.
Posted by: pagarnow | December 22, 2013 at 03:43 PM
SOMEONE CALL OSHA QUICK!
When the comments at the latest hole dug by Steorts indicate that he can't see sky without looking up, he might want to start worrying about a cave in.
Posted by: Stephanie looking forward to the bowl games | December 22, 2013 at 03:46 PM
One positive result of fracking is that the chemical industry is now expanding in the US rather than going overseas. This is not the best article, but it is the best I could do quickly:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-25/chemical-companies-rush-to-the-u-dot-s-dot-thanks-to-cheap-natural-gas
Posted by: DrJ | December 22, 2013 at 03:47 PM
Moar....chemicals........for us?
Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year.
DOW says; 'without chemicals, life itself would be impossible'.
"Can I have some more, sir?"
Posted by: gabby haze | December 22, 2013 at 03:52 PM
He's trapped in the Cave, Steyn is bringing torches, and he's still moving deeper into the dark.
Posted by: narciso, | December 22, 2013 at 03:55 PM
Why is it that when cleo/dana whoever it is today shows up, my ad rotation here suddenly includes ads for something called 'coffee enema kits?'
Happens Every.Damn.Time.
Posted by: Stephanie | December 22, 2013 at 03:56 PM
http://www.coachisright.com/obama-eligibility-case-still-much-alive-alabama-supreme-court/
Posted by: Threadkiller | December 22, 2013 at 03:56 PM