Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Monday, 26 February 2007

Remember a while back when an entry by Karen prompted me to ask why The Smithsonian Museums were feeling the need to whore themselves out with semi-exclusive contracts to private companies?

Well, this might be part of the answer. (via PZ Myers over at Pharyngula)

If you liked that one, here’s another from the Washington Post.

I seriously doubt that even the most besotted staffers could manage to drink a budget like the Smithsonian’s into submission, but  it seems likely that if he’s lavishing such expenses on his wife and underlings, he is playing fast and loose in other ways with the money entrusted to him.

Even his own kind are balking at turning a blind eye to his excesses (quote from the WP article):

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who had requested the inspector general's review when he was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee last year, expressed outrage at the audit committee's response.

"I am shocked at what the Smithsonian is spending its money on when it comes to food, flowers, alcohol and other items," Grassley said in a letter last week to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who chairs the Board of Regents. Grassley criticized "what appears to be an 'anything goes' culture by the Smithsonian secretary and his staff, which views that his champagne lifestyle should be subsidized by the taxpayer."


While $90,00 may seem like a LOT in personal expenses, and while looting the budget for the Smithsonian Institute might seem merely selfish and thoughtless, there appears to be a darker political agenda to the actions of our intrepid candidate for “besht boshhh in the whole worrrrrlll…”

This headline from the NYT on May 28th of 2005 might shed some light on some of the more damaging reasons Bush might have appointed Mr. Small to the office he so thoroughly enjoys.

Monday, 26 February 2007 08:13:13 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [0] |  |  | #
Admin Login
Sign In
Pick a theme: