Bureaucracy At Its Finest

I, like the pelicans, enjoyed the Gulf Coast while it was not so oily. You know, back in the day. Like, March. But I have the feeling that those days are completely gone. It's become clear to me that it is no longer a matter of when the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster will be cleaned up, but it's a matter of IF it will EVER be cleaned up. Actually, I'll take that a step further. It's now a matter of anyone will be ALLOWED to ATTEMPT to clean it up. And if the federal government is going to have much more to do with it, the answer will be a resounding no.

Let me tell you what happened yesterday. Tell me if this does not make you just want to pound your head upside a wall and not stop until you lose consciousness and/or at least a pint of cranial fluids. According to something called the Associated Content and the more familiar ABC News, there really doesn't seem to be anyone in charge of anything. That's why Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana (who seems to act like a distant relative of Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock on occasion) has spent the last ten days trying to get a bunch of barges out into the gulf so that they can begin sucking up some of the bazillion-gazillion gallons of oil that is ruining the ocean. He finally got his barges. He got sixteen barges. And they got right to work sucking up that oil. That is, until the US Coast Guard shut them down.

So here we have something finally being done and being effective in the way that that oil that shouldn't be in the ocean was being removed from the ocean by these barges. OK? That's a good thing, right? Naturally, with some progress (albeit a small amount of progress) being made, there had to be a pretty good reason for the Coast Guard to halt the work of these barges and send them back to shore, right? Well, that's what you'd think. But in this ridiculous, utopian world that people are trying to create, that's not exactly what happened here. No, the barges were ordered to stop sucking up the oil and to return to shore so that the Coast Guard could make sure that the barges all had fire extinguishers and life jackets aboard. Um, wait. What the what?!

You have got to be dry shaving me! Fire extinguishers?! Oh, right. Because if there had been fire extinguishers aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig when it exploded, a fire extinguisher would have been key! And life jackets?! Really? They're BARGES. THOSE are the reasons why you're having those sixteen barges return to shore? Where they would then SIT for another 24 hours?! What in the world is wrong with you people?!

Tell me this: Could the Coast Guard have not sent someone out to those barges to poke their nose around while the barge was at sea and was actively vacuuming up oil to do their little fire extinguisher count? Why did it take over 24 hours to inspect 16 barges? Couldn't they have just checked with whoever made the barges or whatever and asked them how many fire extinguishers and life jackets were provided for each vessel? Oh, well, sure. They could have done that. But apparently, they had trouble finding the barge making folks. So instead of having a barge out at sea without enough fire extinguishers, they decided to have all of the barges stop what they were doing, return to shore and sit there while the oil continues to wreak havoc on the once beautiful and once wonderful ocean.

This could possibly be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And it's a perfect example of how the perceived necessity of over-regulation is going to be the downfall of this country. It's already proving itself to be the downfall of the Gulf Coast environment. Give it time. It will make its way to the rest of the land. I guarantee it.

Sphere: Related Content

Look out, Flori-duh, here's Louisiana

(I swear...sometimes, this thing could just write itself....)

In a story that has Louisiana giving Florida some pretty stiff competition for the state with the least intelligent residents/lawbreakers, not to mention the home of some of the stupidest crimes/criminals ever to walk the face of the planet, we have two men, an argument, and a whole lot of alcohol. Oh, and we also have a can of pork and beans....otherwise known as "the source of discontent". Wait. What was that? Pork and beans?!

Correct. Pork and beans. Beans with pork. (Why do they call it that? It's not "pork and beans". It's "beans and a little piece of fat floating on the top when you open the can." It's hardly deserving of the moniker "pork". Pork is the other white meat and you'd be hard pressed to call that little piece of fat "meat", let alone "pork". Pork and beans is a scam, that's all I'm sayin'.) That's what started a fight between two brothers in Gilliam (presumedly, that's in Louisiana). We have a one 54-year old Willie Casst and we have his brother, a one 63-year old Agusta Wells. (Agusta? Really?)

According to KTBS-3, "Two brothers who had been drinking all day got into an argument when they got ready to fix supper." OK, I can see that. You don't like the way that the other one is doing something and you tell them how to do it and they get all pissy. That I get. "...and one stabbed the other over a can of pork and beans." OK, I can't see that. That I do not get. The one got all stabby with the other because of pork and beans? Amazing.

Of course, the words that always seem to apply in situations such as this one are definitely confirmed, as the police stated that "Alcohol had been involved." Shocking, I know. Who would have thought that a 54-year old and a 63-year old fighting with at least one knife over a can of pork and beans were drunk? I am shocked, just SHOCKED. Or maybe I'm not.

The deputies said that "They were getting ready to eat when they started arguing about the beans." Now here is where the reporting falls noticeably short. They did not report on exactly what the argument was about! That is important and relevant, not only to the story, but also in the numerous jokes that could be made about the subject matter of the argument! The more facts and the more details that one can gather with stories like this one, the funnier it's going to be (and usually without trying very hard, either!).

It was Agusta who was the first to let the pork and beans bring him to blows when he "swung at his brother but missed." It's not really much of a shocker that the drunken 63-year old missed, is it? No, not so much. So then, as the argument became more heated (when really, it was the pork and beans that should have been heated) that's when ol' Willie "...got a kitchen knife and stabbed Wells in the left arm and shoulder blade." Of course he did.

A sheriff's department spokeswoman, a one Cindy Chadwick reported that "The one who got stabbed said it was over pork and beans. That all he would say. The other one said, 'Take me to jail." Well, that request can be accommodated. Jail it is! Done!

So Willie ends up being booked for aggravated assault and Agusta (Really? Agusta?) ends up being treated at a hospital for his wounds which were the result of a disagreement over one of the best camping meal staples ever, the beans and the pork. And speaking of Willie, Behold!

Yeah, that seems about right, don't you think?

Sphere: Related Content

Louisiana - The Lower 48's Alaska

Well, Alaska is not alone in their voting populous not really caring if their politicians are law abiding politicians. Breathing is apparently the only qualification that one needs to be re-elected in Louisiana as well. Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

William Jefferson, a Republican, seven term congressman from Louisiana, was just re-elected last week for his eighth term. That's a pretty amazing feat in and of itself, getting elected to Congress eight times. But what I find incredibly amazing (or maybe just incredible. Definitely unbelievable.) is that the guy was re-elected to his eighth term even though he is currently under a Federal indictment of 16 charges for bribery, racketeering, obstruction of justice and money laundering. When the FBI searched his home, they found $90,000 in cash in the freezer! Probably next to a bag of peas! I know of no people who keep $90,000 in cash in their freezer.

Of course, that's not all they had on him. It's alleged that there is a videotape of Mr. Jefferson accepting cash bribes to the tune of $100,000 in $100 bills. Oh, and it's probably also worth noting that two of his associates have already pled guilty to soliciting bribes on his behalf. Said associates are now in prison with one of them serving eight years in prison and the other one serving seven. If Jefferson is found guilty of all of his charges, he faces a maximum of 235 years in prison, a number of years so ridiculous, I don't know why they even bother with the actual figure. 'For the remainder of his life, most likely' is a good enough explanation for me of what sort of time he's facing. I don't need to know that if he does manage to live well beyond the typical human lifespan capacity and make it to 235 years old, that he will be spending that longevity behind bars.

We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes over several years. The indictment alone is 95 pages long! They watched the guy as part of a public corruption probe for over 14 months! And you folks voted him BACK into office with 57 percent of the vote! He had 90K in his freezer!! What are you people thinking?

According to the folks over at the McPaper, USA Today, a one Eugene Green, Jefferson's chief of staff, said that he believes that folks voted for Jefferson because "many in his district, the only predominantly African-American one in the state, perceive him as being a key figure in helping the region bounce back from the wallop of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005." Well, how come I keep hearing about how the region has not bounced? And those were three years ago. You'd hope, wouldn't ya, that things would have bounced by now? Do you think that it took three years because he was bouncing all by himself? I don't think that's a good enough reason. What else do you have?

Well, the article continues to say that "This summer, Jefferson helped lead a delegation of House leaders, including Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, on a tour of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast." Wait. What? Because the man is a good tour guide it was reason enough to vote him back into office?! And if you're wondering why it was important for the article to mention that James Clyburn was there, that's a reasonable inquiry. One which I don't have an answer for because the article didn't say. (Perhaps he's just a difficult person to take on a tour. You know, the kind always hopping over the velvet ropes, not staying in line, those sorts of things.)

His brown nosing chief of staff also added "I don't think you can be in Congress as long as he's been without having made good relations with your colleagues. It's because of those relationships that he's been so effective." And I don't think you can work for a politician for as long as I'm guessing you have without being able to throw out a line of bull-s every time you open your mouth to defend him. Spare me.

So, basically what the voters are saying is that if they perceive that an elected official is doing a good job for them, then it's perfectly OK for them to break the law along the way and not have to worry about not getting re-elected. I just don't understand that line of thinking. What if it wasn't bribery or some other white collar-y crime? What if the guy was indicted for being a prostitute stabbing, serial killer? Would that be OK with y'all because at least he's getting the hookers out of town? Pedophile? Polygamist? Either of those grounds to note vote someone into public office? Anyone? Anyone? Probably not.

I think the democratic process that we have in this country is about as good of a system as you can have. It's not flawless, but what is? It works the way that it is supposed to work. But when you have to rely on voters who are misguided, misinformed, uninformed, or just completely unable to see the bigger picture, well, it frightens me. Do you folks really even understand the importance of being able to cast a ballot? It's a responsibility and it's one that I wish the people in Louisiana and Alaska would take a bit more seriously. At least inform yourselves, people. Please.

The sage in the video below is the type of voter that I am most afraid of. Actually, no, he's the type of voter that I am the next most afraid of. The type of voter I am most afraid of is the type who is completely clueless and votes anyway. The guy below is completely clueless (not only on the issues, but also on the process and the basic rules thereof), but at least he made the right choice in the end. You're going to want to be sitting down when you watch this. I'd hate to have you pass out and hit your head.

I don't know what's more unbelievable. That he didn't know that the President can only serve two terms or that he thought that Bush was doing a good job. It might be the latter.

Sphere: Related Content