BYOB

If trying to cut the federal budget is anything like trying to cut a local budget, we are scroomed. (That's right. Screwed and doomed. Scroomed.) Take for example, my mostly lovely city of San Jose. The city seems to be taking very reasonable steps to try and whittle down the amount that they spend each year. And you won't believe (or you probably will) some of the complaints about one particular cut they're making. Who knew that people could harbor such strong feelings about doggie poop bags. Wait. What?

You heard me. Doggie poop bags. Those little bags that you put poop in when you dog, well, poops. Because no one wants to be anywhere that there's a lot of dog poop lying around, am I right? Yeah, I am. And the San Jose Mercury News reports that the city was spending $60,000 a year on those little bags. Holy crap! (Pun totally intended.) $60,000? Let me guess. There was just one vendor from which these were purchased? And perhaps said vendor contributed heavily to someone's campaign? What's that? Yeah. Uh-huh. Does it happen any other way?

Now get this: Here is the question that the article actually asked: "Just whose responsibility is it anyway to provide the means to clean up when Rover can't hold it anymore?" Wait. Whose responsibility is it to clean up after their own dog? Are you kidding me? What are my choices here? Who else besides the owner of the dog would be responsible? I'm so confused.The article goes on to interview people (some with seemingly soft, soft heads) to get their take on it. They received everything from "I was really bummed out...Everyone's so used to knowing they're here." to "We need garbage cans and poopy bags...Or people won't cooperate." Good Lord.

Aren't we at the point where we all just pick up after our own dogs? We are at least that civilized, are we not? I would imagine that if there is more dog poop out there right now, it's simply because people were unaware that the bags would be removed. (It's not like the city would have had the foresight to put up a notice to let people know that they needed to bring their own bags after a certain date. So simple, yet so foreign to so many.) Besides, who in the world authorized $60,000 to be spent on bags for canine poo?! No one thought that seemed a bit excessive at the time? No one thought to not provide the bags and to let people be responsible for themselves on their own? No one? No one. See? I told you. Scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Who's Crying For Me, Argentina?

So, the FAA has kind of been partially shut down for a couple of weeks now. I guess there's some sort of political to-do over unions or something. And while the FAA is still up and running, it's not entirely functional. See, they can't take in taxes (to the tune of about $30 million per day) and so the federal government is losing out on that money. Also, about "...4,000 FAA workers furloughed without pay and another 70,000 construction workers without work", according to the Huffington Post. And the other day, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood scolded Congress for leaving town before they had reauthorized the FAA's funding.

And he's acting like he's flipping out (I have no idea if he actually gives a fat rat's ass or not) because there are upwards of 74,000 people who could lose their jobs. Here's my question: Let's say that my cushy ass job (I'm not saying the FAA jobs are cushy ass. I have no idea. I'm saying that MY job is cushy ass.) was endangered at some point. (And knowing me, it's going to be. It's just a given. I mean, I'm good at what I do. It's just a matter of how long I can hold my tongue with some things. And that's when the fireworks start.) Is there anyone who is going to come to my defense and speak up for me and my job to be saved? I don't think there is!

Does this Ray LaHood guy not understand how many jobs have been lost in the private sector all over this country over the past, say....five years? Private sector jobs are NOT sacred. Why on earth, if a government department is going to shut down or need to be scaled back, that everyone acts like there is some great atrocity that is being committed and everything that can possibly be done to save those people's jobs should be done? How in the hell are we supposed to shrink our government (and our government spending) without some of those folks losing their jobs?! We can't!

I don't know when it started that if you managed to land yourself a government job that you were set for life. That mindset has GOT to change! Do I care if more people will be unemployed? Yes, of course I do. But do I think that having a government job means that it should last forever? I don't think that I do. Again, how are we going to shrink the government (and thus, what the government spends) if no government program OR worker is untouchable?! We're not! There you have it. Doomed, I tell you. And screwed. Screwed and doomed. We're scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

He Shouldn't Be Using Food Stamps

Contrary to my tone and demeanor around here, there are very few people and/or things that I actually hate. Sure, I despise things. Many, many things annoy the holy hell out of me. But I don't hate a lot of things or a lot of people. This Leroy Fick guy in Michigan, though? Yeah, I might hate him.

Here's the story: Leroy won $2 million dollars in a Michigan state lottery game called "Make Me Rich". Interestingly, the show is hosted by Peter Knight who played Peter on "The Brady Bunch". Good to know that he could find work. But back to Mr. Fick. You know. The guy I might hate? Yeah, him.

After Mr. Fick won his two million dollars, it appears that he was given the option of having it paid to him in installments (which usually are spread out over a ridiculous number of years, like 20) or taking the lump sum payment. He took the lump sum payment. Now, while you get a big pile of cash all at once, they do take out a boat load of taxes. It ends up being right around half. So, Mr. Fick still won about a million dollars. He's a millionaire. On food stamps. Wait a minute. He what?

That's right. He still uses food stamps. According to WNEM, there is some sort of idiotic loophole in the federal regulations that are used to determine who is eligible to receive food stamps. For reasons which I cannot even begin to fathom, the system does not take into account your liquid assets when you are applying for aid. Soooo...they don't ask you if you have any money to spend? Thus, if you have money, it doesn't matter because they don't ask you that? What in the hell are the requirements based on? With that low of a standard, I can't imagine that ANYONE would not qualify. Who's idea was THAT?!

He's not breaking any laws by doing what he's doing. He's just a jackass, that's all. A rich jackass who doesn't want to pay for his own food even though he is perfectly able to pay for his own food. And he apparently doesn't care, as he told the reporter guy, "Well, I think it's fair because of the way that they took the taxes." They're supposed to take out taxes, you moron! That's how the system works! Just because they take taxes out doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for your own food when you have the means to do so! He also thinks that using the food stamps instead of his own money is the "prudent" thing to do. Uh, listen here, sir. If you were so worried about being "prudent" with your money, you shouldn't have been spending the pittance that you did have every month on the freaking lottery! Playing the lottery is the absolute opposite of freaking prudent!


The reporter who spoke to this asshat continues to probe into what other services Mr. Fick receives a(s someone who has about a million dollars) and Mr. Fick tells him that he is also on disability. (I could say that he looks like he's fine, but I know that there are things that can be wrong with a person that you can't see. For example, this guy has the moral compass of a jackrabbit in heat. You can't just tell that simply by looking at the guy.) And from his point of view, he thinks that all of this is ethical.

The reporter asks him what he thinks that a single mother with two jobs and working eighty hours a week would think about him and all of his money collecting from social services that are offered.
"If you're going to sit there and try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it. It ain't gonna happen. So you might as well just ship on out. Goodbye." Do you hate him yet? Because I'm pretty sure that I do.

If this guy is able to totally take advantage of this system with as much money as he has, you know that there are others doing it. The country is going freaking broke and yet we have a system that allows for loopholes like this one. The guy drives a convertible Audi and is on freaking food stamps! We are so effing screwed and doomed. We're scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Infodots Versus Reality

I'm a big fan of the website Reddit. It's basically just a website for link sharing. The website calls itself "The voice of the Internet". I'm good with that. I realize that it doesn't help in describing it any sort of concrete terms, but since I included the link above, you'll be able to figure it out. I like it because they seem to be able to have interesting and on-topic discussions about a variety of subjects in a rather civilized manner. And oh, the things I have learned. Naturally, first and foremost, I've learned that we really are scroomed.

For example, one Redditor started this topic: "My teacher didn't allow us to say the term "bullet points" because it "promotes violence". Reddit, what are the stupidest rules that your teachers/instructors have made?" (The teacher made them use the made-up moniker "infodots" instead. And you thought the story couldn't get any more ridiculous this early on! That's not a word!) Naturally, I was hoping that it would turn out to be a very short conversation, as I was already in enough pain from smacking my head against the wall after reading about the forbidden bullet points terminology. (For reals? Who are those sort of people? Does the teacher who made that rule realize that the bullet points aren't made out of real bullets? Apparently not. I'm also guessing that the teacher in question didn't realize that the sort of things like the banning of the term "bullet points" is what really "promotes violence". Moron.) There ended up being at least 3,401 comments on this topic. And on the good side, I'm always looking for a reason to drink. Trust me, this gave me more than enough reasons. Let's begin.

Here we have a memory from someone with a clearly psychotic Spanish teacher who may or may not have had some sort of Hispanic 'Easy Rider' complex going on. "My spanish teacher deducted marks if we didn't get on our imaginary spanish motorcycles (hand gestures and everything) when we had to say a word with two r's next to each other (like perro)...Everytime we reved the engine (not quite sure what the correct term is when you put your hand on the handlebars and move your arm in a circular motion), we had to intensify the "rrrr" sound". I understand wanting kids to get the hang of the rolling r, but deducting points if you don't make yourself look like a jackass in class? I'd like to think that I would have failed that class out of sheer refusal to participate in such nonsense.

Reckoning back to a topic I touched on recently, "Children at my kid's school are not allowed to play tag because it would require someone to be "it". Why, yes! Yes, it would require that! It's not like you're going to be "it" forever! And it's not like you would have to do things like that scary-ass clown in that movie of the same name. The people who made up that rule must not understand the game very well. And that really explains a lot.

Even though there isn't any reasoning to any of this, here's one where there really wasn't a reason: "We weren't allowed to say 'brain storm' and had to say 'thought shower' instead. I don't think there was even a reason why." Maybe they were afraid it would offend epileptics? I don't know. Again, I'd like to think that I would have refused to follow that rule out of the sheer principle of the matter. That being I don't like to be told to do things that are patently ridiculous, not to mention completely inane.

Going from ridiculous to absolutely asinine..."A school I went to didn't allow running, you could only skip because some how that was safer. I kid you f***ing not". And as a result, the kids all played a FABULOUS game of flag football.

In the category of "Worst Advice Ever", we have this lovely nugget: "My sophomore High School English teacher instructed us that every essay should begin with "This essay is about..." He insisted that this is the format that college professors would expect." My response is about how completely moronic that is. That is moronic. In conclusion, I responded that it was moronic.

From the "You're Trying Too Hard" file: "We weren't allowed to use "dice" in math class. They were to be called "number cubes". Reason? "Dice" promoted gambling." I can't imagine how someone with such shallow thinking skills is actually a math teacher. Call them what you want, they are what they are. What part of that is confusing to that person?!

"At my school, they allowed us to play dodgeball, but instead of calling it dodgeball, we had to call it "happy fun ball". After a year, we weren't allowed to have the word ball in it. We had to refer to it as "happy fun time". This was high school." This makes me want to cry. Oh, wait a minute. There appears to be a slight salty discharge emanating from my tear ducts. I appear to be weeping for humanity. (I'm going to try to resist asking the question of why they were playing dodgeball in high school. It's really hard. That's what she said.)

And finally, mainly because all of this has driven me to drink (not that I was objecting): "My teacher told us not to use the term "white-out" because it could be deemed racist. We were instead told to use the term "correction paste". You have got to be dry shaving me! It's not even spelled the same! Idiocy has seeped over into phonetics?! Is that what you're telling me? Just because something is white doesn't mean that it is racist! There are lots of white things that are not racist!

In conclusion, I'd just like to reiterate that the inmates are running the asylum and we are all scroomed. Thank you and where's my drink?

Sphere: Related Content

Those Aren't Cuts!

Remember that budget deal that all of those weasels in Congress waited until the very last freaking minute to agree upon? Yeah, that's the one. And remember how they were all smiles afterward and acted like they had accomplished something monumental? (I know that whenever they do nothing they think it's monumental, but this time they were really pleased with their own act.) And then after it was all said and done we were told that they managed to cut about $38 billion dollars? Remember? Of course you do! It was only a couple of days ago for cryin' out loud. It turns out that the $38 billion dollars that they claim to be cutting isn't anywhere close to what they actually cut. No, in fact, the amount that they actually cut is so ridiculous that it seems damn near pointless to cut it at all. It really is a "Why bother?" scenario.

This new but not surprising information comes to us from the fine folks over there at The Washington Post. They learned from the Congressional Budget Office that "A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than 1 percent of the bill’s advertised amount". Now look, I'm not one to be someone to claim "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." But, come on! $352 million?! Less than one freaking percent?! How did this happen? I'll tell you how this happened. It happened in part because "...$13 billion to $18 billion of the cuts involve money that existed only on paper and was unlikely to be tapped in the next decade." Oh, good! They're trying to fix our impending fiscal doom with accounting tricks. Next up? Fun house mirrors! And they act so freaking proud of themselves.

Here's the best part. Even though those $352 million in cuts will happen, for some reason, no one felt like factoring in "emergency" money for military action. You know. Like if we end up in Libya or something like that. (Yeah, like that's really going to happen. Wait. Didn't we....? Yeah. We did. Hmm. Disregard that statement.) Now, I don't know why they wouldn't factor those things in. If I'm doing a household budget and I have emergency money that I have spent or am spending, I'm going to have to factor in that it's going to get used. There's no way around that. You can call it whatever you want, but you still have to count it. But I'm guessing that the reason that they didn't want to count it when they were forming the budget out of snake oil is because if they did then "...the overall spending for this fiscal year may actually increase, by more than $3 billion." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Their little accounting tricks don't end there. "A Washington Post analysis of the 459-page budget revealed at least 98 cases in which Congress took back unused IOUs and called it a cut." HOW is that a cut? Don't answer that. There's more. "When the Capitol Visitor Center was under construction, lawmakers allotted $621 million to pay for it. The project wound up costing less than $600 million. In the compromise budget, lawmakers took back $15 million of the unused budget authority." Well, I should hope that they took it back! They didn't USE IT!

I'm making myself crazy here. This is insane. Instead of saving any money at all, Congress has very well (and probably very likely) passed a budget that is going to be costing the country MORE money. And people wonder why folks get so up in arms about spending! It's because it is out of control. President Barry said the other day that the greatest threat to our national security was our debt. And if he truly believes that and he ends up signing this budget, then we are so scroomed that there's not even any point. If both sides of Congress are going to flat out lie to us, it's over. And both sides, by saying that this budget cuts $38 billion dollars, are lying to us. Thus, it's over. We're scroomed. Goodbye, sweet America.

Sphere: Related Content

The School Knows Better Than You Do

Goodbye, sweet America. Can't figure out what to feed your own child? Are you addled brained of a parent that you're going to need someone else to decide what you child should and should not eat? Well, if you answered yes to those two questions AND if you have a child and they are currently attending (or going to attend) Little Village Academy in Chicago, then you are in luck! That's right. That's because the Little Village Academy in Chicago has decided that you have no idea how to feed your kid properly and therefore they have banned "...students from bringing lunches from home altogether."

That's right. It doesn't matter if you want to pack your kid's lunch. If your child attends Little Village Academy, you can't. According to the Chicago Tribune, "...students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria." NOT ALLOWED to pack lunches from home. In the land of the free. All right then. How...how...why is this? Well, because the school knows better than you, silly.

The principal, a one Elsa Carmona, explained that "...her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices." By telling folks how to parent. By telling them that they CANNOT choose what their own child eats. By taking away their freedom to raise their child how they see fit. All right then. This is asinine. Oh, and in case you were wondering what sort of meal they will be providing the children with for their own protection, please see the photo below. It is alleged that it is some sort of "an enchilada dish". Behold!

Oh, man. Kid, I feel for ya. Ms. Carmona claims that she created this policy six years ago. The reasoning? She saw students bringing "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for lunch. Oh, no! Flaming hot chips! Soda?! The madness! She goes on to say that "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school." Right. Because parents are completely incapable of packing a nutritious lunch for their children to eat. Those poor dumb, dumb parents. She also says that "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception." Wait. She what?

She would make an exception for kids with allergies or some sort of medical issue? You mean, the school doesn't know how to handle things like that better than the parents do? Why not? They seem to know what's best for every other kid out there when it comes to feeding them. Why can't they execute that same sort of care for the ones that really need some help? If you answered because this is an asinine policy to begin with, please come forward and claim your prize.

And in case you were wondering who pays for all of this, let us go to the part of the article that really aggravates me. It explains that "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." I see. Soooo...let me get this straight. By doing this, someone actually makes money. By taking away the freedom to choose, someone is profiting off of it. Huh. And the money that someone makes comes from where again? The federal government, was it? Yeah, OK. And that money comes from where again? OH. That's right. ME!

How many times do I have to point out to morons that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. This isn't a "free" program. It's paid for by the taxpayers! Federal taxpayers! When did it become everyone else's job to feed someone else's kid?! I didn't sign up for that! I can think of about a hundred different ways that I would like my federal tax dollars to be used and not one of them involves feeding school children in Chicago! (And most of them don't include the many, many ways our tax dollars are already being pissed away, but I digress.)

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason with this issue. A one J. Justin Wilson, who is a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry, said "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility." Do you think?! Oh, sorry about that. He seems to be on my side. Never mind. I meant, yeah! It's an infringement. (I'm going to have to remember that phrase. Fundamental infringement. It sounds a little more responsible than "moronic" or "asinine".) He also asks the sadly rhetorical question of "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Hard to say, being as how they've banned lunches from home altogether, but I'd still like to know their answer.

Another voice of reason on this topic seems to come from a one Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach who is an "education policy professor" (whatever that is). She commented on the issue of the cost of requiring students to eat a school lunch at the cost of $2.25 a day. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk". That lady is awesome. How cool of a mom is she? I want to know what Star Wars ship. I'm guessing the Millennium Falcon. Her son probably doesn't like crusts, so she cuts them off in a cutesy way. I like her. She's fun, she's reasonable and she's right. $2.25 a day for a school lunch? You can definitely bring a lunch from home for considerably less.

And while not all schools in the Chicago area have implemented this policy that you and I pay for (funny, I don't feel like I live in Chicago), others have come up with their own equally ridiculous policies. Take the Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side. Over there you can bring a lunch to school, but the school "officials" will "...confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.)" Right. That makes perfect sense. Because the kid won't eat it after school. Noooo. If you're not eating it at school, it takes all of the fun out of it! But do you know why they do it? If you ask Principal Rebecca Stinson she'll tell you that "...most parents expect that the school will look out for their children."

If that last quote doesn't horrify you to your bones, then I can't help you here. Sure, I expect schools to "look out" for children when the children are there. But when I think of being "looked out" for, I think of the school keeping the children safe...and not safe from a Cheeto! Next thing you know, they're going to want to tell the kids what to wear, what doctor to go to, etc. And what, exactly, happens on the weekends when the school isn't around to guide these completely soft-headed parents in raising their children? What are they going to do? How will they know what to choose? Where is the school when we need it?! Holy crap. I think I made myself sick typing these last few lines. Goodbye, sweet America. With policies like the ones described here, we are not only doomed, we are screwed. We are so scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

California Is On Crack

It's official. California is definitely some sort of crack addict who is selling anything and everything that it has so that it can get its next fix. Oh, sure, it will give the state immediate access to some cash that it needs, but that's just the instant gratification part of the deal. In the long run, it will end up costing the state more and probably making things worse for a state that is already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to its unwillingness to cut anything at all out of the budget.

Here's the story as reported by the lovely folks over at ABC News and by the ever so diligent reporters over at the LA Times. See, California needs cash because it spends way more than it takes in. I won't even begin to delve into how the extremely large population of folks who are in this country illegally plays into this dilemma, but I will say that there are many areas in which California could trim its budget, yet it chooses not to. Just like a crack addict, California wants what it wants when it wants it.

So, California came up with a way to make a couple of billion dollars. And some of that could even be applied to its debt! California decided to sell 24 of however many buildings that it owns for the whopping total of $2.23 billion. While that sounds like a lot, just keep your pants on (because if California catches you without your pants on, you're going to be in for quite the surprise). Of the $2.23 billion, only $1.2 billion will go into the state general fund. That's because $1.09 billion goes to pay off bonds on the buildings. (I'm not sure what happened to the other .04 billion. Those are the figures that the LA Times gives me.) OK, so problem solved, right? Not so fast.

See, California is still using those buildings. It's not like they were abandoned or anything like that. No, they're fully in use every single day. They sold buildings like the Attorney General Building and the Franchise Tax Board Complex up in Sacramento. Yeah, California still needs those. But that's OK. Now California is just going to pay rent to the people that own them. Wait. What now?

Correct. Whereas before California owned the buildings, now it does not and it must rent them from the new owners. It would be like if you had a car that you owned and, because you needed some crack right that very moment, you sold it to the neighbor. Now you have money, but you have no car. Now you have to take that money that you got and you turn around and lease the car that you just sold your neighbor. How smart does that sound? Not very? Welcome to California.

According to the estimates from the California Legislative Analyst's Office "...It will cost the state $30 million more in the first year to remain in those buildings and that differential will increase to almost $200 million over the course of the 20 year leases." But do it now because you need crack now! What a bunch of morons.

Tell me something. What good is the Legislative Analyst's Office if no one listens to them? This state is already in a financial freefall into the abyss of bankruptcy, what say they trim a little bit off of the budget by eliminating the Legislative Analyst's Office. No one listens to them anyway. They just do what they want because why? They're addicted to crack, that is correct.

We're so doomed. And now we're screwed. We're totally scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Mr. Colbert Goes To Washington

Every time that I think it isn't possible for Congress to disappoint me any more than they already have, they turn right around and do something that just zaps my ol' WTL (Will To Live) right out of me. And while I'm a big fan of comedy, I don't know that I necessarily need it on the floor of some sort of House subcommittee hearing on immigration today in the form of Stephen Colbert.

That's right. Stephen Colbert. For reasons that are completely unclear to me, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-umbass) from California, who is the chairwoman of this subcommittee, invited Colbert to testify as some sort of "expert witness" about all of the migrant farm workers and their plights. Or something like that. As I've previously stated, none of this makes any sense to me. But that doesn't mean it wasn't funny.

I guess that Colbert spent a day in the fields with some migrant workers and picked his share of fruits and/or vegetables. That's what makes him an expert? A day? I've done plenty of things for A day. It hardly make me feel like an expert. And usually, it just makes me glad that the day is over and I don't have to do it any more.

I guess that Rep. Lofgren doesn't quite get that Mr. Colbert plays a character on TV. Oh, sure, it's him and all, but he's in character. See, TV isn't always real! I'm serious. Not always real. Granted, the times when it is real, we most often wish that it wasn't (ie, Kate Gosselin). I'll give you that. But it's not like this is the first time that a fictional character has testified before Congress. Oh, no! There was one other. Would you care to guess who it was? Of course you wouldn't. You're not going to want to know, either, when I tell you that it was Elmo. Oh, for cryin' out loud.

It appeared as if even Mr. Colbert was confuddled as to why he was there and, according to The Huffington Post, said that he was happy and honored to be there, "...to share his "vast experience" of working on a farm for one day, and hopes his fame will get this show bumped up to "C-SPAN ONE"." That's pretty funny. I'd be laughing harder if it wasn't before freaking Congress, but it's a good bit.

And several more good bits followed that one. Sadly, some of the good bits were from the representatives themselves. And they would have been funnier if I wasn't so irritated that they were asking stupidly amusing questions at a Congressional hearing. Questions like those from a one Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, who asked Colbert if the work on the farm was hard? Answer: "It's certainly harder than this." He then asked if it was harder for Colbert to do his comedy show? Answer: "Much harder than punditry." Are you serious, Mr. Smith? That question reinforces my belief that a large number of representatives are completely out of touch. Has this man never worked on a farm? Has he never seen farm work being done? Do we need to show him an episode of "Green Acres"?

For some reason, a one Judy Chu (D-umbass, CA) compared Colbert's appearance "...to that time Loretta Swit testified before Congress about "crush videos"." I don't know that comparing Stephen Colbert to Loretta Swit in any capacity is a good comparison. Yes, I'm sure that there are lots of celebrities that have testified before Congress (for some reason). I get that. But I don't think that Loretta Swit and her "crush videos" crusade has a lot in common with Stephen Colbert joking that even though the day he worked in the fields he was a corn packer, that he "...understands it is a term for a "gay Iowan, and meant no offense"." Yeah, they're clearly different. (I'd like to know how all of that "crush video" testimony given by Ms. Swit (in 1999, by the way) turned out as far as Congress goes. What did they do about it? Anything? Anything? Anyone? Hello? Oh, I see. Nothing, eh? Moving along!)

Some of his best lines seemed lost on the representatives. Barely getting them to crack their stone-faced gazes was this zinger: "This is America. I don't want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan, then served by a Venezuelan, in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian." Does Congress know what a Brazilian is? Of course they do! I'm sure that they require that most of their potential pages have one as a prerequisite to an internship.

I think my personal favorite was this one: "I’m not a fan of the government doing anything. But I’ve got to ask: Why isn’t the government doing anything? Maybe this Add Jobs Bill would help. I don’t know. Like most members of Congress, I haven’t read it.” Excellent point, Mr. Colbert. I, too, would prefer that the government stay out of most matters. But when there are matters that it seems like they should get involved in, they don't seem to exactly be Johnny on the spot. Granted, Mr. Colbert and I have different opinions on these migrant workers (mine being that if they're here illegally, they need to go), but it doesn't change the fact that no one is doing anything other than having pointless hearings with a bunch of people that haven't read the very bill that they're talking about.

Is it November yet? How many of these yo-yos need to go? I'm guessing anyone who considers a person with one day of "experience" to be an "expert" who is worthy of testifying before Congress. Why don't these damn representatives go out and work a day in the damn fields themselves if they want to know what it's like? I don't know what in the world that would actually do, but then again, I don't know what in the world Stephen Colbert was doing testifying before Congress, so it probably couldn't hurt.

We are so doomed. And screwed. We're so scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content