An Extremely Brief April Fool's Recap

A lot of different websites had various April Fool's pranks up yesterday. This one was my favorite. They really would make a fortune if this was possible.

Sphere: Related Content

Troll Parents Strike Again

You know why I don't have children? Well, there are several reasons. Most of which are better than the one I'm about to mention right now. I would just like trolling the little guys too much. I'd be like Calvin's dad from Calvin and Hobbes. It wouldn't be good. I'd have very misinformed and confused children. I think that Jimmy Kimmel must be the same way. Check out the video below of what happened when he asked people who had kids to let them open one Christmas present a couple of weeks early. The catch is that the "present" wasn't exactly anything that the kids would have wanted, nor was it really anything that would be normally be called a "present". The kids were pretty good sports, though. That poor little boy that got the activity book for a girl! He was not impressed. Click here if the video doesn't play.

Sphere: Related Content

It Was A Joke!

So, I made a crack on Facebook today about Amy Winehouse. I think it went something like: Congratulations to Amy Winehouse on 48 hours of sobriety! (Oh, and when I say that I think it went something like that, what I mean is that it was exactly like that.) And there was at least one friend who didn't take kindly to that comment. (There was also another friend who didn't get it in the slightest and felt the need to inform me that "she's been dead since Saturday - smh". And "smh" stands for "shaking my head". As if I'm the idiot.) And that friend opened it up for discussion on her Facebook page.



Now, I'm OK with that. I enjoy a healthy discussion. And I'm not saying that my comment was in good taste. It most certainly was not. That's what made it funny. One person who commented felt the need to attempt to read into my life, going as far as to call me a schmuck that had such a miserable life that I needed to make fun of others in order to feel better about myself. That sort of a philosophy might have worked on someone in grade school, but it was completely not applicable to this situation. (It also didn't help her theory that I was on a semi-fantastic vacation at the time that I wrote it and had just spent a week seeing my most awesome friends. Yeah, I'm far from miserable. Angry about a lot of things? Absolutely! But miserable? Hardly.)




But then there was the chick who said that my comment was "mean". And I'm not saying that it wasn't. It kind of was. But you know what else I think is "mean"? I think that it's "mean" for someone to allow themselves to get so wrapped up in drugs and alcohol that they end up killing themselves at 27 and their parents have to go to their daughter's funeral. I find that to be "mean". I'm not a big fan of people squandering opportunity.




But I think that even if, a day or two before she died, you asked Amy Winehouse if she wanted to be clean and sober that she would have told you no. That's what she wanted to do. She was doing that before she became known for her lone hit. (Is it too soon to call her a "One Hit Wonder"? Or is that mean? And while I don't necessarily consider her death to be a loss, I do consider it to be a waste. She was talented, but going out this early in the game, hasn't she just automatically put herself in the classification of acts such as Dexys Midnight Runners and Lipps, Inc.? (Yes, yes. I KNOW they sang Funkytown! And as wonderful as that is, it's still just ONE hit!)

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who so blatantly waste their life. Not to sound all Pollyanna or anything here (God forbid), but there are so many people out there who are fighting SO hard to stick around. There are people out there who are fighting SO hard to go about their everyday lives in spite of their struggles. And I'm supposed to be reverent towards someone who could have had everything and instead chose to drink and/or drug herself to death? I don't think so.

Sphere: Related Content

Not A Very Funny Joke

Remember yesterday when I was the ONLY ONE to mention that Anthony Weiner was still lying when he gave his apologetic press conference where he admitted to sending schlong shots with his phone to some unsuspecting hot chick that followed him on Twitter of all things? And remember how I pointed out that his lie consisted of his saying that he sent a picture of his penis to the chick "as a joke"? Right, because that's so funny. Sending pictures of your wang to people you've never met is absolutely hilarious and totally understandable. Or it isn't. And that's why I was surprised that I was the ONLY ONE to catch that. (Then again, the media sucks, so why does it surprise me?)

But yesterday, the "it was a joke" excuse came up AGAIN in another very implausible situation.

Like at the Casey Anthony trial. You remember her. She's the chick who allegedly (Translation: she totally did) killed her adorable 2-year old daughter because she was too encumbered with all of the duties of parenting and would have rather partied with her friends than look after a child. She would appear (translation: she is) to be a horrible human being. Apparently, "joking" has factored into her defense.

According to CNN, testimony in the case yesterday revealed that someone had searched for things such as ""inhalation," "self-defense," "meningeal artery," "ruptured spleen," "alcohol" and "head injury", as well as ""how to make chloroform," "neck breaking" and "making weapons out of household products". Interesting. (By the way, that meningeal artery? Yeah, that's a big ol' blood vessel in the brain. I had to look that up, but NOT because I'm planning on killing any two-year olds. Oh, and in case you were wondering, apparently you CAN make chloroform at home. Who knew? Then again, who needs to know, other than someone planning on killing their 2-year old daughter so that they can have more free time to party? But I digress.)

It was a prosecution witness that testified that these searches were found on the family computer. So, when then defense attorney goes to question the guy, do you know what "asserts" during questioning? His assertion was "that the links do not tell jurors what was on the websites accessed, and that some could have been jokes or information on self-defense." Of course! They could have been...wait. What?

Jokes? Look, a fancy myself as a bit of a funny person. Sometimes

to much to those who know me. There are lots of things that you can make jokes about, but as for someone who tries to find something humorous in damn near everything, let me just tell you that the meningeal artery isn't great material! What kind of jokes go with a ruptured spleen as the punchline? Or the subject. It really isn't clear. What IS clear is that the defense is really stretching here. It could have been a joke? The standard is reasonable doubt, not unreasonable doubt, you moron.

I

guess that it would be hard to defend someone who was so obviously guilty, but would you have to be so obvious about it? It could have been a joke, right? All of that searching for how to make chloroform and head injuries? Nothing funnier than that! Good Lord, she is so obviously guilty. I hope she gets what is coming to her. And with a defense like that, I can't imagine that she wouldn't. Then again, this blog doesn't ever report on anything that makes sense, so I guess it wouldn't surprise me if she somehow got off. People are morons. I can't change that, but I can make fun of it.

Sphere: Related Content

Punk'd - Iraqi Style

American reality shows are brainless, but at least they're somewhat amusing. There's a small slice of entertainment that can come from them. Come on, American Idol? Dancing With The Washed Up Stars? America Has Weird Talent? So You Think You Can Dance, But You Really Can't? They take our mind off of our problems or our daily lives. They remind us how lucky we are that we're not on some dumbass show like that. Most importantly, they remind us how lucky we are that we're not a celebrity in Iraq experiencing the equivalent of Punk'd, only instead of a wacky incident taking place, they plant fake bombs in celebrities’ cars, have an Iraqi army checkpoint find them and terrify the celebrities into thinking that they are headed for maximum security prison or execution. Wait. That's a TV show?

Correct. That is a TV show. In Iraq. For the purpose of entertainment. I'm not sure who thought this was a good idea, but someone did. According to the NY Times, the show is called "Put Him in [Camp] Bucca”. And in case you were wondering, Camp Bucca is "...the large American-built high-security prison ...that held thousands of Iraqi detainees and was closed in September 2009." Sounds charming. And of course, hilarious. Uh, or not.

And really, if it's laughs that you're looking for, that's all you need to justify something as horrible as this. According to the producers of this insanity, "...the show was entertainment, that it made people laugh and that no one had gotten hurt." Right. No problem. Because what's really funny is that these poor people really thought that they had a serious chance of going to prison for the rest of their lives and/or possibly being executed. Hysterical.

The set-up goes something like this: A celebrity is "...invited to the headquarters of the private television station Al Baghdadia to be interviewed, but en route to the station a fake bomb would be planted in their car while they were being searched by Iraqi soldiers". But the fun is only just beginning! As the clandestine filming continues (a la Candid Camera or anything else with a hidden camera), the viewer gets to enjoy the reaction of the celebrities as the bogus guards at the checkpoint shout such hilarities at them such as as: “Why do you want to blow us up?” “You are a terrorist.” “How much did they pay you to do it? You will be executed.” Does it get any better than that? I can't imagine.

Look, I know that things are tough in Iraq, but this doesn't exactly seem like the best place to go to for a little humor. It would be one thing if the show was depicting a scenario that was completely unrealistic or unbelievable or something like that. But, sadly, it depicts a scenario that could actually occur. You could actually be thrown in jail for the rest of your life or executed for appearing like you're trying to blow something up (ie, having a bomb in tow) in Iraq. At the very least, can you imagine the fear that would go through someone who knew that there was something seriously wrong, yet still knew that even a misunderstanding could get them imprisoned for Allah only knows how long before things get all straightened out?! IF they ever did get straightened out!

This program is supposed to air during Ramadan, which happens to go on for like a month. The ironic part is that, according to the maybe right, maybe not-so-right, Wikipedia, during Ramadan, one is supposed to "...pray for guidance and help in refraining from everyday evils, and try to purify themselves through self-restraint and good deeds." That show doesn't sound like it does that quite so much. It kind of sounds like it does absolutely the opposite of that. Then again, during Ramadan, they're also supposed to "refrain from eating, drinking and sexual relations from dawn until sunset". Sounds like a heck of a holiday. Maybe "Put Him In [Camp] Bucca" is supposed to help relieve some of the frustrations that must arise during that time, regardless of the irony. Hey! If it takes watching a man fear that he will be executed for something that he did not do in order to cheer those folks up, so be it!

Sphere: Related Content

You Dumbass

There needs to be a criminal charge for dumbassery. Now, if you're unfamiliar, dumbassery is similar to asshattery, only instead of being an asshat, you're a dumbass. I suppose that there could be multiple criminal charges, one for asshattery and one for dumbassery. I'm not picky. I would just like there to be something available that accurately reflects what it is that someone has done in certain instances. You know. Like telling a flight attendant that you have a bomb in your carry-on luggage. You dumbass.
That's right. Some moron, one who goes by the semi-fabulous name of Draco Slaughter, piped up when, according to NBC New York, "...a flight attendant noticed a carry-on bag near the rear of the jetliner and asked those nearby if they knew its owner." It's hard to tell from the craptastic reporting if Mr. Slaughter (I can't decide whether or not I really want to call him Draco even though it's pretty cool sounding) did, in fact, actually own the bag. What is fairly clear from the craptastic reporting is that Draco (I'm sticking with Draco) "...said it was mine and kidding I also said that there could be a bomb in there." Brilliant. Simply brilliant. You dumbass. It probably really didn't help anything that his last name was Slaughter. Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't have been any better if his last name was "Cutelittlekittens". I'm just saying.

It's bad enough that he said what he said. We're not all that joke-y in this country about this kind of crap, you know? Call us silly. Call it 9/11. Call it whatever the heck you want to, but just don't say that you have a bomb in your luggage. And really don't say that you have a bomb in your luggage when you're at "...Long Island MacArthur Airport in Ronkonkoma, about 50 miles east of New York City". Yeah, New Yorkers especially are still not ready to joke about bombs and airliners. Too soon. Almost ten years, but still too soon.

Draco was arrested after he left the aircraft. Naturally, a couple of hours was spent searching the plane and, thankfully, no bomb was found. Unfortunately, that did sort of delay the plane from taking off to reach its final destination of West Palm Beach, FL by a couple of hours. Sure. Travelers don't mind wasting two hours at the airport because some dumbass said he had a bomb in his bag. Yeah, that's the kind of thing that everyone will just laugh and laugh about later on, right? Not so much.

When asked about the incident by reporters afterwards, a one MacArthur Airport Commissioner Teresa Rizzuto said, "We take this stuff very seriously." Yes, we know. You're supposed to. I don't know what sort of questions she was asked, but did the reporters really expect her to say anything other than what she said? Were they hoping for a "Yeah, whatever. We thought about just flying off, but figured maybe we should look around a little bit. So we had the guy that usually vacuums the planes take a stroll down the aisle and told him to let us know if anything blew up." Oh, but how I can only wish that one day someone will respond with, "What the hell did you expect us to do? Next question!"

He was "...held on bail Monday at his arraignment in Suffolk County District Court. His court-appointed attorney entered a not guilty plea on his behalf to a charge of reporting a false incident, a felony." Did I mention that Draco is 75? Yep. 75. 75 and dumber than a box of hair. Behold!

Huh. Seems to have an awfully vacant stare. Yeah, that seems about right. It says that Einstein is "...due back in court on Friday. If convicted, he could face up to seven years in prison." See, this is where I think that a charge of dumbassery is in order. I'm not sure what the penalty would be, but I'd have it be something more practical that seven years in prison. I'm thinking he has to reimburse everyone who was on that plane (and had to wait for over 2 hours because of his little stunt) the cost of their ticket. That seems reasonable. And no flying for a couple of years. No train either! Only buses. Public transit buses! That alone is punishment enough even if you haven't committed a crime.

Sphere: Related Content

No Eel Zone

Today's lesson is (unfortunately) one in human anatomy. And while anatomy can be a complicated subject at times, this lesson is quite simple. You probably won't even need to take notes. It's one concept and it's so basic I can't believe I even need to go over it here. But, of course, there was an...incident. And I felt that it warranted a wee bit of discussion. Ready? Here we go. Today's lesson is: Some parts of the human body are OUT ONLY.

Let's go to Sichuan, China where a bunch of guys were drinking to excess and one of them inevitably passed out. Now, I'll admit that it does seem kind of amusing to do funny things to people when they're completely comatose on the living room couch, bathroom floor, wherever, really. Put makeup on them. Make funny signs and put them next to them and post the photos on Facebook. Take off all of their clothes and carry the drunkard into the stairwell. Things like that are hilarious. It's when the hilarity tries to involve live aquatic creatures that it stops becoming hilarious and starts to tread down the path of WTF?

Now, according to something called The Shanghaiist, the drunk in this story was a 59-year old man who was a chef (why they felt the need to include that is completely beyond me, as it has nothing to do with this story AT ALL!) who was taken "...to a Sichuan hospital complaining of abdominal pain, dehydration and a great deal of anal bleeding. He was soon diagnosed as being in a severe state of shock." I think I'd be in a severe state of shock as well if I had a great deal of bleeding coming from that particular area. Yes, that IS shocking, I agree.

Now, something called Guanabee tells us since the doctors couldn't figure out what was causing the pain (you know, probably stemming from all of the arse bleeding that was going on) they "...obtained permission from the family to conduct a laparotomy– a surgical incision into the abdominal wall done to examine the abdominal organs." Yipes. Yeah, you think that's bad? Just wait. It ain't nothing like bad, yet.

(WARNING: This is really not for anyone. If there was an "NO" rating, meaning it was for NO ONE, that is what this would be rated. You've been warned.) Once they cut the dude open, it was apparent what had gone wrong. What had gone wrong and what had gone IN. That's right. They found (brace yourself) "...a 50cm long, dead Asian swamp eel stuck in the man’s rectal region. The slithery fish had bit it’s way through the intestine." Oh, my God! Stop it now!

An EEL?!!? FIFTY CENTIMETERS LONG?! I'll do that math and convert that to the English equivalent so that you'll know that we're talking about 25 inches, or just over TWO FREAKING FEET LONG! IN the OUT DOOR!! Good Lord, people! OUT ONLY! OUT only!! NO EELS ALLOWED!

Here's the part of the story where I began to question how good these doctors actually were. I mean, congratulations on finding the eel after you cut the dude open, but, "...According to reports, the chef had consumed copious amounts of eel the day before, but doctors couldn’t figure out how a live eel ended up in his rectum." Wait. What now?

Is that part about the chef consuming the "copious amounts of eel the day before" a necessary part to put in this story? Or did the docs think that somehow, eating eel would cause a live one to grow inside of you? Or get inside of you? What in the hell does eating eel have to do with any of this?! (I will never look at unagi in the same way ever again. Not that I ever thought it looked all that great to begin with, but when you start putting it in this sort of a context, it's really pretty much over for previous thoughts ever returning without thinking about this horror first.)

Wanna know what having an eel that once used to be alive does when it's inserted into the OUT ONLY area of the human body? Well, first of all, the eel isn't going to like it AT ALL. I say that because "...the eel had apparently already wrought havoc on his innards, biting its way through his intestines prior to dying. Internal bleeding and infection rapidly set in." Yes, I imagine those thing WOULD set in when you have a creature inside of you trying desperately to gnaw its way out. I might not make it to the end of this post. I'm not feeling well.

Have all of you eely sleuths figured out what happened yet? Remember, I mentioned the whole drinking and getting passed-out drunk earlier in this story. Yeah, that DID play a part. Shocking, I know. (No pun intended just because it was an eel.) The article state that "The likely cause was eventually established - he had apparently been drinking with friends, and had passed out. His friends had decided it would be amusing to insert a live eel into his anus whilst he was comatose." Oh. God.

The LIKELY cause?! I'm pretty sure that having your friends shove an eel up your ass is the ONLY cause after one has been found in your rectum. LIKELY cause? I understand not wanting to jump to conclusions or whatever, but when there's only ONE conclusion, by all means, freaking JUMP! What is WRONG with you people?!

Now, not to get overly graphic here or anything, but that must have been quite the chore to get that eel up there. Granted, the thing could have done some slithering on its own, but how much is the question. That area is full of rather tight muscles. I mean, they're tight for a reason. They keep things from going out at the wrong time and, most importantly in this case, they keep things from going IN! And if you're so drunk that you don't realize that something of this nature is happening to you, you need to go to meeting or something. Anything! Granted, this guy croaked, but had he lived, I think a meeting or two would have been in order.

I'm going to leave you with one final visual image. Maybe they used a shoehorn.

Sphere: Related Content

They Smoke Crack in San Francisco!

When was the last time you were in San Francisco (if ever)? Recently? Within the last year? Two years? Five years? Doesn't matter. Chances are that when you were there, you noticed that there are parts of the city (say like Haight) that are rather, how shall we say, bum ridden. That's right. San Francisco has become rather bummy. They're everywhere. Kind of like the swallows returning to San Juan Capistrano every year. Only the bums are always there. They never leave, so they don't have to return. But when you think San Fran, you think bums.

I might be painting the wrong picture by describing some of these outdoor inhabitants as bums. That might be too generous of a term. They're the chronically homeless by choice. They're the drug indulging. They're the publicly defecating. (That's right. Publicly defecating. What? You've never seen someone poo in public? You've clearly never been to the Haight.)

Now, the mayor of San Francisco, a one pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom, has always been a proponent of the, shall we say, "disadvantaged". (We could even use the term "underadvantaged". But really who we're talking about are the folks who lounge about on the the curbs and sidewalks and doorways of businesses and engage in their less than savory lifestyle.) But suddenly, the pretty pretty mayor has spoken out in favor of what is called a sit/lie ordinance.

What is a sit/lie ordinance? It's just what it sounds like. (And if you think it sounds ridiculous that one is necessary, you're right on!) It's an ordinance that prohibits sitting or lying on public grounds such as on sidewalks and in doorways. And up until recently, the pretty, pretty mayor was against it. According to the folks over there at SF Gate, Newsom was "telling The Chronicle editorial board earlier this month it (the ordinance) was just too divisive to support." Too divisive?

I don't know about you, but when it comes to me and those who prefer to sit and lie, I prefer a bit of division. In fact, I encourage it. Please. Divide me from that portion of society and do it now. Divisive? Hell yes, it's divisive. That's the frigging point. But if it's so "divisive", why is Gavin suddenly all for it?

It would seem that the mayor "...took his 5 1/2-month-old daughter for a stroll on Haight Street one Saturday morning." A stroll? On Haight Street? How'd that go for you, Mister Mayor? "As God is my witness, there's a guy on the sidewalk smoking crack," Newsom said. Wait. What now?

As God as his witness? Does he actually think that we need convincing of this? Has he NEVER walked on the streets of the fine, fine city that he is mayor of? What in the hell does he mean "As God is my witness"? We KNOW!

Let me get this straight. Gavin Newsom has been mayor of San Francisco since 2003 and he didn't know that people lounged around in doorways of businesses and smoked crack?! Welcome to the city, Gavin! Where in the hell have you been?! Could he be more out of touch? I don't think that he could! That is unbelievable to me.

So now that he is personally effected, now it's an issue. Never mind all of these people that have witnessed this problem getting worse and worse and worse over the years (probably most recently during the past seven years that he has been the mayor, as a matter of fact). Never mind all of their reasons that they had for wanting a sit and lie ordinance. Do you really think that NO ONE ever said to him "Hey, there are people smoking drugs in the doorway of my business." I'm pretty sure that they did. What did he think? That they were just making it up? I realize that he has done his best in an attempt to turn San Francisco into some sort of utopian haven for the displaced in the world. But I had no idea that he was THAT clueless.

Wake up, Gavin. There are people in your city smoking crack on the streets. There are people in your city defecating on sidewalks. There are even prostitutes! I know! Can you imagine?! I guess we all know what to do the next time that some sort of public issue needs addressing in San Francisco. I guess we know that we need to pull Gavin down off his high horse and give him a first hand look at what people are talking about in order for him to take any sort of action that is not nothing. What a joke. I can't wait to see how hard he pushes for this to be passed now that he is personally affected. Well, at least we know where his priorities are and they certainly aren't with the citizens of San Francisco, that's for sure.

Sphere: Related Content

Go, Speed Reader! Go!!

Do you want yet another glaring example of why things don't get done in this country? No? Yes? Hmmm. You know you're getting it either way, right? Oh, yeah. We're all getting it, all right. Hard.

Over there in Washington, DC, there is apparently a House Energy and Commerce Committee. And according to Wikipedia (which anyone can edit, so keep that in mind) "...it maintains principal responsibility for legislative oversight relating to telecommunications, consumer protection, food and drug safety, public health, air quality and environmental health, the supply and delivery of energy, and interstate and foreign commerce in general." Sure. It seems like a perfectly sane and productive idea to have ONE committee providing the legislative oversight for such a VAST selection of agencies. But of course they've divided themselves up into subcommittees! There are five subcommittees, one of which serves the role to oversee and investigate the other committees! Perfect. Whatever it is that they do there, I'm sure that they don't get an ounce of it done on time or before disaster strikes. I have absolutely no idea how the members of this committee are chosen, and there are 59 of them (23 Republicans and 36 Democrats), but they only represent 34 states AND the Virgin Islands. Go figure. You'd kind of think that since they're responsible for just about everything under the sun that they would have representation from all 50 states and perhaps NOT places that are NOT states, but they don't. My point here isn't much, merely just to point out that 59 Representatives is a lot of Representatives to be acting like small children throwing major tantrums.

This report appeared in The Wall Street Journal, a fairly reputable publication which I find to be trustworthy and accurate. I mention that because I find this story to be utterly ridiculous. So much, that it is conceivable that some Internet troll/drone/dwarf/whatever they are could have made it up But they didn't. It's real. Unfortunately.

It seems that there is a "sweeping climate bill" that the Democrats want to get out of the Committee by Memorial Day (May 25). It would seem that the Republicans "...are largely against the bill, which aims to cut emissions of so-called greenhouse gases by more than 80% over the next half-century but would be costly." So what is their plan? Discuss the situation rationally? Compromise? Debate? Discuss?

Nope. No, they've decided to try to stall by boring the Democrats (and any other unfortunate soul who actually had to be present during these powwows) to death by invoking their right to have the entire bill and all of its major amendments read out loud. Yep. All 946 pages of the bill and hundreds of pages worth of amendments. Wait. How many?

946 plus several hundred pages. To be read out loud. You know, I think I'd quit. Right there. If I thought I was going to have to sit through what seems to amount to a small child holding their breath until an adult gives in to their unreasonable demands (or until the kid can't breathe anymore and just finally lets all of his breath out and resumes aspiration on their own), I'd quit. Way to go, Reps! Real mature! I'm sure that's exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they set the groundwork for this country.

Well, the Democrats weren't going to just sit there and take that. How could they? 946 pages? Minimum? Out loud? What if they had Robert Byrd read them? (He's not on the committee, but I can't think of anyone more torturous to have to listen to for that long. And when I say 'long', I mean 'until 2013'. He might finish by Memorial Day 2013, but he'd never finish by Monday!) So they did the most reasonable thing that you can think of in this situation. That's right. They hired a speed reader. :::blink::: :::blink::: Come again?

Yep, hired a speed reader. Said speed reader is a "...young man who was on door duty at the hearing as he awaited a call to the microphone (and) was hired to help staffers. After years of practice, the panel's clerks can read at a good clip. But the speed reader is a lot faster." All of that from a Committee spokeswoman who declined to give her name, probably due to embarrassment at being associated with this sort of crap. And according to said newly hired (who also declined to state his name), "Judging by the size of the amendments, I can read a page about every 34 seconds." So, if we do the math on that, or let The Wall Street Journal do the math on that, then "Based on that estimate, it would take him about nine hours." You think?!

I think it will likely take longer than that, as it's reported that "It took the committee more than two hours Tuesday to debate and vote on the first proposed amendment." Please note that earlier it was stated that there were "major amendments that measure several hundred pages." At that rate, Robert Byrd is going to finish reading them before they do. And I guess the interns figured that out at some point because "By the time Capitol Hill interns finally left for tacos and happy-hour drinks at the local Mexican restaurant, the panel had approved just three amendments." OK, when's happy-hour usually? 4pm? 5pm? All I know is that it's never an hour! (Why they call it that, I have no idea, but it bugs me. And I digress. Where was I?)

So, would it be safe to assume that they were hammering out details on something that is really, really important? It would not, because one of the sticking points was a"...proposal to give government subsidies to people who trade in old cars or trucks for new, more efficient ones." Um, what? Wait! Government subsidies? For trading in vehicles for more efficient vehicles?! Didn't President Barry just announce some agreement that car manufacturers will have to produce a fleet of cars that average 35 mpg, making them more efficient than the cars with the current fleet average of 27.5 mpg? Meaning that damn near EVERYONE who buys a new vehicle will be buying one that is "more efficient"! Meaning that damn near EVERYONE who buys a new vehicle will be getting government subsidies?!

I was completely unaware that this Committee had access to an unlimited supply of cash! Who's paying for this?! ME?! AGAIN?! I'm already paying for a bunch of mortgages I didn't default on! I'm already paying for a bunch of bank bailouts that I didn't sign off on! So are millions of other taxpayers! Am I going to be expected to foot the bill for a subsidy for damn near EVERYONE who buys a car that the car companies can't afford to make (and that will now cost consumers an average of $1600 more per vehicle) but that the government has goaded them into making so that they can offer little, tiny, fuel efficient cars that the public doesn't want in the first place otherwise we'd already be buying them because they DO already exist?!

What planet does this Committee meet on? Clearly not this one. And the folks who are supposed to be doing all of the overseeing and all of the legislating are off pouting while their interns are drinking margaritas down at Chevy's! Grand! Sure, this is going to work. Can't y'all just play nice and get some freaking work done? Isn't that your job? You people are un-believable.

They're never finishing before Memorial Day. Not like this. According to the Texas Rep., a one Joe Barton, the Republicans "...have 400 amendments that we could offer, but there are at least 75-80 that we almost have to offer." 400?! Is that even possible to amend ONE document 400 times?! It shouldn't be possible! You know, let's hope that they're all up for re-election before this debacle is finished so we can NOT vote for any of them and start over! Where's Robert Byrd when we need him for the one thing I know he's capable of doing?

This is no way to run a country.

Sphere: Related Content