Toads On Craigslist

Yesterday, we had what might have been the shortest "sex scandal" in Congress ever. Seriously, the only way that you knew that anything had even happened is because suddenly the guy resigned. And it was only 3-1/2 hours after the whole thing came out! Then when you hear something like that, that's when you get to hear why he resigned. It's all just very odd. And I really don't think that it's much to resign about. But then again, at least we won't have to hear about it for weeks on end. I hope.

Here's the deal: There's a New York Representative named Chris Lee. Now, Mr. Lee is a married bloke and he wanted to have an affair. From what I can tell, he did not have an affair...this time. But then again, when you're caught doing something, you're rarely caught on your first time out. Whether or not he had affairs before trying to have this one is beyond me. (Translation: He's been cheating on his wife for a while now. Pig.)

See, he was trolling Craigslist looking for a hookup and ended up being enticed by "...a 34-year-old single woman of "black/Irish" descent, who had advertised online for a "financially & emotionally secure" man" according to the NY Post. (Black/Irish descent? Begorrah, M-F-ers! Yeah, that joke really works best if you use an Irish accent. It's pretty good without it, but the accent really hits it home.) She apparently had written: "Will Someone Prove To Me Not All CL [Craigslist] Men Look Like Toads". Oh. I see. So, you're too good for Craigslist, and yet you're on Craigslist. This woman is bothering me already.

Representative Einstein replied to said ad with: "Hi, Hope I'm not a toad. :)". I can only assume that is when he sent the following picture of himself. Behold!

Good Lord, sir. What is that look on your face? Were you recently anesthetized before taking that pictures? And seriously, when are people going to learn how to take pictures with their phone without actually having to point the phone IN the mirror?! What the what?! I really have no answers. He apparently also included in his reply (along with that sexy, sexy photo): "I'm a very fit fun classy guy. Live in Cap Hill area. 6ft 190 lbs blond blue. 39. Lobbyist. I promise not to disappoint." Oh. Sure. Yeah, you seem classy. Because nothing says "classy" like a married member of Congress taking a shirtless picture of himself in his bathroom. Oh, yeah. It reeks of class. Reeks. And I guess that "promise not to disappoint" means...can get an erection? I'm a little unclear on that part, so I'm really just surmising at this point. I can't think of much else, though.br>

Of course, we all know now that he is not 39 and he is not a lobbyist. He is 46 and he was a Representative for the state of New York. He was also married at the time. Whether or not that plays out for very long after this fiasco, we'll just have to wait and see. Then again, if I was his wife, it wouldn't be so much about the affairs as it would be about his way of going about them. "Here I am in my bathroom without my shirt. Am I a toad?" Ugh. What a tool.

He did send along an explanation of the photo that he sent, saying: "I just took this one . . . I'm relaxing at home." You're just relaxing at home? Who the hell relaxes at home like that? In their bathroom, still wearing their dress slacks and (probably) their loafers and completely shirtless? Apparently, he wants someone to believe that he does. The woman who had originally posted the ad had similar questions to mine, asking him: "So do you always send shirtless pics to women from cl?" Lady, you're trolling for dudes on Craigslist! You can knock off the little coy act. You're no saint yourself, you know. And while that question was pretty bad, his answer is even worse.

The dude answers her and explains: "Sorry. It's all I had." It's all you had?! You took a picture with your cell phone! What, you cell phone doesn't work any more? The days of those sort of excuses are gone. Long gone. There is NO excuse for not sending someone a current picture of yourself. There's also NO excuse for not sending someone a picture of yourself where you are be-shirted. You could have taken a picture of yourself while your shirt was still on! Does he not get this sort of logic? He apparently did not! Even if you put the cell phone part aside, why would the ONLY picture that you would have of yourself be one where you don't have on your shirt?! Maybe he's just routinely shirtless. "I don't even know where to find a shirt. It's been so long. I haven't worn a shirt in years!" What a maroon.

And that's that. Once word of him and his shirtless stupidity got out (when the chick figured out who he was because he was dumb enough to use his real name, she went running to Gawker.com and I'm guessing sold them her story just like you'd expect a gem like her to do), he resigned. It's over. But there is one little side note I'd like to leave you with. Back in 2009, "...shortly after he helped pass the Student Internet Safety Act" (you read that right), he "...wrote an op-ed piece warning kids about the dangers of the Internet." He wrote: "Responding to what may seem like a friendly e-mail . . . can have serious consequences...Private information and images can so easily be transmitted to friends and strangers alike." That's good advice, son. Good ad-vice.

Rangel's Wrangles

Longtime crook, Charlie Rangel, was finally "held accountable" after it was voted upon and found that he should be censured for a number of violations. It seems Mr. Rangel, who was responsible for crafting a LOT of the current tax laws and rules, felt that those rules didn't apply to him and his little villa he owns in the Dominican Republic. Shocking, I know. And Mr. Rangel really seems to enjoy that villa of his. Why, here's a photo of him enjoying himself now!

It doesn't get much easier for political cartoonists than that. But back to the crooked congressman. He was found guilty of eleven different violations. Naturally, there were ethics violations in there as well as his not paying taxes (which seems like it maybe should have warranted a criminal investigation, but because this is Congress, I guess they do things however they want). And since he has been found guilty, there is now a punishment. Can you guess what his punishment is? I would have thought that if you're found guilty of stuff like that that they just boot you out. Corrupt politicians in Congress are not what we need. Ever. But that's not what they do. No, they voted to censure him. Wait. What now?

That's right. Censure him. If you're wondering what a censure consists of, so was I. I was really hoping that there were going to be lions involved, but sadly, there will be no lions. Maybe if Siegfried and Roy were making the rules we'd get some lions, but unfortunately, they're not. According to Wikipedia (so take it for what it's worth), "After a motion to censure is passed, the chair (or the vice-president, if the presiding officer is being censured) addresses the censured member by name. He may say something to the effect of, "Brother F, you have been censured by vote of the assembly. A censure indicates the assembly's resentment of your conduct at meetings. A censure is a warning. It is the warning voice of suspension or expulsion. Please take due notice thereof and govern yourself accordingly." Wait. That's it?

That's it. Mr. Rangel will stand in the well of the Senate and they will read the charges that he has been found guilty of and then they will say that he has been censured. I'm pretty sure that he gets to say something, but I'm not sure if it's required, nor am I sure if he is required to apologize. (If it is a requirement that they apologize, that's a pretty stupid requirement, as it's not like the person would actually mean it or anything.) Then he can go back to whatever it is that he does. That's it. That seems like a slap on the wrist if you're asking me. They could have voted for expulsion. Now that I could have gotten behind.

I don't get this censure thing. And I can't imagine that it's going to have any effect on the man at this point. He's been a congressman for 20 terms. TWENTY. That's unbelievable. That's also forty years, which is also unbelievable. He represents the area in and around Harlem and I'm just guessing that, based on what he has been able to do for the community, they aren't really going to care about some censure. After all, all of these charges had already been brought against him when he went up for re-election just a couple of weeks ago and he won with something like 80% of the vote. His constituents don't care about censure. And while he acts like he cares, he doesn't.

I started wondering about this censure thing and why it doesn't happen more often, given how crooked I think a lot of the politicians in Congress actually are. I know it takes a ridiculous amount of time to look into these things, but I don't know why. I didn't find the answer to that and I perused the Innerwebs looking for answers, but I did find a fairly interesting statistic regarding censure. There have only been 22 other representatives who have been censured. Um, that's not very many if you take into account how long we've actually had a Congress.

Several folks were censured for "unparliamentary language". Now, I don't know what that consists of, but whatever it is, it sounds great! Very engaging! I sure would like to see a little bit more of it on C-SPAN. Those hearings are awfully boring. They need a little unparliamentary language to liven them up a little bit. (Hell, the Taiwanese lawmakers get into fisticuffs with each other all of the time!) A couple of folks assaulted some other lawmakers. The first guy censured was a one William Stanbery who, in 1932, "...was censured for insulting the Speaker of the House." I really want to know what he said. I also really want to know what he would have had to say about Nancy Pelosi. (I'm guessing that Botox would be a theme in his thoughts, should he have been able to share them.)

But here's the other thing I learned: A guy was censured in 1921 for the unparliamentary language. It wasn't until 1979 that the next guy was censured (only this guy apparently partook in mail and payroll fraud). Not only do I find it absolutely unbelievable that there have only been 23 (counting Mr. Rangel) members of Congress that have ever been censured, I find it incredible that they could go for almost sixty years in between. Between the 1832 and that guy in 1921, there were 19 censured congressmen. Since 1921? FOUR. The last one was in 1983!

You cannot possibly tell me that there hasn't been a single crooked politician since 1983! And mind you, the two most recent censures were for "...sexual misconduct with a House page." You're telling me that everyone else has played by the rules this entire time?! Oh, please! Is anyone surprised that politicians are on the take? Is anyone surprised that they do the crooked stuff that we all know that they do? If there aren't any penalties for them other than being told in front of their peers that they've been caught and then they get sent back to work, why would they follow the rules when there is so much money to be made and power to be had?!

We need more censures. Who's up next? A one Maxine Waters looks to be on the docket for being investigated or charged or something along those lines next. Maybe we'll know how that one turns out in another sixty years or so. That would be about right, given the history of these sorts of things. I'd be willing to bet that Charlie Rangel not only runs for re-election next time, but that he wins as well. People never learn. And those that do are the ones who are getting away with stuff like Charlie Rangel did and does and probably will continue to in the future. We're so doomed.

::: Insert unparliamentary language here:::

While perusing the Innerwebs today, I ran across this over at something called Washington Scene - The Hill:

Oh, please. Are you freaking kidding me? A reception to honor your accomplishments? Is that necessary, you twit? First question, who is paying for this wing ding? It certainly had better not be taxpayers and if it is, I want to go. I'd feel a lot better about how my tax dollars were spent if I actually felt like I got to use the things that they were spent on once in a while. (And don't tell me that the roads I drive on are paid for by some sort of tax dollars. The roads I drive on are crap, at best.)

Seriously, how out of touch is she (and the rest of them)? They need to throw themselves a little wing-ding so that the entire self-congratulatory bunch of them can stand around and reinforce how great they think they are? That doesn't sound all that necessary to me. You know, y'all haven't exactly turned this country around all the way quite yet. What say you hold off on your narcissistic tea party until the unemployment rate is at least at a manageable level again, OK? Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. Sadly, apparently so.

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.

Islands Don't Tip Over

I'm under the impression that just about anyone can be a representative of Congress. Congressman, Congresswoman, doesn't matter. I'd like to test my theory that a rhesus monkey could successfully win a campaign to be said Congressprimate, but I don't have much interest in going through to whole process of acquiring a rhesus monkey. (I'm assuming there's a process. Seems like there would be. Actually, I take that back. It seems like their should be. In which case, it would be fair to assume that I could probably pay off a zookeeper somewhere and make my way home with a new little friend.) Being as how I'm sans monkey (in more ways than one), I'm going to have to rely on actual members of Congress to make my point here.

Meet Hank Johnson.

Rep. Johnson represents the US state of Georgia in Congress. He was attending a Congressional hearing where the topic of discussion was locating approximately 8,000 - 9,000 US Marines in Guam. If we take into consideration the family size of these troops, that amounts to somewhere around 25,000 people who will potentially be relocating to Guam. This is important to know, as it makes the story funnier.

Guam, if you are unfamiliar with it, is a small island. Not "relatively" small. Small small. It's about 212 square miles. See? Small. For the sake of comparison, Rhode Island is approximately 2,000 square miles. So, Guam is one tenth the size of the smallest state in our fine land. It's small. Now, the size of Guam is important because of the number of people that will be potentially living there in the near future. And if it had been me debating that information, the only thing that I could possibly see myself being concerned about with that many more people in such a small area would be the potential for over-crowding or the potential for a lack of water and/or food. Those would be my concerns if I were to have any. (In reality, I don't think I give a fat rat's ass what goes on in Guam. Sorry, Guam.) I would not be concerned that the island would, in fact, tip over. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to CBS News (and the rest of the entire Internet at this point), Rep. Johnson is concerned with all of those extra people being on the island to physically cause the island to capsize. He voiced this odd, odd concern when he was questioning Admiral Robert Willard, who heads the US Pacific fleet. It took him a while to get to it, though. He had to noodle his way through the actual size of the island first. Let's read a portion of what he said, shall we?

Rep. Johnson: This is a island that at it's widest level is, what, 12 miles from shore to shore? And at it's smallest level, uh, smallest, uh..location, it's uh, 7 miles, uh, between one shore and the other. Is that correct?

Admiral Willard: I don't have the exact dimensions as to your point. But Guam is a small island.

Rep. Johnson: Very small island. About 24 miles if I recall long. 24 miles long. About 7 miles wide at the least widest place on the island. And about 10, about 12, miles wide, uh, uh, on the widest part of the island. And, um, I don't know how many square miles that is. Do you happen to know?

Admiral Willard: I don't have that figure with me, sir. I can certainly supply it to you if you'd like.

OK, let's just stop right here for a moment. After I had sent a link to this video to a friend of mine (Oh, calm down! Calm down! The video is below! I'm not just going to make you read about something this good! You need to actually see and actually hear this one to get full enjoyment out of it.), she commented on how the guy knew what the length and the width of the island was (even though he couldn't come up with the term "width" or "wide", which would have been sufficient as well), but claimed to not know what the square footage was. He couldn't do the basic math for calculating area and multiply length times width? Huh. Interesting. But not as interesting as what comes up next!

Rep. Johnson: Yeah. My fear is that, uh, the whole island will, uh, become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize. Wait. What now?

He's afraid the island is going to tip over?! For reals?! Um, Congressman? Do you really think that the US Marine folks who would be in charge of all of the relocating would put all of the troops on the same side of the island? Because if you really thought that, wouldn't that be kind of crazy? You know. Almost as crazy as thinking that an island can tip over in the first place?! Good Lord, man. What is wrong with you? (And when you watch the video below, take note of the hand gestures. I really appreciated those. Just in case I was a little unclear on what he was trying to say, he made sure to gesture in a tipping motion just what he meant. It's awesome.)

Now, I wasn't the only one having a hard time with this line of questioning. The Admiral seemed to be working very hard at controlling any sort of laughing outburst.

Admiral Willard trying not to crack up: Uh, we don't anticipate that. Uh, the Guam population is currently about 175,000. And again, with 8,000 Marines and their families, it's an addition of about 25,000 more into the population.

Rep. Johnson taking things in a very different direction: And uh, also, uh, things like the environment, uh, the sensitive areas of the environment. The coral reefs and those things. And I know that lots of people don't like to think about that, but you know, we didn't think about GLOBAL WARMING EITHER. And, um, now we do have to think about it. So, um, I'm concerned from an environmental standpoint as to whether Guam is, uh, uh, the best place to do this relocation, but it's actually the only place, is that correct?

I'm lost. Someone help me out here. The coral reefs? And "those things"? What "things"? By "things", does he mean all of the bodies that will go tumbling into the sea when the island takes a nose dive into the watery abyss? What in the world does global warming have to do with the imbalance of an island?

Admiral Willard, still stifling laughter: Um, this is the BEST place. This is the farthest west US territory that we own. And, you know, this is part of our nation. And in readdressing the forward presence and posture importance to Pacific command, Guam is vital to this decision.

OK, then. Wow. That's a new one. The island might tip over. But wait! There's more! More from Rep. Johnson's camp! Of course, once this thing caught fire on the Innerwebs, Johnson had to explain his remarks somehow, so he issued this statement: "The subtle humor of this obviously metaphorical reference to a ship capsizing illustrated my concern about the impact of the planned military buildup on this small tropical island." Huh?

The humor wasn't subtle. It was overtly hilarious. And I know what a metaphor is and that wasn't one!

At the same CBS News link above, they provide a response to Rep. Johnson's "concerns" by Madeleine Bordallo, who is Guam's delegate in the House. She said, "I know Congressman Hank Johnson, and I'm sure that -- he's been here to Guam -- so I'm sure that it was just a joke." Hmm. Let's say that was the extremely unlikely case. Are you not a bit annoyed by someone joking around in a Congressional hearing? I think I might be. Might. I don't know, maybe I wouldn't. But considering that almost everything that Congress does these days annoys me, I'm guessing I would be.

The article continues with, "Furthermore, Bordallo added, she is not concerned about Congress being ill-informed about the island. Over 50 percent of the Armed Services Committee has been to Guam, she said." Is she not concerned about folks being ill-informed about THE island or about islands IN GENERAL?! Because I, for one, am a bit concerned about folks who think that an island can TIP OVER like it's some sort of boat or something. Those folks concern me a great deal! They concern me because if they think that, I have no choice but to assume that they're morons. And yes, I am concerned by morons in Congress. Thus, this concerns me.

CBS News even went with the headline "Guam Tipping Over Comment No Concern For Guam Officials". So does that mean that they weren't concerned about Guam itself tipping over? GOOD!! They shouldn't be! NO ONE should be!!

We Asked These Protesters....

I love the folks at New Left Media. Did I mention that I love them? I do. I love them. They always seem to be out in force at these major Tea Party gatherings/protest/Band Of Idiots Conventions that are almost inevitable these days whenever there is a major vote in Congress or some major issue brewing about (likely involving Sarah Palin). Apparently New Left Media is just two guys, a one Chase Whiteside and a one Erick Stoll, and a one camera. Their website claims that they "are currently students at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio." I hope that they stay students for a while so that they'll have more time to do stuff like this. Once you graduate and get one of those pesky job things, activities such as theirs tend to disappear. It's unfortunate. Stupid jobs.

Anyway, they've hit upon a formula that, upon first hearing of it, would seem risky. They just show up at some of these larger rallies/powwows and basically ask people "Soooo, whatcha doin'?" Their answers will shock you. (No, they won't. When you realize how many of these people are paste eating mouth breathers, you're not going to be surprised by any of it. You're just going to do what I do and that is to make the wall around your walled-off compound a foot higher and throw a few more gators into the moat. Keep those people away from me.)

Apparently, up on Capitol Hill yesterday, the Tea Party protesters were out in full swing against voting yes on the health care bill (which is so incredibly enormous right now that it can't possibly do any good). And at the same time, the circus was in town. Awesome. Simply awesome. Behold!

To give you a feel for the group as a whole, let's look at some photos, shall we? Here we have a group with some very nice signs being held up. And I will give credit where credit is due here by pointing out that nothing seems to be misspelled. That, in and of itself, lends at least a shred of credibility to the nonsense that you're shouting. But spelling is only going to get you so far. One reads "No more killing of the unborn. Stop Obamacare." Yeah, see, the "killing of the unborn" is going to continue with or without this healthcare dealio. I'm going to throw out a little thing called Roe v. Wade. Perhaps you've heard of it?

What I really like in that photo is this dude here:

He brought a book to read! Just in case that rally didn't have quite enough oomph for him, he wanted to make sure that he wasn't bored. Then there's this next guy, who I'm just going to go ahead and assume is censoring himself. Maybe he had second thoughts about bringing a large placard that read "I WANT MY COUNTRY F**K!" I appreciate the covering up of the F and the U. What? What's that? You think it says "back"? Huh. Maybe. Good point. Whatever. Moving on...

I like the artwork in the one below. (There's nothing I hate more than a hastily scrawled protest sign.) It shows President Barry in a health care bill coffin. He is wearing a tuxedo that seems to indicate that he met his demise right after attending a wedding in 1973.

And speaking of President Barry, it just wouldn't be a protest without at least one chap displaying a sign with a picture of President Barry sporting the Chaplin moustache. I have yet to figure out the connection between Barack Obama and The Little Tramp, but some folks are very adamant that there are similarities. If I figure those out, I'll let you know.

This man is saying that "...government can't run anything effectively." Oh, if they only had a lime green cyclops shirt and a fuzzy blue wizard's cap, that would make things much more effective.

This Maryland Terrapin here made it very clear what he thought about the bill. He said (and I swear to God I'm quoting verbatim), "Three words. Not. Good. For. The. Country." Good Lord, sir. I'll give you that the whole "Three words" tease sounds very dramatic and all. But when you don't actually have only three words, you're really doing yourself more harm than good. And when asked by either Chase or Erick (I don't know which one is which) "What are some of the things in it that you have problems with?" he responded (and I swear to God I'm directly quoting again), "I don't know! I don't know." Am I surprised by that? Not really. I mean, he seems to be having a bit of trouble mastering the whole counting-to-five concept. It's not wonder that he doesn't know what he's doing there.

The chick below I found to be very informative. She seems to know about things in the health care bill that I was completely unaware of! It's a good thing that they caught up with her! When asked if she has other problems with the health care bill, she tells us, "Uh, yeah. Um, that nice little...uh...um...death tax! Where they would send you...where they would rather send you a fifty dollar check for a blue pill, an end of life pill, than, uh, pay for the necessary medical expenses." They what now? They want to send us checks for Viagra? What now? What part of the bill is that in? I missed the Viagra clause.

I love this couple. The matching shirts? Priceless. And check out dude there. He's proudly wearing that G.W. Bush hat atop his head and has a very firm grip on that cigar. Awesome. I might like to live next door to those folks. They seem kooky, but kooky in a good way. I think. (Anytime a couple does the matchy-matchy thing with their wardrobe, it's always a bit troubling for me, but the cigar offsets it a little bit.)

The video of all of this blather is below. It's about nine minutes long. While I enjoyed the view from the front lines, I really could have done without the two paragraphs that they put in the last 30 seconds or so. I get it, I get it. You want the bill to pass.