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.

Illegal Immigrant Thinks We Owe Her

The twisted logic that people use when it comes to illegal immigration always amazes me. And I mean always. It also really confuses me as to how "illegal immigration" seems to be so easily confused with "immigration" when the folks who seem to favor illegal immigration try and paint people who don't favor it as simply "anti-immigration". But I think that might be simply because some folks seem to not define "illegal" in the traditional sense. You know. That of it actually being not legal.

Let's look at an instance of that. Let's look at the instance of a one Zeituni Onyango. (You can pronounce that however you'd like.) I should probably point out that why you're hearing what she thinks of the whole illegal immigration issue is twofold. Fold one: She is in this country illegally. Fold two: She is the aunt of President Barry. Frankly, it's the first point that is more important than the second one. The second one is kind of a little trivia nugget more than anything. But I'm sure you still want to know what she has to say...or something like that.

Ms. Onyango came here in 2000 from Kenya and, according to AOL News, "...fell ill and was hospitalized." Aww. Well, these things happen. But then, "Upon her release...she was out of money. So rather than return to her homeland, she continued to live in the country in violation of immigration laws." Umm, OK. Yeah, those things happen, too. But they shouldn't. But what was she going to do? She was out of money, for cryin' out loud! Does Kenya give people money when they don't have any? I don't know if they do, but I could think of several reasons why they wouldn't or why they don't.

Now, in a sane society, one would think that if you're out of money, that's going to be a problem, especially if you're from another land. But not here in the good ol' US of A! Nope. Not a problem at all! See, "After stints in a Boston homeless shelter, Onyango was eventually put in public housing and began receiving disability payments." Hmm. Disability payments. Don't those come out of Social Security? Hmm. Aren't most folks expected to pay into that before they draw on it? Technically, yes. Actually, theoretically, yes. And people wonder why it's going broke. Duh.

Her story continues with us learning that "In 2004, an immigration judge ordered her to leave the country, but Onyango remained. However, she noted that her story was less about intentionally flouting federal immigration policy and more about its ineffectiveness. "I didn't take advantage of the system...The system took advantage of me." Uh, wait. What now? The system took advantage of HER?! How in the hell did the system take advantage of HER?! The system told her to leave! That's not taking advantage of her! That's booting her out! She stayed! How is it not her taking advantage of the system? HOW?! Of course, she doesn't elaborate on that.

But what she did elaborate on sent me over the proverbial edge. She said that "...she's done nothing wrong by illegally living in the United States for years and is therefore deserving of amnesty. "If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen." What the what now?

So, in her book, "illegal" doesn't mean "doing something wrong". It means "the system is taking advantage of you"? Where in the hell does she come up with that logic? And since when is any country obligated to a citizen from another country for anything?! I'm pretty sure there isn't any obligation here (other than on her part to get out). And finally, you delusional woman, you didn't come as an immigrant. You were living here illegally. You weren't an immigrant. You were an illegal resident! There's a difference! Why does everyone keep overlooking the difference between "an immigrant" and "an illegal immigrant"?! They're different, for cryin' out loud!

Wow. This is what it's come to? Really? People that don't have any legal right to be here thinking that they are owed something by this country simply because they are here? Really? Wow. I suppose that I should end this by mentioning that Ms. Unpronounceable was granted asylum earlier this year by the same judge that denied her asylum in 2004. (Gee. I wonder why that was? Hmm.) I should probably also mention that she still lives in public housing and still collects $700 per month in disability. She's never paid into the system and she's totally getting her entire lifestyle paid for out of the system. Sure, that seems reasonable. No, I can't see why that would be a problem in the long run. Or in any run. Good Lord, people....

They Didn't Ask For Signs

I think I love Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Seriously. This video rules. Way to call out the Federal Government! Nice.

I Think I Love Jon Kyl

It was only a matter of time before it became apparent how ridiculous and clueless those on city councils and boards of supervisors are as they debate whether or not to impose some sort of idiotic boycott against Arizona for passing their illegal immigration enforcement bill. The only ones who seem to think that these boycotts are a good idea seem to be the members of the councils and the boards which are considering such lunacy. It's like they haven't read the bill at all. And in some cases, it's almost like they don't even know where Arizona is, either.

Let's go over to Milwaukee, Wisconsin and get to know Milwaukee County Supervisor Peggy West. Ms. West supports a boycott of doing business with Arizona. If only we knew what her logic for such support really was. Oh, wait! We DO!

Below, you'll find a video segment from last Thursday's meeting where Ms. West explains why she is in favor of boycotting Arizona. Here's the textual version of her reasoning (the video is so that you'll actually believe me when you read what she said, as it is almost unbelievable):

"If this was Texas...which is a state on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with, you know, with undocumented people, flooding their borders, I would say, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border and, um, it doesn't make sense to me that when you Google this subject, if you put in "Arizona SB 1070" that you see a picture of the Governor of Arizona meeting with President Obama in May of 2010. If you have direct linkage to the President, there are already National Guard troops on the border in Arizona." Wait. It's removed from....the border....with MEXICO?!?! But it's...but....she just....oh, never mind. Roll the clip....

Yep. See, if Arizona was a border state, then she'd understand what all of the hubbub was about. But since it's so NOT a border state, she doesn't get it. (And I don't get why that would matter. I guess in her mind, illegal immigrants only stay in border states? I really don't know.) And all of that stuff about Googling the law and seeing pictures of President Barry and the governor of Arizona? I don't know what that has to do with anything at all. I thought I was confused at her questionable geography skills, but that really threw me for a loop. (And by the way, I did Google "Arizona SB 1070" and my results showed NO pictures of President Barry and the governor of Arizona. In fact, the first image result that turned up for me was that fetching young lady in the lingerie right there. She is neither the governor of Arizona, NOR the President of the United States, so that's a little odd.)

But wait! It gets better! According to something called the Phoenix New Times, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl sent Ms. West a letter AND a MAP of the United States which highlighted that Arizona does, in fact, share a border with Mexico. The text of his letter to her is awesome. It reads in part: "You will be interested to learn that Arizona does indeed share a border with Mexico. I have enclosed a map for your convenience." Do we have the map, fellas? We do? Super. Behold!

Awesome. Completely awesome. And he follows up his awesomeness with even more awesomeness when he closes out his letter with: "I hope you will take the time to actually read the Arizona law before formulating an opinion about it and become familiar with our country's geography and the challenges that our border states face." Yeah. I think I'm a little in love with Jon Kyl.

Ms. West pretty much sums up what I've been thinking about all of these political windbags who are advocating and enacting boycotts against Arizona all along. They all seem to be a bunch of dimwits that wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. And while I don't know anything about Jon Kyl, I know that anyone who sends that sort of letter to someone who deserves to receive it gets a few points in my book. (I'm really hoping that the guy isn't a total prick, because I'd really like to like him.)

Nebraska - The Next Arizona

As is the case with most days, I am confused. I'm confused because of a little town called Fremont, Nebraska. There aren't a lot of people in Fremont (and that's probably for good reason). Maybe around 26,000 is all. But when they went to the polls on Monday, at least 57% of the voters voted yes on a measure to help control illegal immigration. Hmm. That sounds vaguely familiar...

According to something called WOWT (which appears to be some sort of NBC affiliate), the measure does a couple of things. Thing One: "Before landlords can rent any home to a person in Fremont, that person must show a certificate obtained from the city. In order to get the certificate the person will have to prove they are in the United States legally." Ahhh. I like it. And I like Thing Two as well, which is that "The ordinance also requires Fremont employers to verify the legal residency status of people they hire." Sweet!

Way to go Fremont, Nebraska! You certainly are a plucky little town! What was the driving force behind such legislation? You liked won't be shocked to learn that "Supporters said they wanted the city to act because the Federal Government has failed to enforce immigration laws and because it has failed to secure the nation's borders." Hmmm. That sounds vaguely familiar as well...

In case you're missing the obvious correlation here, the Fremont, Nebraska law sounds surprisingly like what they're doing in Arizona. It's just making sure that there is some sort of verification of a person's legal residence in this country. And just like the rationale behind the Arizona law, Fremont, Nebraska is fed up with the Federal Government doing absolutely nothing to enforce immigration laws and secure our borders. And just like in Arizona, these things are FAR from crazy notions. However, what makes the Fremont, Nebraska law stand out from the Arizona law is that the Fremont, Nebraska law was voted on by the people.

That is the part that people who are against the Arizona law need to really pay attention to. So far, they've done a really good job of trying to ignore that, according to polling, 60% of the country and 70% of people in Arizona are all for these sorts of laws. And they could kind of trick themselves into thinking that those numbers didn't hold any weight because the Arizona law wasn't put to the voters. But the Fremont, Nebraska law was put to the voters. And the results were surprisingly close to what the poll numbers showed about the Arizona law; about 60% were in favor of it.

That brings me to my confusion. Why was there all of the hooplah and uproar over the Arizona law, but there isn't that same kind of outcry over the Fremont, Nebraska law? How come I haven't heard of people wanting to boycott Fremont? (Granted, there probably isn't much there to boycott in the first place, but I'm operating on the principle of thing here, so stay with me!) How come there aren't city council meetings far and away where they discuss boycotting Fremont, Nebraska? How come I haven't heard all of the cries of racism over Fremont, Nebraska? Is it because their law only requires some sort of documentation if someone wants something (ie, a place to rent), whereas the Arizona law allows for a general suspicion of someone being in this country illegally to warrant a request to see identity documents? I don't know. I don't get it.

If I had to guess, however, I would guess that it was because the law was enacted through a vote. It's hard to argue with what the voters want. Just look at South Carolina and ol' Alvin Greene, the Democratic Party's candidate for the Senate. The voters voted for him and he appears to be dumb as a post. That's apparently what they wanted (though it's extremely unclear as to why). Fremont, Nebraska passing this law simply reflects what the national polls do, and that is that people are frustrated with the federal government not doing anything to curb illegal immigration and so they're willing to vote on measures that will allow individual states to try and save themselves. And perhaps one of the best things that it can accomplish is maybe all of those people who continually complain about the Arizona law will start to pipe down. I'm all for any law that silences morons.

Just Read The Law

Ready for this? You're not. Trust me. You know that awesome law they passed down there in Arizona? The one that, essentially, mirrors the federal laws on immigration enforcement almost exactly? Yeah, that's the one. The one in which, according to the Wall Street Journal, 70% of Arizonans favor, 60% of Americans favor, and 50% of Hispanics favor. That's the one. (Man, you sure wouldn't get the idea that those are the numbers in favor of it when all you hear about are people protesting it and boycotting Arizona...as if they are representing the majority, which they are clearly not.) That's the law I'm talking about.

Now, when this law passed, the Attorney General of the United States, a one mustachioed Eric Holder, was critical of the law and said that the federal government may challenge it because " Arizona's new law is subject to potential abuse", according to CBS News That same report also told use that there were "A number of options are under consideration including "the possibility of a court challenge," Holder said in response to questions on the Arizona law". The article also states that President Barry "...has instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona law". It also says that "The Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are reviewing the state law." That was on April 27, 2010.

The law is ten pages long. Have you ever seen how these things are wrote up? For some reason, legislation is always written in a four inch wide column (if that) that has two inch margins on the top and bottom of the page. And it's always double-spaced. It might even be triple spaced. And it's not like it's a teeny-tiny font either. No, it's a fair sized font and they format the stuff on the page like it's a Reader's Digest Condensed Version for the Blind. You can read it from at least five feet away with no trouble at all....with dim lighting! The point here is that while it may be ten pages long, there are probably only 50 words on each page. (Mind you, the health care bill was over two thousand pages long.)

Fast forward to May 13, 2010 at some sort of hearing that Eric Holder was being questioned at. That's over two full weeks since Mr. Holder voiced his concern about this law. That's over two full weeks since we were told that "The Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are reviewing the state law." That's over two full weeks since we were told that President Barry has instructed the Justice Department to check out the law. That would be the Justice Department that Eric Holder is technically over. Ten pages. Over two weeks. Do you see where this is going? Of course you do.

Mr. Holder has not actually read the law. That is correct. He hasn't read it. Now, I realize that being Attorney General of the United States is a job that would probably tend to keep you pretty busy. But if you're telling me that you can't read ten pages of legislation over the course of at least two weeks, then there's something wrong with you and I seriously question your ability to serve in the capacity for which you were appointed. My God, man, what's wrong with you?

According to Fox News it was during these hearings that a one Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas (also now known as "my hero"), asked Holder if he had read the law. Holder responding weakly by stating, "I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it." Luckily Rep. Poe offered to give Mr. Holder his copy of the law. It's not like it's a difficult document to lay your hands on. Oh, but this gets better. Or worse. Hard to say. Hard. To. Say.

"When asked by Poe how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law." Um, wait. What now?

He's going by what he has "been able to glean" from the freaking newspapers and television and talking to folks?! Why hasn't he just started consulting bloggers?! Or those folks at those rallies? Why don't you just read the freaking thing yourself?! He can read, right? I mean, I'm kind of assuming that's some sort of a qualification or a necessity in order to be the Attorney General of the most powerful nation on the planet, but I'm kinda starting to wonder.

It's not even so much that he hasn't read it that just burns my toast. It's that he is SO SURE that it MUST be racist or have this HUGE potential for abuse that he's already talking about challenging it in court! Hey, Mr. Holder! What say that before you go all full blown spending taxpayer money on some sort of legal challenge to something, how about you read the damned thing first, all right? Yes, I'm actually suggesting that you READ all ten pages! Hey, and while you're at it, why don't you compare those ten pages to the federal immigration laws on enforcement and see how much they differ?! Guess what? They're almost identical, you jackass.

While I'm glad that Rep. Poe brought this up and got him to admit that he hadn't actually read the law himself and was relying on the town crier to bring him up to speed, I really wish he had held his feet to the fire a little bit more and asked him WHY he hadn't read the whopping ten pages of legislation by now. That would have been great. It's times like these when I miss Tim Russert. He would have had Holder on Meet the Press and would have asked him why he didn't read it. I long for the days when there was at least one journalist out there that would do that. These days, however, we'd be lucky if someone were to ask Eric Holder why he has such a creepy moustache. :: sigh :: Yep, I miss Tim Russert. Heart disease kills, kids! Keep yourselves healthy.

This video here shows Eric Holder being interviewed by the adorable, extremely capable, and frequently scarf-wearing Jake Tapper. In it, Tapper asks him why he doesn't think that the Arizona immigration enforcement law is a good idea. Keep in mind that the answer that he gives is one that he has formulated based on what he's read in some newspapers and heard on TV. Below, you will find the video of Eric Holder at that hearing when he admits to Rep. Poe (still known as "my hero") that he hasn't read the whopping 10 page bill. I think it's somewhere around the 1:00 mark if you want to skip ahead. While I really like Rep. Poe, he tends to drone whenst speaking.

Los Morons

And the ridiculousness just keeps right on going in Arizona over their illegal immigration law (which is no different than the Federal immigration laws that have been in place for years). Only this time, it's taken a whole new twist. This time, we have the idiocy over protesting this new law and it has been combined with sports. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that sort of a combination, right?

See, according to ESPN, the NBA's Phoenix Suns wore " "Los Suns" on their jerseys in Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals on Wednesday night." Uh, what? Now, if that kind of sounds like a language other than English, you'd be correct. That would be a touch of Spanish. Technically, I would have thought that the jerseys would have read "Los Soles", as "soles" is the plural of "sun" which is "sol", but if it's the name of a team or something like that, you leave it alone. Why you're allowed to Spanish-ize part of the name, but not the other part isn't exactly clear to me. But that's the reason why it was "Los Suns".

This ridiculous idea was the brainstorm of the owner (or propietario) of the Suns, Robert Starver. He said that it was "...to honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona, and our nation." Uh-huh. Never mind that you need to read, write and speak English to become a citizen. Never mind that language is one of the key elements that holds together a society. Never mind all of that. Go right on ahead with dividing people up into groups based upon race and not upon citizenship. What could possibly go wrong there?

See, when I first heard that they were going to do this, I wasn't all that concerned about it because I didn't think that there was any way in hell that David Stern, the commissioner of the NBA, would let it happen. You can't just make your jersey say whatever you want, can you? Apparently you can. That's because David Stern told NBA.com "We think it's appropriate what the Suns are doing." You do? How on earth is it appropriate for a sports team to make any sort of a political statement? You're not politicians. You're not activists. You're sports guys who get paid a ridiculous amount of money whether you win OR lose. If you want to express your dislike for the new law on your own time, that's your business. But for you to want to do it when you're at work? I have a hard time seeing how that's appropriate.

And I guess that I'm never going to understand how it's appropriate in the mind of David Stern because his mind clearly does not work like that of a sane individual. That's because, according to NBA Fanhouse, "...on Monday (Danny) Ainge tossed a towel skyward" during a playoff game. It didn't hurt anyone. It didn't obstruct any play or anything like that. But according to someone named Terrence Moore, Ainge was "spitting on the so-called "integrity of the game" -- which Stern and other commissioners of other leagues always say they must protect." Yep. And that's why Danny Ainge "...has been fined $25,000 for creating an unauthorized distraction and for conduct detrimental to the game." Wait. What now?

Danny Ainge gets fined $25,000 for throwing a towel in the air, but the Phoenix Suns are allowed to change their jerseys so that they read "Los Suns" and that's perfectly OK?! How is that NOT an unauthorized distraction? Is there some sort of clause in the NBA rules that says that making a political statement on the court is an authorized distraction? What a maroon.

I would like nothing more than for Phoenix Suns season ticket holders to give up their seats. Let those who are in the country illegally purchase them for next season and see how that turns out for them. I'm going to mention AGAIN that the majority of Arizona residents are in FAVOR of this legislation. It's not like it's unpopular amongst the masses or anything. It does seem, however, to be extremely unpopular amongst the uninformed and the clueless. That seems obvious.