What's the Dumbest Thing Michele Bachmann has Ever Said?

Some of you may have heard the sad news yesterday that Michele Bachmann, beloved Republican Representative from Minnesota, will not be seeking re-election.
It's a sad day for all of us who have enjoyed her bat shit crazy statements. 

But what's the dumbest thing she has ever said?

Was it when in in October 2008 she said that we should investigate which members of Congress are "Pro-America" and which are "Anti-America?"
Nah. Mccarthyism and witch hunting happen are fun for the whole family.

Was it when in August 2011 she implied that the Hurricane that hit the East Coast was God trying to send a message about the need to cut spending?
Nah. God does like to intervene in fiscal issues. We all know that Noah's Flood was God's response to those Tax and Spend Moabites.

Was it when in April 2009 she said that there was not one study that showed that Carbon Dioxide gas was harmful?
Nah. This is definitely dumb. Like saying, "There's water in my bathtub and I'm fine, so why is everybody scared of tsunamis?" There are lots of Climate Change deniers so this doesn't make her unique.

The winner goes to Michele for her comments in January 2011 that The Founding Fathers worked tirelessly until they ended slavery. 
Let's see, Revolution...1776. Slavery Ending...1863.
87 years apart! And back then people lived till they were 30! So no, Michele. I don't think that the Founding Fathers kept fighting for 87 years until Slavery was ended.
I happen to know that some of them, like Thomas Jefferson, rather liked their slaves a lot.

The more important reason that this is dumb is that it involves fetishizing the Founding Fathers and believing that everything they did was right. They had a lot of great ideas and set up a system that is still going today. But they didn't know everything. And when we pretend that they knew everything, we don't allow ourselves to question their ideas, or change things for the better.

So goodbye Michele, and have a nice life.
I'm happy that our Founding Fathers made sure you could say whatever crazy shit popped into your brain. Because when you say the dumbest nonsense in the world and don't get in any trouble, we know that we can say dumb shit too.
Thanks Michele!

Should Irish Farmers be Allowed to Drive Drunk?

Before you accuse my question of being based on an old stereotype of Irish Drunkards, read this article. Apparently some councilmen in Southwest Ireland are petitioning the government to grant some permits to farmers to drive above the legal limit.

Why do they want to do that you ask?
They argue that suicide and depression are a major problem in these rural areas and that these farmers just need a drink. Or five. One can debate whether or not drinking is likely to make people happier or more depressed.
Coke and Prostitutes might make these farmers happy too but no one is going down that road.

Drinking and driving is all too common everywhere because of this simple fact:
How else are you going to drink at a bar?

I'm lucky enough to live in New York City where public transportation and cabs are available 24/7. No one else in America and very few people around the world are so lucky. Every time I visit another city I find friends putting themselves in situations where they drink and drive.

In Texas for instance it's all highways and overpasses. It's pretty hard to walk to the bars. Designated drivers are great in theory but fall short in practice. There's just not enough of us who can tolerate the idea of soberly babysitting your drunken friends. I've done it happily on occasion, but it's not something I want to do all the time.

So here's my solution...
Party Buses!
Bars should have to pay a small tax from their sales that goes towards a fleet of party buses which stay running as long as they're open! It will be fun, communal, and will make one sober bus driver the designated driver for everybody! And customers can be encouraged to use the bus instead of driving cars by being given free drink tokens and other rewards.

So Ireland, don't let Farmers drive drunk. Even if they get a few drinks at the bar, they'll still be driving home alone. Create a party bus, and those farmers can start finding some new fields where they can plant their seed.

Why does the new Arrested Development suck like a banger in the mouth?

Here's a rule that I live by, that you should live by too.

Assume sequels are terrible, until you hear otherwise.

It's so much better this way.
Most of the time it's true, that sequels just don't compare. And this way, when they're actually good, they'll be even better because you've lowered your expectations. 

Which brings us back to Arrested Development. 

I went in with low expectations, and they were met. 

The brilliance of the old show was that every episode was about Michael's struggle to be a good guy. Each episode was about the push and pull of Michael's relationship to his family. Whether to leave them, or whether to save them. That's not there anymore. 

But most of all, the reason the new Arrested Development sucks is because it's just not that funny. They're trying their best, and there are definitely some laughs. But just not enough great ones to keep the audience happy and engaged. 

But I'm not angry with them. It's tough to write good jokes.

Comedy is hard.

Like a Banger in the Mouth. 

What are House Republicans up to These Days?

I'll tell you what they're up to. 

House Republicans are voting down Obamacare.

Over and over again. 

37 Times to be exact. 

37!

They know that this is delusional. They know that Obamacare has been passed into law and defended by the Conservative leader of the Supreme Court. It's happening fellas. And they know it, they're just putting on a show and slowing things down. 

It reminds me of when you're playing tag as a little kid and you're it. And there are always those kids that whenever you get near them to tag them they just stop running and say, 

"Not playing, I'm not playing you guys." 

They say it just so they won't get tagged! They get all the fun of tag but then when something happens they don't like they say,

"Nope, no thanks. We didn't want Obamacare so no, we're not playing if that's the game."

Or maybe it's more like that kid that sticks their fingers in their ear when they don't want to hear something and are like,

"I can't hear you. Sorry. Not listening...."

Republican House Members are basically sticking their fingers in their ears and saying, 

"Not listening! Obamacare will not happen if I can't hear it. I can keep this up forever!"

And Alas they'll try.

But come 2014, it will start. Then we can stop fighting over whether it will happen, and start figuring out how to make it work well. 

What is the Subway Slot Machine?

The Subway Slot Machine is that game that every New Yorker plays when they are waiting for a train.
As the train pulls into the station the cars stream by just like those little 7's, cherrys, and pineapples on a slot machine. We excitedly wait for the car that will stop in front of us and see if we've won big.

The big winner is the car with lots of empty seats. That train car where there are enough empty seats you don't even need to rush onto the train, cause there are enough for everyone. But sometimes this triple 7's is deceiving. What looks like an empty car is sometimes empty for a reason, no one wants to be in that car. The two cars that can scare off their passengers are the cars in the summer with no AC, and the cars with a smelly homeless man. You can sit through either of these situations, but you really don't want too.

The big loser is the car that is crowded to the rafters. The worst kind of full car is the car full of rowdy teenagers just out of school. These hormonally charged creatures with no sense of an "indoor voice" can be overwhelming. The only thing that comforts me in crowded cars is my height. Which allows me at least a little fresh air in the top two feet of the car.

One of my favorite wins is the group of European girls on a trip to New York. That's the jackpot. But whatever you get when you pull the Subway Slots today, remember that there's always another spin right around the corner.

Why Should we Pass More Gun Control?

First things first.
We all believe in some amount of gun control.

I think we should only sell T-shirt guns and water cannons but that's just me. 

T-shirt guns are the best cause they're the only gun where when you get shot, you cheer!

But you believe in some form of gun control too.
Ask yourself this:
Should people be able to buy Tanks?
Rocket Launchers?
Machine Guns?

The point is everyone believes in some amount of gun control. Machine Guns were used in America early in the 20th Century as a gang weapon until we banned them. No one really disagrees with that move now, many years later. We don't miss them.

So Semi-Automatic Assault weapons.
This is the crux of what Obama wants to Reban. I say reban because technically these guns were banned from 1994 till 2004, though there were so many loopholes that it didn't ban much.

We could debate over whether or not they are automatic or assault guns or what that means but I don't think that's 100% relevant. They are military grade weapons being sold to the public at large.
No one uses them for hunting.
They're used for battle.

So the sensible majority of the country doesn't understand why any lawful citizen would have need for a weapon designed not for hunting, or sport, or self defense, but battle. "Surely we can agree as a society", the correct majority thinks, "that we don't need weapons designed for battle in the hands of anyone and everyone!"

But there is a fringe minority that thinks weapons for battle are exactly what they need. That defending against Tyranny is the duty of every American Citizen. If you think I'm making this up check out Alex Jones ranting on Piers Morgan. 

We need gun control because we need to come to our senses and talk through our problems rather than prepare to make war.
It's time we all take a chill pill.
And start preparing to make peace.  

Drones, huh, yeah, what are they good for?

Yesterday, Jan 7th, 2013, an American drone strike in Northern Pakistan killed at least 8 suspected militants and possibly an Al Qaeda operative, according to the Associated Press.
If you haven't heard about drones before, they are unmanned planes that fly amongst the clouds and drop precision bombs from the sky.
Basically metal birds with explosive diarrhea.

Are they the best or the worst way to fight terrorists?
You could argue that they are the best because no Americans are in harm's way, their strikes are more precise than all previous technology, and there is less collateral damage than in a ground war.
You could argue that they are the worst because there is almost total secrecy around them, we use them in countries with which we are not at war, and the collateral damage they cause breeds chaos and hostility.
Like Dickens said,
"It was the best of Drones, it was the worst of Drones."

But however you feel about Drones you should know that Obama uses them regularly.
Obama has used drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
Obama has killed an American born citizen with a drone strike.
Obama has carried out more drone strikes than George W. Bush.

I'm not saying that there are any easy answers with these issues.
I'm saying these are interesting and hard issues that we must grapple with.
Just like that old song says, we have to ask ourselves:
"Drones, huh, yeah, what are they good for?"