Just when you think things could not get any goofier, here comes the 116th Congress.
Supposedly it is the most "diverse" Congress in history if by diverse you mean more women and minorities. However, there's not a lot of diversity if you look at the out and out goofiness that was on display.
For example, Arizona Senator Krysten Sinema's swearing-in received a lot of attention. Here's a sample of some of the headlines from the internet. As the great Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up. I have added parenthetical comments.
AZ CENTRAL. COM: Krysten Sinema's dress draws attention at Senate swearing-in. (Sen. Sinema's dress was, let us say, different, and it certainly drew attention to her swearing-in.)
Huffington Post: Krysten Sinema's swearing-in look was a bold Queer statement. (It was a bold statement. It said: DO NOT TAKE ME SERIOUSLY.)
Boing Boing: Arizona's kick-ass new bisexual Senator took her oath on the U.S. Constitution administered by cringing, homophobic Dominionist Mike Pence (I'm not sure how many cups of coffee the writer had before writing this headline. I'm pretty sure, though, Mike Pence was not "cringing" since he had swore-in Richard Grenell as the Ambassador to Germany with Grenell's same-sex spouse holding the Bible. I know a majority of "Boing Boing" readers have no idea what a Dominionist* is.)
It is odd. I listen to Hugh Hewett every weekday morning. I read National Review. I watch Fox News. I never once heard anything about Sinema's sexuality. It seems to me that we here on the awful right would have at least casually mentioned it. Nope, never did.
However, as bold as Senator Sinema was, it was a distant second to Representative Rashida Tlaib's potty mouth.
In case you have been in a cave, Representative Tlaib said of President Trump, "We are going to impeach the (phrase that rhymes with Brother Trucker)".
So many things to unpack here, but let's give it a try.
I'm about 99% sure Trump will be "impeached" because, according to Yale Law School Graduate Gerald R. Ford, 38th President of The United States, an impeachable offense is anything The House says is an impeachable offense. For Trump, the impeachable offense is winning The White House.
There is a 0% chance Trump will be removed from office because the Senate would have to expel him and Republicans control the Senate. Absent of a tape where you hear Trump say, "You know, Vladimir, collude in the election and help me win" you will simply not get 60 Senators to remove Trump from office.
So, at best, impeaching Trump will be an empty political gesture. It does nothing to address infrastructure needs, reform entitlement programs, create economic opportunities, or a host of a hundred million problems that Congress should be looking at.
As far as the language is concerned, SMH as kids text nowadays. I'm not sure why the F-dash-dash-dash word has become acceptable in society. Maybe it is Cable TV. Maybe it is Popular music. It is difficult to find an F-dash-dash-dash word free zone.
To be fair, there have been some Democrats who have condemned Sliaib's sailor talk. However, Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi was her typical homer self when asked about it.
Aunt Nancy said, "You have to weigh the equities. That is not the position of the House Democratic Caucus. The equity to be weighed is: that’s freedom of speech of an individual member. As I said, generationally, that would not be the language I would use, but nonetheless, I don’t think we should make a big deal of it. I really don’t.
"That’s probably the way people talk. Again, I’m a grandmother. It’s a different story. Words weigh a ton, and the president has to realize that his words weigh a ton, too. Some of the words that he used [have] a direct impact on people’s lives. My colleagues’ comments do not have an impact on people’s lives".
What is so hard in saying it is vulgar language and has no place in our national discourse? We have spent the last three years clutching our pearls at Trump and his awful vocabulary and The Speaker of The House can't even send a bar of soap to a new member?
Finally, we had our latest national cutie-pie, Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez propose a 70 percent marginal tax rate to create a "Green New Deal" to fight "climate change", which GQ says is sensible.
My question: why only 70 percent? Why not 80 or 90 percent? Shoot, if "climate change" is such an issue, why not a 100 percent?
Yes it is true in the '50s and the '60s the marginal tax rates were up to 90 percent, but, and this is important, the SUPER RICH, did not pay 90 percent of their income in taxes back then. There were deductions and loopholes back then too. There's no reason to assume there would not be deductions and loopholes now. It would just make the Super Left feel good because it makes it look like they were doing something.
Plus, let's be transparent and honest. The only thing Democrats really love is taxes. At least it seems that way. They can't wait to get into office and raise taxes. Even here in Cobb County, we had two Democrats elected on to the county's school board. The first thing to come out of their mouths was to raise taxes and have a "conversation" about repealing the senior citizen school tax exemption.
Democrats had (note the word "had") a great opportunity to run towards the middle and create a sensible dialogue that all liberals claim they want. What this week proves is that they don't want to do this.
*Dominion theology is is a group of Christian ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on their personal understanding of the Bible.
AOC
No comments:
Post a Comment