Don't Tell Me Colbert Testified Before Congress?

(I asked you not to tell me that!)

It would make a great stunt for The Colbert Report. In fact, I bet Colbert wishes he'd thought of it. But that's the problem, he didn't think of it, California Democrat Zoe Lofgren did. Which means that we, the people, governed by we, the people, are in deep doo-doo.

Don't get me wrong, I think Colbert is a funny guy and his opinions are just as valid as the next American's. But inviting a horse and pony show to a function that is already seriously lacking in credibilty will do far more harm than good in terms of restoring public respect, nevermind that no real information was exchanged in the event.

Nancy Pelosi was asked if she thought having a comedian testify 'in character' regarding something about which he knew nothing was appropriate, she said, "Of course I think it's appropriate. He's an American, right? He came before the committee. He has a point of view. He can bring attention to an important issue like immigration. I think it's great." Pelosi hadn't yet even seen or heard his testimony. Check it out here. But that's par for the course for Pelosi, commenting on and forming opinions about things she knows nothing. Guess she and Colbert have something in common. 

Seriously, what a sad day for the American people. What a sad day for immigrant migrant workers whose plight can be one of life and death. A comedian was asked to come and speak on their behalf, who promptly made fun of everything and everyone. I guess, in an ironic sort of way, it was appropriate. Kind of like that proverbial snake that bites you after you've befriended it.

Well, What'd You Expect?

(Here's to next year!)

Well, Angel fans, we are two games away from elimination. With a firm hold on third place in the division, I imagine the collective fandome (and Angel players as well) are scratching their heads wondering what happened. There are plenty of other blog posts dissecting this year's losing season, so I'm not going to go into any fine detail here, but when a franchise lets loose those components which were its identity, you kinda have to say "what'd you expect?".

Plenty of sports nuts will tell you that letting Figgins go to Seattle proved to be the right move, and that, in the end, letting Guerrero go to the Rangers will prove to be the right move, and letting Lackey go to the Red Sox most definitely proved to be the right move, but, without a doubt, those three guys were what summed up everything that was the Angels.

Chone Figgins, that small, speedy ball of energy, able to get on base by any means, and then steal any base yet in front of him was a great lead-off hitter for the Angels. Scrappy is the word that comes to mind, and hard-working. After sliding into second for yet another stolen base he'd come up grinning from ear to ear.

Vladimir Guerrero, that slow, lumbering, lovable giant that never saw a pitch he didn't like was a man whose shoulders were more than broad enough to carry a team to wherever they wanted to go. Is he playing baseball or is he golfing? His ability to hit any pitch that got anywhere near the plate combined with his cannon-of-an-arm in right field made him a powerhouse.

And finally, John Lackey (cue up the music "Big Bad John"). John's attitude always seemed to be that the more difficult the situation, the more he wanted the ball. His 'take no prisoners' attitude was inspiring, as was his quickness to protect his team-mates, especially if it meant a benches-clearing brawl. Lackey was the man you trusted on the mound.

On paper, the Angels are a better team without them. On paper, their replacements have out-performed them. But baseball is much more than lists of statistics on paper. Sabermetric nerds can roll their eyes at this next statement, but, you can't rip out the heart and soul out of a team and still expect to get a pulse.

But, hey, what'd you expect? Next year, however, now that will be different!

Play Ball!

It's funny how everything in life seems to separate itself into groups. There are the obvious ones: men and women; adults and children; cats and dogs. But then there are the not so obvious ones. I have a co-worker who pointed out that moms are like democrats and dads are like republicans. Moms keep giving you second chances, and they tend to see their babies as victims rather than as guilty. Dads, on the other hand, tend to implement a more 'tough love' attitude. They tend to want to cut the apron strings as soon as possible, and drop you into the deep end of the pool because life is tough, and the sooner you find that out the better. I get that. The analogy, and the separation, works for me.

There was one unexpected separation that I never would have guessed, however, that occurred in Congress this past month. On February 14th, Roger Clemens and his one-time trainer Brian McNamee testified before a congressional committee. Tough questions were asked of both men. Rep. Cummings started off by repeatedly reminding Clemens that he was under oath, and to speak up loudly, nearly to the point of badgering the man. Rep. Waxman, during his long questioning, kept the pressure on Clemens. At one point, one of Clemens' lawyers tried to interject several times, but Waxman effectively cut him off each time. But McNamee got a grilling as good as Clemens did. Rep. Burton called McNamee a liar, and told him that his lying was "disgusting". Wow. Congressmen standing up for morals and ethics.

But wait. As I read over the testimonies given, and the questions asked, I noticed a strange pattern, a separation of people. Democrats tended to rake Clemens over the coals, while Republicans tore McNamee a new one. Hmmm. Henry Waxman, democrat from California: Clemens 0; McNamee 1. Elijah Cummings, democrat form Maryland: Clemens 0; McNamee 2. Dan Burton, republican from Indiana: Clemens 1; McNamee 2. And then there was Mark Souder, republican from Indiana, who stated that "it's better not to talk about the past" when Mark McGwire's hearing was brought up: Clemens 2; McNamee 2.

So, everything naturally falls into groups: hot drinks and cold drinks; meat and vegetables; hamburgers and hot dogs, congressmen and baseball players. Who knew?

Whose Law Is It, Anyway?

The other day my husband told me that he'd heard that the Archbishop of the Church of England had suggested that Britain adopt Shari'a law. What, the uninitiated, the uninformed, and the indifferent may ask, is Shari'a law? Shari'a law is law that governs the behaviour of strict adherents to the Islamic faith. At first I thought my husband was joking. I could understand if a prominent member of the Islamic faith, some scholarly imam should make this suggestion, especially if that imam is suggesting it be put into effect within an Islamic nation, such as Iraq. But the person making this suggestion is the leader of the Church of England, a prominent Christian church. And the country is Great Britain, land of the Magna Carta.

Can you imagine, if you are a woman, having to put on a burkha (a head, face and body veil) when you step off the plane upon your arrival at Heathrow airport? And what if, for the married British woman, your husband believes you are being 'rebellious', or otherwise contrary to him? Well, if speaking to you about your behaviour, and letting you sleep alone to think about your attitude do not rectify the problem, he is permitted to smack you around a bit. If you are found guilty of stealing, you may spend some time in jail, or you may end up having your hand or some other suitable body part amputated. That should make you think twice next time. And if you are a Muslim that has had a change of heart and decided to convert to some other religion, well, that's considered an apostasy, which is equivalent to treason, which is punishable by death.

This may all be well and good for the 1.6 million Muslims living in Britain (census as of 2001), but what about the other 97% of the population? Perhaps the British Hindus would like to implement their special laws. And what about the British Buddhists? Or, for those very few British Catholics that still reside in the realm of Shakespeare, perhaps the Pope should dictate the law of the land. Where does it all end? No. I think that British law, which has been on the cutting edge of justice since the 13th century, has sufficed quite nicely. I think that the Archbishop is suffering from a severe bout of political correctness, probably contracted from having his lips too close to some prominent imam's ass.

Neophyte

Believe it or not, this blog was created by accident. I liken myself to Alice Through The Looking Glass, in that I have been a purveyor of blogs, but have never meant to create my own. While reading an incredibly interesting blogger titled Religious Policeman, I ended up stroking just the right keys that put me on this page, setting up my own blog. Wow. What are the odds of that? Now I have fallen through the looking glass, and I do believe it is the second strangest place I've ever been! To that odd reader that should stumble across my musings, please feel free to posts comments with helpful advice- I can use all the help I can get!