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.