This and That for Thursday
Good news for me. I visited my doctor and he gave me a clean bill of health. All systems go.
Care to guess what happened to protesters when a they protested Congressman Paul Ryan's speech about his proposed budget at Georgetown. The protesters didn't show up. You can't have much of a protest without protesters. There were more media types than protesters.
Despite a TV truck showing up, there were a grand total of 11 people standing outside, holding a sign: “WERE YOU THERE WHEN THEY CRUCIFIED THE POOR?”
We hope Ryan isn't offended by such a poor turnout of opponents. A good time was had by all.
The Supreme Court conceivably could reach a split decision on the Arizona immigration law. Justice Antonin Scalia got to the heart of the matter when he asked, “What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?”
That question by Scalia goes to the heart of the Supreme Court’s current blockbuster immigration case, Arizona v. United States. The end result will likely be a split decision that will disappoint some and be spun as a victory by others.
This could be a close call either way. Arizona is the victim of an ever growing population of illegals.
Environmentalists have persuaded the Department of the Interior to remove four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. These dams not only provide clean, green energy to the Klamath community, they sustain area ranches and farms with continual access to water. An environmentalist’s dream, right?
It seems that once upon a time, salmon would migrate upstream the Klamath River to spawn, a process that has become interrupted by the dams. For several decades, ranching and farming families have relied upon the steady stream of not only water, but also renewable energy provided by the dams. Destroying the dams would destroy these people’s livelihoods.
Somehow we suspect bot a tear was shed at Interior. Fish before people? Yup!
The president is making excuses about his agents, but the over sexed Secret Service agents in question don’t need Obama’s help in their defense. They’ve got a new one all lined up: they didn’t have sex with the prostitutes because they were too drunk to do so. As the Washington Post reports, “The people familiar with the accused employees said some of them have said there was no sexual activity because the men were so drunk that they fell asleep immediately after bringing the women to their rooms.”
This may be the first time in recorded history that the “too drunk to have sex” defense has actually been used.
We thought Bill Clinton had the last word in oomgalagala excuses with his, "I didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky", assertion.
I wonder if any of the wives of these men will buy into the I was too drunk canard.
C ya tomorrow.