Public urges several more days of impeachment debate from House lawmakers

Like one of those movies you wish would never end, the American public can’t get enough of U.S. House members’ remarks regarding articles of impeachment against President Trump.

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote Friday on articles of impeachment, setting up a vote by the full House next week.  However, some Americans wish lawmakers would spend an additional week or two endlessly preening and bloviating, in order to get a clearer picture of what’s at stake ahead of this crucial and historic vote.

“Oh, I’m glued to the tube,” said one New York City resident.  “Jerry Nadler is my man. He’s kind of like the Hitchcock of House committee chairmen.  He knows how to strike just the right balance of humor, suspense, and intrigue to keep viewers on the edge of their seat.” 

“It’s like C-SPAN on steroids,” said one Washington DC viewer.  “With so much riding on those votes for proposed amendments, it’s an emotional roller coaster for me, and I never want it to end.”  

Much of the day Thursday was spent in debate with lawmakers on both sides engaging in an engrossing volley of brief but insightful arguments for and against the proposed articles of impeachment.

“Wow!  That twelve hours flew by,” commented one observer from the gallery.  “What a captivating duel of penetrating and thoughtful analysis.”

Of course, every party has to have at least one stick-in-the-mud.  Rep. Tom McClintock of California was not enthralled by the proceedings, commenting,  “The same talking points have been repeated over and over again ad nauseam by both sides.  Repeating a fact over and over doesn’t make it true and denying a fact over and over doesn’t make it false – everybody knows this, everybody watching knows this.”   

Congressman Buzzkill continued, “This hearing’s been enough of an institutional embarrassment without putting it on an endless loop so if I could just offer a modest suggestion — if no one has anything new to add that they resist the temptation to inflict what we already heard over and over again.”  

Scientists create pig-monkey hybrid in lab, clearing way for race of mutant pig-men

“The government’s been experimenting with pigmen since the fifties,” warned Kramer on the hit nineties television show Seinfeld.  It turns out his paranoia was justified.  

Researchers in China recently announced the creation of full-term pig-monkey chimeras.  The creatures consist almost entirely of pig with a dash of monkey cells mixed in. The research aims to eventually grow human organs inside animals for transplant purposes, once a whole host of ethical issues are overcome.

Aside from the obvious ethical conundrum of raising pig-men for the express purpose of eventually harvesting their organs, a number of other considerations would have to be addressed.

One could imagine a race of pig-men objecting to America’s obsession with putting bacon on, in, or around almost everything we eat.  The Baconator, bacon wrapped shrimp and maple bacon cupcakes would all most-likely need to be reconfigured to either eliminate the bacon completely, or adopt an agreeable substitute.  

Of course, finding a satisfactory substitute for bacon would present an even greater technological challenge than engineering animals to grow human organs.  So an interesting paradox develops. If we eat the bacon, then we need to grow pig-men for the replacement of organs ravaged by bacon consumption. However, if we grow the pig-men, then we’ll probably stop eating bacon out of respect for our hybrid cousins, thus eliminating altogether the need for pig-men.  

Perhaps this brave new frontier of medical science would be better off left unexplored.  

Giuliani to drop bunker busting bombshell on impeachment hearings

Shadow diplomat Rudy Giuliani, fresh off a fact and fiction finding mission in Ukraine, is set to deliver his report to Attorney General William Barr.  Sources say the explosive material contained within the report has the potential to detonate the entire impeachment proceedings.  

Entitled “What I Found In Ukraine,” the report may contain potentially damaging information that could undermine the Democrat’s entire case against President Trump.  Providing a tantalizing glimpse of what may come of the Giuliani revelations, the President teased, “He has a lot of good information.  I have not spoken to him about that information yet.”

Unafraid of soiling himself, Giuliani is thought to have been in Ukraine all week digging up dirt on current presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.

“Well, Rudy came back from Ukraine looking awfully dirty and disheveled,” said Trump.  “I can only assume he found something. I mean, I wouldn’t even let him into the Oval Office he was so covered in filth.  Expect the report to be really dirty. Raunchy.”  

President Trump brushed aside questions regarding the many explosive allegations made by witnesses during recent impeachment hearings.  “Expect some bombshells in Rudy’s report,” the President added. “I know Barr’s team had to have a group of demolitions experts handle the report it was so explosive.  But Rudy, as you know, has been one of the great crime fighters of the last 50 years. If anybody can dig up explosive dirt, it’s Rudy.”

Haters heap apologies on AOC over Amazon deal

Americans by the thousands continued to express their most heartfelt regrets to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over past criticism of her role in scuttling Amazon’s HQ2 project in Queens.  

With last week’s news that Amazon would be bringing 1500 jobs to Manhattan, a triumphant AOC tweeted a photograph of herself Friday with the caption, “Me waiting on the haters to apologize after we were proven right on Amazon and saved the public billions.”

Almost immediately, Haters began begging for forgiveness and offering effusive praise to the Queens congresswoman.  “Sorry I ever doubted you, AOC,” tweeted one constituent. “25,000 Amazon jobs over ten years was a sucky deal for us, but 1500 in another congressional district – SWEET!” 

Haters from across the media landscape poured out their gratitude and attempted to get back into AOC’s good graces.  “All this time I’ve been praising Donald Trump for his exceptional deal making with North Korea and China,” wrote a contributor to The Daily Caller.  “Once again you’ve shown me the error of my ways, AOC. You are clearly as successful a deal maker as Trump, and your humility is rivaled only by our dear leader himself.” 

A contrite Jeff Bezos offered his apologies as he hovered in his helicopter above New York City looking for a place to land, “Well, I gotta say, that gal’s got a lot of spunk.  I’ve certainly met my match in AOC. Now would someone please build me a free private helipad so we could land this darn thing.”

Media ‘woke bots’ weigh in on Meghan Daum’s The Problem With Everything

The reaction to Meghan Daum’s new book The Problem With Everything has been entirely predictable.  So predictable, in fact, that most of the takes seem to have required no human effort, and could just as easily have been written by a media ‘woke bot’.  I’m not entirely sure that much of what passes for print journalism today isn’t written by some form of AI. Any one of Daum’s critics, exercising even the slightest bit of judgement or self-reflection, could have recognized that their reviews, far from dismissing Daum’s conclusions, actually come off in service of making her point. 

The ‘snark bot’ take appears under the byline Scott Indrisek writing for The Observer.  This guy has a serious obsession with Bret Easton Ellis and can’t string together a couple of sentences without bringing him into the conversation.  Anyway, amidst Indrisek’s many criticisms of The Problem With Everything, he does concede, “There should be room for uncomfortable conversations about whether the #MeToo movement has overstepped itself, or whether we need to tap the brakes on certain aspects of woke culture.”  This is not an uncommon sentiment among journalists and cultural critics. The problem arises when an individual or group decides to engage in these uncomfortable conversations in books, podcasts, or public discussions broadcast on YouTube.  People like Indrisek attack these writers and thinkers with charges of being racists and phobes. The ‘woke bots’ always talk about the need for uncomfortable conversations, but rarely care to engage in or with them.

On the “personal is political” front, Indrisek reacts to Daum’s admission that, “there’s no one I’d rather blame for my misfortunes than myself,” by snarking down with an asshole comment that Daum is “stumping for a keynote gig with Turning Point USA.”  How far out in the wilderness of leftist political ideology do you have to be to think that a concept like “personal responsibility” is the sole purview of right-wing political conventions? I hope the next time Scott Indrisek tries to hold anyone in his life personally accountable for anything, they tell him, “Get thee to a CPAC convention!”     

Another gem comes from Elisabeth Donnelly writing for Buzzfeed.  This writer is a long-time fan of Daum, but has found her recent flirtations with nuanced ideas and criticism of left-wing extremism troubling.  Of the “Free Speech YouTube” crowd, Donnelly says their “values of ‘reason’ …can easily be interpreted as hate speech….” To view Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, or Sam Harris as promoters of hate speech requires a monumental act of willful self-delusion so great that one would have to sequester oneself in an impenetrable fortress of political correctness, effectively shutting out 90% of the country’s ideas and opinions.  Of course, is there any doubt that the Buzzfeed newsroom leases space in such a fortress of wokeness?       

Getting to the heart of her problem with The Problem With Everything, Donnelly writes, “instead of documenting her life experiences, something at which she excels, Daum spends far more time arguing over simplified conservative and liberal talking points.”  But hold on a second, baby snark bot Scott Indrisek says, “The Problem With Everything is at its weakest when it gets personal….” Jesus, both Indrisek and Donnelly write so forcefully, with such conviction, and such an air of authority that I couldn’t help but think that they’re professional critics and probably know what they’re talking about.  Could it be that one or both are wrong? Not being able to agree on the problem with The Problem With Everything reminds me of religious leaders who can’t agree on the most fundamental tenets of their faith, but nonetheless exhibit not a shred of doubt and are one hundred percent convinced they are correct. 

The New Yorker’s Emily Witt weighs in to provide a confused and exasperating slice of context.  Self-identifying as a Gen Xer because Witt’s only eleven years younger than Daum (okay?), Witt sets about writing a parallel take to The Problem With Everything where the nineties weren’t all that less politically correct than today, and the nihilism of the 2000’s necessitated the woke course correction we’re currently experiencing.  “It was people unburdened by Daum’s ideas about “nuance” who took to the streets after police shootings, and named the men responsible for serial sexual assault and harrassment….It is telling that Daum ignores the positive benefits of these movements, or the real risks to safety and reputation taken by the people who initiated them….Didion and Daum may have preferred the status quo of their respective eras, but those who were inclined toward change were always going to be accused of overreach, of making a big deal out of nothing, of refusing to take responsibility for their own problems.”  What is telling are statements like this that make you wonder if the reviewer even bothered to read the book. How could a writer for The New Yorker so completely fail to grasp the explicit message contained in the book she’s reviewing? Daum is fully supportive of outing the worst offenders of #MeToo and bringing them to justice. At no time does she ignore the positive benefits of the movement. To make this claim is to willfully mischaracterize Daum’s writing. And by the way, accusations of overreach are not just being leveled by a bunch of defenders of the status quo, they’re being leveled by female Harvard Law professors and increasing numbers of supporters of #MeToo.

The problem with asking complicated questions or presenting nuanced ideas or opinions is that they inevitably get smacked down with snark, willfully misinterpreted and misrepresented, and unfairly taken apart.  The title of Emily Witt’s New Yorker piece is “Meghan Daum to Millennials: Get Off My Lawn.” Whether Witt came up with that title or not, it’s clearly how she and the rest of the wokescenti care to engage with Daum’s work.  To them, Daum’s just an old, cranky, out of touch Gen Xer who doesn’t recognize the egalitarian utopian dream as it shapes itself right before her eyes.

Can you blame the media woke bots for missing the point?  After all, what is an intelligence rooted in identity politics to think of this passage from Daum’s book.  “Labels tamp down contradictions. They leave no room for cognitive dissonance. They deny us our basic human right to be conflicted …If you’re not conflicted, you’re either lying or not very smart.”  No doubt, the previously mentioned, unconflicted authors view this statement as a personal attack on them. They are sooo not conflicted. In these times of moral certainty, they’ve never felt more sure about anything than their woke programming that allows them to group ideas and arguments into distinct binaries: those that reinforce their faith and those that fall outside its boundaries.

Nuance, doubt and uncertainty are qualities not easily attained by a media ‘woke bot.’  They are mostly incompatible with politically correct ideology. Scott Indrisek writes that in The Problem With Everything Meghan Daum is “exposing her blind spots to the current issues that color our experience: race, gender, capitalism, the internet, and power.”  Because these are the issues that preoccupy most Americans, right? Perhaps these issues color the experience of media ‘woke bots’ and their devoted followers, but most Americans could give a shit about the left’s obsession with playing intersectional gymnastics.  Polling shows that nearly 80% of Americans, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity or race, think that political correctness goes too far. Is it any wonder that public confidence in the media is waning, and woke media outlets are struggling?             

Daum writes, “I’m convinced the culture is effectively being held hostage by its own hyperbole.  So enthralled with our outrage at the extremes, we’ve forgotten that most of the world exists in the mostly unobjectionable middle.  So seduced by the half-truths propagated by our own side, we have no interest in the half-truths roaming in distant pastures. So weary from trying to manage cognitive dissonance kicked up by our own gospel, we forgot to have empathy for the confusion of those grappling with their own doctrines.  We forget that in the end to be human is to be confused.” A statement like this could potentially get Daum in trouble on Twitter – a place where no one at either extreme is ever wrong about anything, and in the rare instance someone is shown to be incorrect, the offender simply deletes their Tweet, thus maintaining a spotless record of habitual truthfulness. 

“In the ensuing year, the feeling of irrelevance became a near constant companion.  It clouded my vision like the membrane on the eye of a lizard, shielding me from what I couldn’t comprehend, sparing me the mortification of my own cluelessness.  It had me both staring at myself in mirrors and avoiding mirrors. It had me lying awake at night contemplating the end of the world, or maybe just the end of my world.”  Throughout the book, Daum is her own harshest critic. She anticipates the criticism each line, each thought could potentially receive, which is why nothing the previously mentioned critics have written comes off as at all original.  The ‘woke bot’ algorithm is easily adopted by Daum, rendering their predictable responses a part of the larger point of The Problem With Everything.                     

Having put forth that nuanced thought is a debilitating burden that tethers one to the status quo, that reasoned argument is often just a euphemism for hate speech, and that personal responsibility is a value reserved for right-wingers, it isn’t hard to see why these critics completely miss the point of this work.  Incapable of any sort of self-reflection, for them the problem with everything is entirely focused outward on the nonbelievers, the unwoke. How dare someone lay the problem with anything at their feet.  

“Oh the irrelevance, the obsolescence, the creak of aging out before you even get old.”  There is a lot of great writing in this book, and a lot of thoughtful and illuminating introspection that all of us who are a part of the problem with everything should take a moment to consider.  Being a couple years older than Daum, I can appreciate the sentiment of aging out before you get old. However, I intend to fully embrace my obsolescence. I can think of nothing more liberating than being completely irrelevant, brimming with contradictions, conflicted and unsure.  Gen X lived mostly in the shadow of the Baby Boomers, perhaps enjoying a brief bit of relevance in the nineties and 2000s. Now the Millenials, a generation as formidable and narcissistic as their Boomer parents, have taken the reigns with a clear plan for establishing peace and equality, prosperity and sustainability for all on earth.  Not unlike the utopian dreams that drove their parent’s generation back to the earth and into communal living, this generation will probably save the world with political activism and tech. Maybe I’ll live long enough to enjoy it.

Lincoln losing ground to Trump in latest poll

Officials are scrambling today to repair the damage from a recent poll that shows America’s sixteenth president Abraham Lincoln lagging six points behind current president Donald Trump.  Asking, “Which Republican president was better?” results of the November 24-26 poll surveying 1500 Republicans show Trump with a 53 to 47 advantage over Lincoln. 

The news comes as a shock to Lincoln supporters who for years have seen his status as America’s greatest president go relatively unchallenged.  Officials are meeting this morning to formulate a response to the latest Trump surge, and to strategize ways to combat Lincoln’s lagging popularity. 

Some experts cite Lincoln’s lack of a presence on social media as a factor contributing to his declining approval.  “If Honest Abe doesn’t take steps to challenge Trump’s social media dominance, he’s just going to continue to see his numbers fall,” says Republican strategist Rebecca Goodwin.  “So much of history and politics is shaped by Facebook and Twitter these days that, left unchallenged, Trump can co-opt Lincoln’s legacy before Abe can tweet ‘four score and seven years ago.’”

Lincoln spokesperson Mark Sanchez thinks the time is right for a complete make-over of the Lincoln image.  “Let’s face it, in the age of Trump, honesty, hard work and humble origins can’t compete with a self-promoting, reality television sensation who shits on a golden toilet.  Today’s Republican voter isn’t going to get behind someone who crapped in an outhouse. Plus, Trump’s First Lady is a former model. Mary Todd, on the other hand, let’s just say among Republican voters Melania has a fairly comfortable lead in the fashion and glamor department.”         

Experts warn there are additional reasons Lincoln supporters should be concerned.  “How many more polls like this one until Republicans demand they take a chisel to Mount Rushmore or the Lincoln Memorial and remake those monuments in Trump’s image?” asks presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.  “Additionally, after a Trump presidency, Republican congressional leaders will surely claim Trump’s exploits far exceed those of Lincoln and call for a renaming of the Lincoln Bedroom.”

Billions come forward alleging non-consensual relationship with McDonald’s

In what’s being described as a McMe Too moment, billions of diners have come forward detailing years of gastro-intestinal abuse at the hands of fast-food giant McDonald’s. 

News of the removal of McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook over an alleged consensual relationship with an employee has prompted a flood of complaints against the fast-food company.  Most detail an ongoing pattern of dietary abuse by McDonald’s Corporation and its subsidiaries toward unsuspecting patrons. 

“We would usually meet up in the mornings before work,” described one victim who wishes to keep their identity private.  “I tried to break it off several times but they keep luring you back.”

Most of the complaints describe a persistent and systematic pattern of harassment where the individual is targeted in their home through the television or over the internet.  “They don’t take no for an answer. They even get you in your car. I see one of those billboards, and the next thing I know, I’m in the drive-thru lane ordering a McRib,” said one man.  

Scientific studies seem to lend credence to consumer complaints.  One study found that just the sight of the iconic golden arches caused low-level activation of salivary glands in 72 percent of subjects tested.  Traffic studies have shown that 23 percent of motorists passing a McDonald’s will turn in and patronize the establishment.

Stories of extreme gastro-intestinal distress are not uncommon.  “I spend about half an hour in the bathroom everyday after lunch,” offered one man without prompting.  

“The introduction of a Big Mac into the digestive tract appears to cause alarming levels of instability,” offered nutrition expert Dr. Sheila Birdsong.  “Let’s not mince words here, the results can be literally explosive. The GI tract’s response to the presence of a Big Mac is to expel it as soon as humanly possible.  This can result in a number of undesired outcomes that can range from dehydration to public humiliation to lost time at work.”      

Employer’s estimate they lose hundreds of billions of dollars due to lost productivity caused by frequent employee bathroom breaks, and many are pointing at McDonald’s as the source of the problem.  Some have even threatened legal action to end McDonald’s predatory practices.