Planet Moron

Sandra Fluke Translator

As anyone who has ever studied a foreign language can tell you, even if you have a full grasp of the vocabulary, it can still be difficult to understand what someone is trying to tell you if you don’t fully understand the cultural or social context of their statements.

Such is the problem some people have with understanding Sandra Fluke, an innocent doe-eyed youngster barely 30 years out of diapers who came to fame when testifying at a make-believe congressional hearing (it’s fun to play pretend!) at which she pointed out her friends at Georgetown Law were going broke having sex.

And people say Congress doesn’t have the courage to take on tough issues like deficit spending, entitlement reform, and promiscuous co-eds.  

It might have remained a purely personal matter involving only private citizen Fluke, powerful Democratic members of Congress, and the invited national media, had a certain conservative talk show host not gotten involved.

Shortly after her imaginary congressional hearing, Rush Limbaugh (who’s job it is to say outlandish things) said some outlandish things in the course of pointing out that Georgetown Law students, perhaps one of the more privileged of any subgroups in American society, could maybe pay for their own contraception.

Sandra Fluke, was so hurt and shocked from all the unwanted attention that she did what any purely private citizen would do involuntarily thrust into the limelight:

Hire a publicist with close connections to the White House and appear on eight national news programs.

It’s all part of the healing process.

Which brings us to Ms. Fluke’s CNN opinion piece which reprises much of what she has said earlier and is a perfect vehicle for our:

Sandra Fluke Translator

Fluke: “Access to contraception.”
Translation: When someone else pays for your contraception.

Fluke: “Guaranteeing women access to contraception.”
Translation: Guaranteeing that someone else will pay for women’s contraception.

Fluke: “Restricting access.”
Translation: Having to pay for contraception yourself.

Fluke: “Silencing women's voices.”
Translation: Criticizing Sandra Fluke.

Fluke: “Raising this issue in our public consciousness.”
Translation: Agreeing with Sandra Fluke.

Fluke: “Unfair obstacles to participating in public life.”
Translation: Having children.

Fluke: “Attacking women who use contraception by calling them prostitutes.”
Translation: Attacking women who want someone else to pay for their contraception so they can have sex by calling them prostitutes.

Fluke: “The regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families -- not taxpayers.”
Translation: Taxpayers will not pay for Ms. Fluke’s free contraception unless they happen to be workers, students or their families. 

Fluke: "99% of sexually experienced American women have used [contraception].
Translation: We'll never get that number higher if we don't start making it free.

We hope that clears up a few things for you.

And just remember, as Ms. Fluke painstakingly argues, free contraception is a right and absolutely essential to the health of an individual and remains broadly popular and supported.

Just like sex change operations.

J.

Note: Random blogging of broadly inferior quality continues as day-job demands continue unabated.

Out: Dunkin’ Donuts. In: Breathin’ Beignets?

It’s good to know that despite how busy the federal government must be legally assassinating American citizens, it still has the time and money to tackle other grave threats to our safety:

Such as novelty caffeine dispensers.

Specifically, “AeroShots,” described as “breathable energy,” and which consist of powdered caffeine and a B vitamin complex you shoot into your mouth in a spray-like cloud and swallow.

The problem? 

First, AeroShots contains caffeine.

Second, it is perfectly legal to sell products containing caffeine.

Those are two warning signs right there.

As a result, maker, Breathable Foods, Inc., this week received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlining a number of problems it saw with AeroShots beginning with the first two obvious ones:

1) You breathe it in.

Consumers may attempt to inhale your product, causing it to enter the lungs. FDA is concerned about the safety of any such use because caffeine is not typically inhaled through the lungs, and the safety of such use has not been well studied.

2) You don’t breathe it in.

Despite these suggestions that your product is intended for inhalation, you indicate in other statements that the product is intended for ingestion. 

In order to satisfy the FDA Breathable Foods apparently needs to come up with an AeroShot that you both do and do not breathe in. 

But that is where it gets really confusing for the FDA.

Your labeling is false and misleading because your product cannot be intended for both inhalation and ingestion.

For the record, marijuana can be intended for both inhalation and ingestion IYKWIMAITYD. 

Regardless, the FDA goes into excruciating detail in support of its contention that AeroShots cannot be both inhaled and ingested:

The functioning of the epiglottis in the throat keeps the processes of inhalation and ingestion mutually exclusive. The epiglottis is a cartilaginous structure that prevents choking or coughing during ingestion. The act of ingestion enables the tongue to push down on the larynx, which in turn elevates the hyoid bone, drawing the larynx upwards. This latter action forces the epiglottis to fold back, covering the entrance to the larynx and the airways, preventing food, drink and particulates from entering the airways and respiratory tract. When a person inhales, however, the epiglottis maintains its upright position, enabling air and particulate matter to enter the airways and ultimately the lungs.

If you are like most Planet Moron readers, you started giggling uncontrollably when you got to the word, “epiglottis.” You are also probably thinking that the FDA is taking much too seriously what is obviously little more than marketing puffery.  (We can’t help but believe that AXE body spray is very popular among FDA bureaucrats.)

The FDA concludes it’s anatomical lesson with this stern warning;

 A product intended for inhalation is not a dietary supplement.

Although the makers say you really just spray it in your mouth and swallow it making it a dietary supplement but if you breath it in, it isn’t a dietary supplement but they say you don’t breath it in which means it is a dietary supplement…

If the FDA were an alien computer from the original Star Trek series, right now smoke would be coming out of its ears.

But that isn’t the only problem the FDA has with AeroShots. There are other serious issues as well: 

We also note that the Supplement Facts panel on the label of your AeroShot product does not comply with 21 CFR 101.36(e)(6) in that the dietary ingredients declared under 21 CFR 101.36(b)(2)(i) (ending with vitamin B12) are not separated from the dietary ingredients described in 21 CFR 101.36(b)(3) (starting with caffeine) by a heavy bar.

 You forgot the heavy bar under 21 CFR 101.36(e)(6) separating dietary ingredients? What, are you trying to get caught?

 And just to clarify, yes, you are paying these people’s salaries.

 The FDA also takes issue with the fact that AeroShots posts links to stories that “…express health concerns about taking AeroShot while drinking alcohol,” which is clearly an outrageous and…

Wait, that can’t be right. Oh yeah, the fact that the stories even mention the possibility of combining AeroShots with alcohol, even while suggesting the hazards of doing so, “publicizes such use.”  As the FDA points out:

Any such publicity may have the effect of encouraging the combination of your product with alcohol---a scenario that raises safety concerns, as peer-reviewed studies show that ingesting these two substances together is associated with risky behaviors, such as riding with a driver who is under the influence of alcohol, which can lead to hazardous and life-threatening situations.

Hey, it could happen.

And of course, the FDA is also very concerned about… the children.

As they point out, when the company says that AeroShots might be useful when “[h]itting the books” and “study[ing] in the library” it is clear that they are marketing to kids.

Leaving aside the fact that students no longer use books or libraries but instead cut and paste Wikipedia entries, the fact that FDA bureaucrats don’t even remember college suggests they did A LOT of bong hits.

But never with caffeine. That would be crazy.

Although you have to admit, an AeroShot would make a nice chaser after a babyccino.

Naturally, Senator Chuck Schumer, a tireless crusader against anything that might make his constituents alert enough to realize they’ve repeatedly reelected Senator Chuck Schumer, came out against AeroShots, calling it the “the new Four Loko.”

“Wait,” you are probably saying to yourself, “Chuck Schumer is still a Senator? Wasn't he removed from office after an investigation revealed that he was Chuck Schumer?”

Also, “But AeroShot doesn’t even have any alcohol.”

That’s true, which is why the Senator feels it is so important that the FDA:

“…focus on testing the inhalable caffeine’s effects on teens, and when it is mixed with alcohol.”

While they’re at it, they should focus on it’s effects when mixed with meth, heroin, sarin gas, and plutonium.

Hey, these AeroShots are even more hazardous than we thought!

The real tragedy in all this?  It’s probably too late to combine AeroShots with the AWOL machine (if only to watch Chuck Schumer’s head explode in a paroxysm of outrageously outraged outrage).

Naturally, as responsible citizens concerned about the well being of our nation and having no prior interest whatsoever in purchasing caffeine delivery systems outside of a powerful cup of coffee, we here at Planet Moron did what any law-abiding American would do upon reading the FDA’s letter.

We ordered ourselves a twelve pack.

We’ll let you know how it goes.

Assuming we live.

J.

NOTE: Annoying day-job-induced sporadic blogging continues for now, just hopefully less so.

Don’t Think of it as Assassination, Think of it as Preemptive Capital Punishment

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today laid out the legal justifications that permit the President of the United States to order the assassinations of American citizens.

Now, before you civil libertarian extremist types start ranting and raving about due process, the rule of law, and the imperial presidency, it’s not like the President can just order the assassinations of American citizens on his own.

He sometimes tells Harry Reid and John Boehner first.

Then he orders the assassinations.

That’s kind of like due process, only without the due.

And most of the process.

It should be noted here that Obama’s assassination of American citizens is in direct contrast to the war monger and international criminal terrorist George W. Bush, who unlike Obama was from Texas and wore hats sometimes.

As the Attorney General explained, the President is permitted under the Constitution to order the assassination of American citizens only under very special circumstances:

“First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

That review to be undertaken by the President, with the final determination made by the President unless, of course, the President disagrees.  (Those are called “checks and balances,” for you civics class students.)

“Second, capture is not feasible.”

This is particularly important in that by not capturing the individual and instead killing him on sight, we eliminate any possibility that he might be tortured.  There is simply no excuse for that.

“Third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”

As Holder is careful to point out:

“This does not mean that we can use military force whenever or wherever we want. International legal principles, including respect for another nation’s sovereignty, constrain our ability to act unilaterally. But the use of force in foreign territory would be consistent with these international legal principles if conducted, for example, with the consent of the nation involved.”

See, The President can only assassinate American citizens if we follow international legal principles respecting another nation’s sovereign territory.

“– or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States.”

Unless we don’t.

So, to sum up Attorney General Holder's arguments:

• The Constitution permits the President to assassinate American citizens.
• And so does international law.

Looks like he covered all the bases.

Mr. Holder did not stay to answer questions following his speech which is probably just as well as he had just patiently explained to his audience that he can kill them.

We don’t know about you, but we feel safer just knowing that the President can order the assassination of American citizens on his own authority whenever he likes.

Hey, as long as it preserves American principles, we’re for it!

J.

NOTE: Day-job-induced sporadic blogging continues for now, just hopefully less so.

Semi-Hiatus Update, January 2012

First, I want to dispel the ugly rumor that I shirked my blogging duties by going on a week-long bender in Key West. That is a vicious lie spread by my opponents.

It was only three days.

That said, real life obligations (specifically, the real-life obligation that helps to keep food on the table at Casa Moron) continues to rudely intrude on my free time.  Under normal circumstances I would simply shut down for a few months and save you the trouble of checking back here periodically, however it's an election year so I plan to continue blogging, it will just be on an extremely sporadic schedule.  With any luck, I will be back up to my normal schedule by spring, just in time for the real mudslinging to start.

J.

When You Think About it, Santa Claus is Part of The 1%...

During the holiday season your thoughts naturally turn to the true meaning of Christmas. Sure, we decorate our houses, exchange gifts, and prepare lavish meals, but at some point we reflect on the true reason we celebrate this time of year:

The birth of our lord and president, Barack Obama.

And hence he has sent forth upon this earth his disciples to spread the word:

Sure, you’ll come upon some resistance from those family members who hold different political positions, so you’ll want to be respectful, to demonstrate that you value their beliefs, understanding that they are born of a lifetime of thoughtful reflection and deliberation, just like the guy in the video who said:

“My dad’s a character, he’s stubborn and stuck in his ways.”

It kind of brings a tear to your eye.

But don’t forget, if your dad disagrees that the federal government should have ever greater control over our lives, he’s just being a “character,” and “stubborn and stuck in his ways,” what with his beliefs in individual responsibility and personal liberty.

Wacky old man!

Speaking of which, it’s best to focus on the old ones first. It’s cold out this time of year, and they really have nowhere else to go. 

And it’s so easy to gently work your political viewpoints into normal conversation in subtle, subliminal ways. For example:

You: Aunt Sarah, you’ve done a wonderful job with the decorations this year.
Aunt Sarah: Why thank you, I thought I would…
You: Did you know that the stimulus package worked and we can create jobs by taxing the rich more?
Aunt Sarah: I’m sorry, what dear?
You: And the punch is delicious!

So remember, why let an opportunity to badger unsuspecting relatives who only want to spend special time with loved ones pass by?  You have a responsibility to spread the word!

Hark The Obama supporters sing,
Glory to the newborn king.
He’ll put gas in your car.
8% jobless is the bar,
Oceans’ rise are clearly slowing,
Deficits are really growing,
Let us rise up and proclaim,
We can lay on Bush the blame,
Hark, the Obama supporters sing,
Let’s soak the rich, yes, ka-ching!

And for you Republicans out there who feel left out, don’t worry, you can cravenly politicize the season too!  Just decorate your presents with these handy Mitt Romney for President tags!

Merry Christmas and season’s greetings to all of you out there in Planet Moron land!

J.

And in Local News…

Arlington County board member Chris Zimmerman is hopping mad at Republicans in the Virginia state legislature labeling them, “extremists,” whose goal is to “wreck government.”

What got Mr. Zimmerman so upset?

They won’t allow him to tax more things.

In Virginia, localities are only allowed the powers granted to them by the state. In the case of Arlington, the county is only allowed to tax people’s houses. And cars. And boats and trailers and motorcycles. And hotel rooms, meals, drinks, and cigarettes.

And their dogs.

And if you’re a business they can tax furniture and fixtures. And machinery and tools. And computers, and software. And that’s on top of your business license.

But other than that, it’s like a dry well.  What are they supposed to do?

Okay, they could just raise existing taxes, but you know the problem with that? People notice it. It would be much better if taxes could be targeted to small, politically weak or unsympathetic groups.  (That’s what we call, “democracy!”)

Zimmerman points out that he needs to tax more things because the state keeps passing down unfunded mandates, requiring localities to come up with the money to pay for them.  Without additional revenue, that means Arlington County might be forced to cut back on essential services.

Like the “Artisphere,” an “Arts Space for Everyone,” that was “to be free from the constraints of a singular vision, performance type or audience.”

What do you get when your business plan consists of little more than, “Hey, what the hell, let’s see what happens?”

“However, the unintended consequence of the individual interpretations that arose from such branding has been confusion over what exactly Artisphere is supposed to be, and for whom.”

The other unintended consequence has been a projected operating deficit for 2012 of about four times the original estimate. Made last year.

If you pull that money out of the Artisphere, and use it to fund state mandates rather than increasing taxes, what are the unidentified performers supposed to do? And what about the audience yet to be specifically targeted?  Where are they supposed to go if they want to enjoy an artistic performance of some undetermined type?  What will you tell them? Whoever they are?

Fortunately, federal dollars are still flowing as Arlington just accepted a million dollar grant for automated license plate readers that will allow the county to easily monitor the movements of tens of thousands of Arlington citizens none of whom are suspected of any wrongdoing.

Thank you, federal government, thank you for caring enough to provide us the money to put in place this important program.

Otherwise we might have had to cut back on funding programs pestering people to stop driving their cars.

J.

Okay, So Who Would Man the Butterball Help Line Then?

You know who doesn’t want you working on Thanksgiving Day?

God.

This, according to Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a professor of theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary, which is how she knows (he probably dropped by during her office hours).

“Let us be clear. Squeezing profits out of the American worker in this way not only violates standards of basic human dignity, from a faith perspective it also is an affront to the God who created people in God’s image.”

Here at Planet Moron, we were raised as good Christians, and yet don’t remember working on Thanksgiving to be considered an affront to God.  Working on Christmas, maybe. Easter?  Sure.  Bingo night?  What, are you kidding?!  But we don’t ever remember God setting aside Thanksgiving as a day of rest.

But that’s not important.  What is important is that Ms. Thistlethwaite really hates the fact that people work hard to buy things:

“Our economy has become a treadmill for both workers and consumers alike, locked in an awful race of overwork and consumption... Consumers, with their salaries flat or even cut in recent years, think they need the sales in order to afford gifts for the holidays. Workers are locked on to this same treadmill, having to service the consumption in order for the machinery of the economy to ‘improve.’”

And by “improve,” she means, “improve.”

“This system is profoundly immoral.”

Really, is there anything more immoral than free individuals engaging in the trade of goods, services, and labor absent the coercive intervention of the state and in so doing exercising the free will with which they had been endowed by their creator? Surely it comes in somewhere in between coveting your neighbor’s wife and double-parking.

“First, the basic premise is false. These retailers don’t need to encroach on Thanksgiving in order to survive. Corporations are making huge profits, and they are increasingly doing so on the backs of American workers.”

This would probably be a good time to point out that this article appeared in the Washington Post’s “On Faith” section, dedicated to “A conversation on religion and politics.”

“Second, the human toll of this increased ‘productivity’ is ‘heartbreaking and harrowing,’…”

And by “productivity,” she means, “productivity.”

“…as shown by personal stories of overworked Americans. The stories are crucial to understanding the human cost of our skewed economic values.”

Those skewed economic values being the product of the free will of the population as expressed in their desire for iPhones.

“Thanksgiving is about family and friends rejoicing together, relaxing after all the hard work of the year.”

You are going to enjoy yourselves dammit!  Now get your ass rejoicing or there’ll be hell to pay. Literally.

“How much is the American worker supposed to put up with? These stores are invading one of the few holidays many workers get anymore.”

As I look back, there is not a holiday I haven’t worked on at one time or another.  I do have to admit that I did not work on my wedding day, however I did work on my first anniversary, 2000 miles from my wife, holed up in a windowless conference room.

God must have been really ticked off at me.  More than my wife, even.

By the way, while Ms. Thistlethwaite has God on the line, yes, he supports higher taxes on the rich, and yes, he was behind the passage of Ohio “Issue 2” which rolled back Senate Bill 5’s restrictions on collective bargaining of public employee unions.

We really didn’t think of God as much of a detail guy, but there you go.

In fact, according to Ms. Thistlethwaite, collective bargaining is a “moral imperative.”

You see, but for Ms. Thistlethwaite, we would not have thought that colluding with others in a price-fixing scheme in order to extort monopolistic pricing for labor that would be illegal but for specific exemptions in anti-trust laws was a “moral imperative.” 

Ms. Thistlethwaite also notes that God wants you to have broadband.

And that He approves of economic stimulus plans and is against the Bush tax cuts.

And really hates cutting government-run social services.

While Ms. Thistlethwaite has spent years pointing out God’s public policy positions, she is careful to note just how important it is that we all guard against:

“…extremists who use religion as a wedge issue for political gain.”

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

J.

It’s Not That David Brooks is Angry, He’s Just… Disappointed.

Do you think you know what led so many Penn State administrators to turn a blind eye to child rape?  An insular power structure, perhaps? A single-minded focus on protecting the organization no matter what the cost? An over-emphasis on, and idolatry of, college sports?

According to respected New York Times columnist David Brooks, none of those things can account for the alleged behavior. However he has found a common thread among the participants. A single commonality that explains everything:

Everyone involved was human.

So, yeah, it’s kind of your fault too.

According to Mr. Brooks, we are all full of self-deception and evasion.

How does he know?  Science!

For example, Brooks notes that some experiments have found a behavioral phenomenon known as “motivated blindness” in which people simply do not see what they don’t want to see. Kind of like when your wife makes you watch Dancing With The Stars. You just can’t believe YOU’RE WATCHING DANCING WITH THE STARS.

Sure, Mike McQueary clearly saw what was happening and even testified under oath that he saw what was happening, going so far as to tell Coach Paterno who believed him enough to alert his superiors.

But never stop a conservative when he’s on a roll condemning humanity as inherently sinful. That’s right in their wheelhouse.

Other research cited by Brooks that directly incriminates you found that people tended to talk a braver game than they would actually be willing to play, such as an experiment at Penn State in 1999 that found that while half of people claim they would speak up if someone made a sexist remark, in reality only 16% actually do.

So, what do you think, big shot?  We bet if you heard someone suggest that women can’t drive you’d probably just sit there and do nothing.

Also, women really can’t drive (but then, neither can anyone else).

And how is an offhand sexist remark really any different than witnessing the brutal rape of a little boy?  Sure, you could argue that the sexist remark reinforces a patriarchal culture in which such normative behavior corrupts any notion of women empowerment within the context of even post-modern feminism, but child rape is pretty bad, too.

And that’s not the only evidence. According to Brooks:

“In another experiment at a different school, 68 percent of students insisted they would refuse to answer if they were asked offensive questions during a job interview. But none actually objected when asked questions like, ‘Do you think it is appropriate for women to wear bras to work?’”

Answer: “No.”

Wait! Dammit. It looks like we’re no better than Mike McQueary, either.

Brooks gets to the point:

“So when something atrocious happens, people look for some artificial, outside force that must have caused it — like the culture of college football, or some other favorite bogey.”

Among those artificial outside forces: The actual perpetrators. Besides, searching for actual causes is so pedestrian. Brooks has a higher calling here.

“People look for laws that can be changed so it never happens again.”

Silly humans, looking for laws that might make it a crime to allow child rape to go unreported by responsible adults at an educational institution, or maybe putting policies in place that break up entrenched bureaucracies and the secrecy the breed.  What do they think that will accomplish?  Aside from making it less likely that such a thing will happen again, we mean.

“Commentators ruthlessly vilify all involved from the island of their own innocence.”

That innocence being based on little more than their innocence.

“Everyone gets to proudly ask: ‘How could they have let this happen?’”

How dare you question how someone could have allowed child rape to happen.  What gives you the right? Aside from not having allowed child rape to happen.

“The proper question is: How can we ourselves overcome our natural tendency to evade and self-deceive.”

If that’s the proper question, Jerry Sandusky is going to be one relieved guy.

“That was the proper question after Abu Ghraib, Madoff, the Wall Street follies and a thousand other scandals.”

Unless you were a prosecutor. Or a victim. Or, really, anyone who isn’t a respected New York Times columnist.

“But it’s a question this society has a hard time asking because the most seductive evasion is the one that leads us to deny the underside of our own nature.”

Also, we’re kind of busy trying to put criminals behind bars and looking for laws that can be changed so it never happens again. But, yeah, sure, we could also examine the larger sociological context in which we’d probably conclude, as have others over the past ten thousand years or so of civilized society, that humans often behave badly.

Which is why, instead of waxing poetic over the inherently complex nature of human beings, we put criminals behind bars and look for laws that can be changed so it never happens again.

But then, not everyone can be a respected New York Times columnist.

J.

Ford: Drive One. But Not Too Far.

Driven by various Obama Administration-inspired government mandates and incentives intended to create new and exciting innovations in personal transportation, Ford Motor Company has introduced what might be its most technologically advanced automobile ever:

The $40,000 Ford Focus Electric.

You read that right. For the price of two compact cars, you can get one compact car.

Think of it as a “Buy 2 Get 1” deal.

To be fair, the imaginatively named Focus Electric offers many advanced features not found on a regular Ford Focus, such as a range between “fill-ups” that is easily half that of a 1908 Ford Model T.

Seriously, progress just moves too fast for us these days.

While it’s true that you will have to stop to fuel up far more frequently than with a gasoline-powered car, at least filling it up will take a lot longer. 

That’s right, you can finally kiss those quick, frantic stops at the gas station goodbye for good. Instead, you will find yourself engaging in far more leisurely stops, almost like a visit to a spa, since fully charging a Focus Electric with a 240-volt charging station takes about as long as replacing a transmission. Of course, you don’t have a 240-volt charging station. Almost no one does. But think of the jobs that will be created in the hospitality industry as you scramble to find a room while your Focus Electric charges up overnight on regular household current!

But, faced with rising gasoline prices, the Obama Administration felt it needed to do something.

Such as seeing to it that electricity prices also rise.

You can’t say these guys aren’t thorough.

We should also point out that with a top speed of 84 miles per hour, your $40,000 Focus Electric will easily be able to keep pace with most Vespa Scooters.

Given that electric cars appeal only to those consumers who prefer that products be more expensive yet less convenient (which we believe is Best Buy’s target market), there has to be another reason the Obama Administration is so fond of them. At first we thought it was an attempt to reduce income inequality by giving rich people something else to waste money on, such as the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives earning millions of dollars of taxpayer-provided bailout bonus money.

Then we figured it out:

It’s to make high-speed rail look good.

J.

Reader Update - 10/31/2011

Regular readers know that real life occasionally intrudes on our blogging here at Planet Moron. For example, I've become very busy at work lately and have found little time to devote to making juvenile snarky comments providing unique political insights.  I have tried to explain to Mrs. Moron that I am attempting to sell some T-shirts save the republic but she just keeps harping on about making the mortgage and possibly something about food.  You know how impractical women are.

Still, I am not planning on any extended hiatus, just a schedule of something closer to one to three posts a week.  As much as I hate turning away traffic (as I've mentioned before, clicks are the crack of bloggers), I hate wasting your time even more, so for those of you who check several times a day, you can probably throttle that back a bit for a while (and that includes you Homeland Security employees).

In other breaking news, the Obama Administration remains miraculously scandal free.

You probably didn't know that.

J.