Ron, come here buddy; it's time for a little man-to-man.

I just want to say a few things up front. First, we really like your style. You've got panache and you've got balls, two qualities that some politicians lack.

Now that we got that out of the way, let's get down to the nitty gritty. That is to say, why are you such a fuckin' fruit loop?

Seriously man, what is your damage? I mean, we really think it's cool that you've pretty much locked down the MySpace voting block. You've gotten the kiddies involved in politics, and that's a noble deed. Unfortunately, this just makes you look like the mayor of Kooksville. Once people realize that we're trying to elect the POTUS and not the President of the Lollipop Guild, they'll rejoin the rest of us on planet earth and vote for someone who can actually win. I know the truth hurts Ron, but do you really, honestly think the Ron Paul Magic Carpet Ride stands a chance against something like the Hillary Clinton Bonestripper or the Obama Second Coming of Christ? Campaigns like theirs take great, almost sexual, pleasure in dismantling moonbat parades like yours.

I feel for you Ron. I mean, here you are at your pinnacle; the zenith of your nutty, fucked up outlook on life. You lay your policies, ideas, and passion out for everyone to inspect, and all they can say is "Oh. Cracker off his meds."

I just want to say, it was nice meeting you. Well, it was entertaining anyways. We wish you luck in the future, even though you're probably never going to see public office again. But take heart, tiny dancer; because there's always reality TV.

The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.

First off, how does a 'symbolic citywide ban' work? Does its symbolic status mean it creates an unpunishable offense? Or that it's just not going to be enforced? And furthermore, bitch has got to be the least offensive derogation in modern English, second only to something like 'dork'.

The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates “a paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women.

Ten rappers were cited in the legislation, along with an excerpt from an 1811 dictionary that defined the word as “A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman.”

Oh I get it now, she was using a 200-year-old dictionary when she developed this ridiculous, boondoggle-of-an-excuse for legislation. Sister, in the past two hundred years 'the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman' has come quite a long way. You may want to take this waste of taxpayers' money back to the drawing board, and try to target words like cunt, whore, jizz dumpster, or cum guzzling gutterslut.

I'm just saying, if you're going to throw time and money at a 'symbolic' gesture to restrain free speech, at least go after words that might get a modicum of support based on their shock value.

As she circulated her proposal, she said, “even council members are saying that they use it to their wives.”

And probably a certain one of their fellow counsel members...bitch.

The thing that really got me was that this woman gets a salary composed, I'd assume, of tax dollars. On the outside chance she doesn't get a tax funded salary, I'd imagine her office space and supplies are composed of tax dollars. Which, in either case, means she's spending someone else's hard earned money on a 'symbolic' project.

Personally, I thought it was a revolutionary way to look at work and compensation; so I tried to implement the tactic in my own workplace. In my weekly meeting with my VP, I told her I'd have to hand off some of my current tasks in order to work on a symbolic project for the organization. She said she applauded my symbolic initiative, and gave her full support of my pursuit of symbolic improvement for our division; as long as I was willing to accept a symbolic paycheck. Did you guys know that they actually make symbolic money? They call them foodstamps, but you can actually get real food for them! What a deal!

I'm not a big governmental buff, so could someone please explain to me how a bill that has 22% public approval gets passed by a majority of our Senators? I was made to understand that we're governed by a democracy - you know, for the people by the people - and I assume that means our wants are supposed to be at least approximated in congressional representation.

It just doesn't sound like democracy to me, more like maybe an oligarchy or just a straight up dictatorship. The motherfuckers are forgetting what happens when you piss off the masses.

So yet another kid popped up in the neighborhood who is lactose intolerant. And it got me thinking. No, not about how every other kid born in the last 15 years is either allergic, asthmatic, AD, AH, AHD, AHAD, DAHA, HAHA or in some other way socially and genetically inferior to kids from my generation. I was thinking about tolerance itself. Somebody who is lactose intolerant can like dairy products just fine but they just can't stand them physically. Except that this isn't usually how it goes. The real skinny is that people use "whatever intolerance" as a way to avoid things they don't like while casting themselves as sufferers.

If that doesn't have "PC gift from above to all politicians" written all over it then I don't know what does. Expect to see some of these in the soon to be inescapable campaign barrage:

* Senator Byrd's days in the KKK weren't really his fault. He had a bad case of blacktose intolerance.
* Hillary isn't frigid. She's just fuktose intolerant.
* Speaking of which...it's not Monica's fault that she didn't swallow. She is spunktose intolerant.
* Kennedy isn't a boozer. He's sobrose intolerant.
* Obama isn't myopic. He is cluetose intolerant.
* Jesse Jackson? As bad a case of truthtose intolerance as I've ever seen. Well...next to Bill Clinton anyway.

Yeah, I think I'm on to something here. Anybody else detect 'ose intolerance out there?

As an MBA, I'm always interested in new and creative ways to increase income, protect investments, and minimize expenses. However, I never ever thought I'd learn anything about that from Al Gore.

To recap: First, one of these Learjet Liberals has the gall to tell us all that we're all ruining the environment. Then we find out that he's actually one of the top offenders, gobbling up over 220,000kWh a year; about 20 times the national average. Such usage is defended by the claim that he purchases carbon offsets to counter the damaging effects of the coal burning plants that supply his power.

Well check this shit out, via Ecotality:

Frickin' genius! So not only does he get to run his fucking mouth about how we should all use less while he uses a metric shit ton more than average; but he gets to justify his position by boosting his investments, and maybe even garnering a wage as co-founder and chairman. The mind reels.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the discovery that a politician turned out to be an utter prick; but it just burns me up. Here I am using compact flourescents, burning approximately 30 gallons of gas (in total, for both of my automobiles) a month, keeping my thermostat at 68 degrees; right? Just cruising along, being mindful of what I use; and my efforts are completely negated by one person: the dicksmack who made a movie about how much I was consuming.

Al Gore can kiss my red state ass.

Lot's of people make the mistake of thinking tax day is in the middle of April. Not so. That's the day when the red hot poker gets inserted. It gets put in the fire tomorrow on voting day.

Before you pull the lever, consider your candidates. Picture them reading the poem below. Decide if they would smile knowingly, laugh maniacally or withdraw their nomination. Vote for the ones that would withdraw.

Tax his land, Tax his bed,
Tax the table at which he's fed.

Tax his tractor, Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes are the rule.

Tax his cow, Tax his goat,
Tax his pants, Tax his coat.

Tax his ties, Tax his shirt,
Tax his work, Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.

Tax his cigars, Tax his beers,
If he cries, then Tax his tears.

Tax his car, Tax his gas,
Find other ways to Tax his ass

Tax all he has, then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till he's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he's laid.

Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom..."

When he's gone, do not relax,
Its time to apply the inheritance tax.

And I'm speaking specifically of those other than Jenelle (BURN!).

I saw Michael J. Fox on TV the other day promoting the advancement of stem cell research and the congressional candidates supporting it. My first thought was "It's a good thing you're not behind the wheel of that DeLorean these days Marty, because it would take more than 1.21 gigawatts and Doc Brown's kooky ass to get the mangled wreckage back to the future." Which was immediately follwed by "Oh, Parkinson's. That explains the shaking," and "Note to shank: get buried in Bermuda shorts, because it's going to be hot down there." I was surprised by how much he was shaking, but then I figured that's Parkinson's for ya.

Then today on CNN or something they were talking about Rush Limbaugh's accusation that Fox was off his meds for the spot to exaggerate the tremors that result from Parkinson's. Now, I know I'm a crass individual; and I can be downright rude on occassion; but you've got to have a real pair of brass nuts to accuse a guy with an incurable disease of putting a shine on. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you man? That's something you say to your friend when he calls in sick on a perfect day. Hell, even if he was off his meds it wouldn't matter, because the issue isn't Fox or Parkinson's or even congressional elections. It's stem cell research stupid.

They went on to mention that after the ads aired, public approval of stem cell research jumped up 5%. Which is kind of sad if you think about it, because Fox didn't say anything that hasn't been said a million times.

"He walks like John Wayne." - Hugo Chavez

As opposed to, say, walking like you've got the fist of your Islamofascist puppeteer up your ass?

"[T]hose who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. … Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!"
-Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Wow, that's nice; real nice. How very 12th century of you, sir. Quite the, shall we say, pre-Renaissance man you are. It must be for this reason that TIME Magazine chose to distinguish yourself as one of the 100 Most Remarkable People of the last century.

I do have one question though, if I may. When we get down to it, are a bunch of raisins really worth all the effort? I mean, let's be honest: raisins really aren't all that tasty, nor are they rare. So I ask you; is a jihad really a jihad if, instead of becoming your holy warrior and recieving a just reward in paradise, any old infidel can buy the very same rewards for $1.49 a box at Food Lion? And that being said, does that make the uncovered woman on the SunMaid box just another one of the Great Satan's whores?

The Pope recently quoted a 14th century Byzantine Emperor when he spoke of Islam's tendency, to say the very least, to walk a fine line between religious zeal and incendiary violence. Several Muslim communities and nations around the world were pretty pissed at his insinuation and responded with, of course, rage. Hm. Fancy that!

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence." - Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Tasnim Aslam.

Black shirt - $13.50
Green Karate Kid bandanna - $5.00
Raging in the streets to prove you're nonviolent? Priceless.

For me, the damning thing about all these 9/11 consipracies is that they make no allowances for coincidence.

A light spot on the bottom of an airplane in a blurrily zoomed image is a missle - not a blurry reflection.
The manor in which the towers collapsed proves it was demo, not just a building falling in on itself. I mean, how else do you expect a building that's barely leaning over to fall? It's not a tree being chopped down fellas, it's a building whose core has been partially gutted and substantially weakened.
The fact that a man had a conversation about death with his child the day before he boarded a doomed flight is proof that he was in on the plan - not just happenstance. How often do we all have such coincidental conversations? Seriously.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that more often than not minor details are minor details; even when there's a lot of them. I mean, take for instance the appearance of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, or a bagel, or a potato. Is it some kind of conspiracy? Or might it just be an odd little coincidence.

The real flaw in it all, however, is something that every well devised plan (as the attacks of 9/11 were a major undertaking) always requires. Motive. In the late nineties and early 21st century, the US government had nothing to gain by attacking it's own nation and fingering a terrorist organization that was virtually (at that time) unkown to the public. Al Qaeda on the other hand, a group who (still) operates under a transformational ideology supported by a violently twisted religious belief; not only had motive, but has since claimed responsibility and pride over the events of that day and many similar events since. Motive bitches. Motive.

See, these consipracy buffs are searching for something that will complete the picture for them, tie up every little loose end. But as the Virgin Mary might tell you, sometimes a grilled cheese sandwich is just a grilled cheese sandwich. For something to make sense it has to work on a macro level as well as an operational level. Because if it doesn't, it's just a bunch of Loose Change. And as we all know, that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

As an aside, I'd have to be pretty damn desperate and lonely to cash in your fifteen minutes on something that makes 2/3rds of the US population think I'm an assbag.

I was working on this longwinded post regarding geopolitical strategy that cited recent global developments and intelligence reports from StratFor.com; but halfway through it I figured "Fuck that. It's Friday."

Goldstein, in true form, brings the front lines into our living rooms. Interstingly enough, though, was a quote in the page he links to at Hot Air that I disagree with:

A friend of mine just e-mailed to say he’s been discussing the situation with an Israeli analyst, who told him the problem with attacking Iran is that “you can’t scare a prostitute with a penis.�
To which I replied, “You can if it’s big enough.�

I humbly offer my correction: "You can if you put it in the right place. Hard."

*And by free we mean, you can say whatever you want as long as a violence veto is not in place against said speech. Oh, and if We define it as intolerant, well, We'll just gather a mob together and destroy it. Because that's what America is all about.

Bumper sticker seen on the I-85:

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than drive home with Ted Kennedy.

Okay, let's clear the air here: The guy accidentally shot his hunting buddy. Big fuckin' deal! Could happen to anyone; especially if your the sixty five year old survivor of four heart attacks and your hunting buddy is seventy eight. I mean, let's get real here, neither of these guys could see well enough to shoot, nor could they hear or move well enough to get out of the way. Can you imagine being a secret service agent on this trip? "Hey 007, your assignment is to accompany the Vice-President and the only man on this Earth who probably has less business being out in the woods than he does. Oh, and they'll be carrying around loaded shotguns. Presumably shooting them. Might want to bring your vest."

Seriously though, I don't understand why it's such a big deal. If I went hunting with a friend of mine, and got sprayed with a little birdshot, I mean; as long as everyone survives it's a funny goddamn story. "Hey Tom, 'member that time you tried to blow my fucking face off? You shoot like a schoolgirl!"

So, as much as I hate to say it - they should let Tookie Williams live. Yes, he killed four people, yes he was a bad motherMM-MM back in the day. He's completely given up that life though, and has committed himself to destroying the glorified gangster image. Who knows how many people he could positively effect. He's certainly made an impact on many already. Yes, he will never be able to erase gang life or the Crips from the urban environment. But you know, maybe that's his real punishment. Knowing what he created, trying to destroy it, and knowing he'll never succeed.

The Miami Airport bomb incident - Lessons Learned:
1. Don't travel anywhere with a loved one who's off their meds - unless they're bound and gagged in the backseat and you're on the way to the doctor's office.
2. Don't yell "I have a bomb", unless you're looking for a permanent solution.
3. The only way to get blood off of the carpeting in a jetway is cold water, an oxidizing detergent, and light scrubbing with a bristle brush.

Additionally, any man who wouldn't sleep with Ann Coulter lives a life FAR too driven by prinicple, and not enough penis representation on the conscience committee.

And Iran's new president, whose name I won't waste the time trying to correctly spell, believes not only that Israel is a "tumor" on the middle eastern map, but further alludes to the idea that the Holocaust never happened. How do these people get into leadership positions? Muslim nations want to be taken seriously in the modern world, but they elect leaders with this kind of twisted worldview?

Also, hit CNN, some plane just crashed the shit out of an intersection in Chi-town. Relish this, because events don't usually get that current here at SBD.

Furthermore - has anyone noticed the duality of SBD? Silent But Deadly? Snooze Button Dreams? Oh yeah, you're thinkin' it, I know ya are.

Jeff Goldstein's Pinocchio, identity politics and the importance of rhetoric, has just turned into a real boy thanks to a few Democrats. Some serious background here on Jeff's views of identity politics and rhetoric, and a post that really wraps a lot of these issues up into a nice little package. It's an issue that Jeff's been floating for quite a while that deals with everything from affirmative action, to how a person's language can be hyjacked by those who never spoke it. Of course, until recently it was sort of an idea, a logical underpinning of certain views or positions that was never openly addressed. Whether it was because proponents of issues like affirmative action didn't realize it, or do realize it and think no one notices, is up for grabs I suppose.

I swear, he's the only person that speaks on the issue of identity politics, and how some people are allowing external conditions, nee forcing them, to define everything from who we are to what we say - regardless of who we are or what we're saying.

For instance, Goldstein asserts that what Lisa Gladden means when she says "party trumps race" and what Steve Gilliard is saying when he throws racial epithets at someone is that:

Please, lavish compliments upon my graphic arts skills. Really though. I don't own Photoshop, so that image was a pain in the ass.

Sometimes, I wish she'd open her mouth a little more often. No Bane, not for that. You sick bastard. And if you ever even remotely hit on my sister again, I will ekick you in the enuts.

This has been bugging me. Not Ilyka's post itself, but rather the topic dissected therein. You see, there are three things I really can't stand: idiots, poseurs, and idiot poseurs. They rankle me. It seriously bothers me that people without a basic rational understanding of logic can pretend to offer arguments.

This fellow Robert Crook, a blogger for Salon, makes the following arguments:

Cindy Sheehan is against the Iraq war.

Her opinion is valid because her son died there.

Tammy Pruett supports the Iraq war.

Her opinion is invalid because her son did not die there.

Lets boil that down:

The prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the war in Iraq is the traumatic loss of a son in Iraq.

Given that Mr.Crook has not lost a son in Iraq, his argument invalidates his own opinion of the war in Iraq.

That, my friends, is the mental misfiring of an idiot poseur.

UPDATE: Charmaine's post, where Crook supporters are busy saying "HE DID NOT!"

Well, HE DID TOO:

Tammy [Pruett] can get back to us with what she thinks of Gee Dubya's Gulf War II if one of her immediate family members is killed.

Bob Owens, the Confederate Yankee, hits the nail square on the head regarding Mrs. Sheehan and her crusade to, well, to act like a whackjob and do the equivalent of the naked hokie-pokie all over her son's grave.

Look, I'm sorry your son died in battle, war is a tragedy. But you don't go around propping up his dead body for every liberal that appeals to your feelings of loss, anger and mourning. Your son was a brave man, braver than most. Bush didn't kill him, the administration didn't kill him; war killed his ass just like it kills millions of people every year.

The woman is in mourning, the angry part of mourning where you try to explain what happened. When you realize that there's this big fuckin hole in you and you're like 'Why?' I think that's something we all understand. But you shouldn't go around turning one of the greatest contributions of the human experience into your own little quest.

But I don't blame her only. She's being manipulated by politicians and soapboxers. They don't give two shits about her or her son, they just care that it gets people (specifically, the handful of trolls in Yankee's comment section) riled up about something completely idiotic so that people will vote for them or go see their shittyass 'documentaries'.

It's fucking sad. The politicians don't even pay attention to the issues or the logic of the controversy they create. Hey, if it gets people pissed off, sure we'll just go ahead and parade this persons carcass all over the media; eventually people will start paying attention. It's just sad, that I have to share a country with some people.

via the emmer effing man J. Goldstein.

I spend some time each day surfing through Protein Wisdom, Daily Kos, Instapundit, and a few others just seeing what there is to see. A lot of the stuff is mildly interesting, and tends to bring things to the surface that I otherwise wouldn't know about. Sometimes I save the link so I can tracback to it and make a post of my own.

However, usually by the time I get home and have the spare time to write about whatever it was, I just don't give a shit anymore. I mean, it's probably just about some useless tactic some politician used to grab the spotlight for his issue, or make someone else look dumber than he did, or whip people into a sensational frenzy. So much of that stuff is complete bullshit anyways.

Then the goddamn bloggers get a hold of it and the issue is everywhere.

I mean, everyone and their mom has an opinion on it, everyone's fucking shouting over the din of the other 50 or 60 people on the thread, there's like six different arguments going on, three complete lunatics spouting shit just to get a rise, and I'm like fuck it. I can't possibly say anything that hasn't already been said, because there are 348 replies to that thread. Never mind that I think they're all fucktards, because one of those lunatics already tried that approach and got lambasted. They really are though. Fucktards I mean.

I hope what these politically oriented blogs are teaching us is that everyone has an opinion, even if they're a fucktard. You don't have to join a specific line of political argument, you can just vote how you want based on the issues, not just pick one guy because he's who the media likes. There's all kinds of information on the web out there. Just don't be a big enough fucktard to believe it all without researching it at least a little before acting on or voicing your opinion. And it's that right, nay privilege, to go on someone's website and act like a fucktard that makes America great!

Glen Reynolds gets his first Shankalanche. He'll thank me later I'm sure.

In an effort to clean our country of all this unsightly native culture, why don't we burn it to the ground and leave the rubble as a reminder to all indigenous peoples to assimilate or else? I mean, who wants to come to a country to see the culture that's been present there for thousands of years, when they can come gaze upon the newly razed homes and social flotsam created by the ignorance of a few leaders? Hey, you know what they say; nothing draws tourists like homeless beggars and smoldering foundations. Before you know it, we'll be on the cover of Conde-fucking-Nast.

So the runaway bride was on the Today show this morning. My girlfriend puts it on while we get ready for work in the morning. Anyways, the runaway girl is talking about why she made up all this stuff about being kidnapped by Mexicans. Her pathetic, ill thought out, sham of an excuse was something about how she only had Friday off, and that wasn't nearly enough time to get a manicure, a pedicure, pack for her honeymoon and be one time to her perfect wedding. I swear to you, that was the literal translation.

What the fuck is with that? If I have problems like that one day, I'll be glad. But seeing how that'll probably never happen, I'll just cut to the chase and go fuck myself.

The Governator is apparently in the shit-house with California Democrats because he can't get them to actually work on fixing the state's many problems and he is readying himself to *GASP* take the issues to the voters.

To me this seems eminently logical. I have two paths to completing my job. The preferred path isn't working. I take the other path.

This is not logical to the Democrat led state legislature. They feel that they cannot work with the Governator now since he has basically said he is willing to take things up with their bosses. Ummmm...wasn't it the not working with the Governator part that is forcing him to take things up with their bosses in the first place? So what's the loss here?

Dems: We're sorry. We know you mean well but we simply can't work with you on these initiatives to solve the massive financial problems that our programs have caused.

Governator: Ah you sure? Ah would really lahk to work dis out wit you.

Dems: Yeah, we're sure. There's simply no way we are going to give up the ability to draw our own districts or limit spending in any way whatsoever and we feel very strongly that job security should be a reflection of time served, not some mythical ability to do a job. We are especially against the very concept that union leaders might need permission of union members in order to give us our kickbacks.

Governator: Dat's too bad. Ah will have to go to de voters den.

Dems: If you do that we won't work with you!

Governator: Vatever, little girly men.

No, I was wrong. I'm not really surprised at the Dems being pissed at him. He's trying to give workers a say on where their money goes, make job performance more important, limit spending and eliminate a politician's ability to decide who votes for him. Those things are the lifeblood of the liberal elite.

Worst of all, he's going to let actual voters decide on these things.

Well, maybe not my kingdom but I am awarding points to the best slogans from the Slogan Challenge. Here are the long awaited results:

Serious slogans

Third place (1 pt): "More Talk, Less Action" - Dafyd

Second place (2 pts): "Working to create your children's nation." - Kenny

First place (3 pts): "We the people." - Garret

Irreverent slogans

Third place (1 pt): "Slogans are way tough to come up with." - Ilyka

Second place (2 pts): "85 percent less wacky than the Libertarians." - Kenny

First place (3 pts): "The party for real people. Whiney socialists and religious zealots need not apply." - Clancy

Coming soon:

Another contest to come up with a new name for the party, since this one reminds Ilyka of Barbara Boxer.

I need a motto for the Nationalist Party of America. This is the political party I started up back in December to make a home for all of us who are either too right for the Dems, too left for the Reps, plain sick of partisan politics or think government needs to get its nose out of our personal areas.

It sort of fizzled out due to lack of participation and a very busy Jim but Michele's cry for help and a well timed comment by Ilyka have revived my fighting spirit. As everybody knows, the key to success in politics is to have a catchy slogan so that's my next order of business.

Here are a couple I thought of:

"Yes Virginia, there is a viable third party."
"Don't settle for the lesser of two evils, pick the least of three."

But they sort of don't really ring out too well. So I'm throwing open the floor to y'all. Come up with party slogans. There will be two categories: serious and seriously funny. Points will be awarded to the top three in each category.

Congress is investigating the Major League Baseball steroid abuse scandal. Say what?

Just what the hell gives Congress the power to investigate a private enterprise in this manner? Does steroids in baseball compromise national security? Is a drug free baseball league some sort of little known right of the American people?

Lemme check...

Nope. Nothing at all in the Constitution says that Congress is the regulatory body for private sports organizations. Understandably, the League has an opinion similar to my own.

Stanley Brand, a lawyer for the baseball commissioner's office, said the committee had no jurisdiction, was trying to violate baseball's first amendment privacy rights, and was attempting to "satisfy their prurient interest into who may and may not have engaged in this activity."

This isn't just any Congressional panel either. It's the "Government Reform Committee". What is the purpose of the Government Reform Committee? According to their website, they don't have one. There is no overall guiding focus noted for this committee anywhere in their literature. Isn't that wonderful?

The subcommittees are a bit more forthcoming. The subcommittee for Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources has this little "About us" blurb:

The Subcommittee is responsible for authorizing legislation for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its programs as well as general oversight for all U.S. government drug control efforts (including international and interdiction programs, law enforcement, and prevention and treatment initiatives). It also has oversight jurisdiction for several cabinet departments, including the Department of Justice, certain activities of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and other agencies including the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and the federal court system. In addition to its ongoing work on drug policy matters, the Subcommittee has most recently completed an intensive review of U.S. border agencies and policies and the impact of enhanced homeland security requirements on federal law enforcement.

So it sets and authorizes legislation on drugs and has oversight power over a bunch of government departments. Thi