I would, again, like to express my contempt for this Congress

A committee of the United States Congress is meeting today with a baseball player and an athletic trainer to determine whether or not, when that trainer performed injections on the player that both acknowledge, those injections contained substances which may or may not have been explicitly illegal and against the explicit rules of the game at the time that the injections occurred. Substances which may or may not have any affect on the performance of said athlete and any other athletes he may have competed with. Because, you know, that really is one of the top issues facing the United States. I can't actually find any Constitutional support for this hearing in the enumerated powers of the Congress, but apparently they think that such support exists, and that this should be one of their priorities.

But they don't want to look foolish:

"I think we've got to resolve it. Otherwise, the whole committee and the entire Congressional hearing process is made a mockery of."

- Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-MA

Good heavens, we can't have that!

This is where better writers than I would come up with a few excellent cutting remarks. A little snark, a little sarcasm, a little biting satire, a pin stuck into the whole pompous "we know better and must protect you from yourselves" attitude of Washingtonitis. I find the task to be beyond me, because every time I start, the humor doesn't come, just the anger. The whole process is virtually self-mocking, isn't it? Isn't this the sort of thing you'd produce as satire? Seriously, if one wanted to mock a Congress for overstepping its bounds, wouldn't one produce a satirical look at something so beyond the pale as to be funny, like, say, hearings over whether a professional athlete used performance-enhancing drugs? But when they actually do that, how the hell do you satirize it?

Who is making a mockery of the Congressional hearing process, Congressman Lynch? How about the Congress that decided to use the process on such a ridiculously frivolous topic as private use of steroids among adult athletes? Is this really what the framers meant, and what the ratifiers accepted, when they gave Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States?"

Let me just say that I don't think so...