Guam is going to tip over and capsize due to overpopulation

[Greg Bernhardt]

Guam is going to "tip over and capsize" due to overpopulation

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is afraid that the U.S. Territory of Guam is going to "tip over and capsize" due to overpopulation.

Johnson expressed his worries during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the defense budget Thursday.

Is this a prank or a funny site?

http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize [Broken]

 

[Pengwuino]

We sure know how to vote in some wonderful comedians. Too bad they aren't joking most the time.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It seems to be real, unfortunately... he later said that it was a metaphor.

 

[MotoH]

I remember seeing this, and thinking "he has to be high"

He can't even say it was the USS Guam, because that was deep sixed in 01 I believe

 

[zomgwtf]

They should show this video when they are trying to convince people to register and vote.

 

[edpell]

There are many dumb people in America and they deserve to be represented.

 

[DavidSnider]

Wow. Why doesn't anybody else in the room point out how absurd that is? Not even a chuckle...

 

[chemisttree]

That's why I interpreted it as a meth-a-phor. I've also heard of similar 'pipe dreams' about California falling into the ocean.

 

[mheslep]

Johnson has been seriously ill for some years now, about which all his colleagues are aware, so I don't blame Johnson for the nonsense. Rather, the embarrassment here belongs to the House leadership which keeps propping Johnson up on the stage. They have the authority to tone him down; I suspect they refrain from exercising that authority because they didn't want to risk losing him on tight votes, the consequence of which we now have on video.

http://www.ajc.com/news/u-s-rep-hank-230506.html [Broken]

 

[fourier jr]

didn't he say "capsize" to make sure nobody misunderstood what he meant by "tip over"? where is the ambiguity there? the guy couldn't even think of a word (like narrowest?) that means "least-widest."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Johnson has been seriously ill for some years now, about which all his colleagues are aware, so I don't blame Johnson for the nonsense. Rather, the embarrassment here belongs to the House leadership which keeps propping Johnson up on the stage. They have the authority to tone him down; I suspect they refrain from exercising that authority because they didn't want to risk losing him on tight votes, the consequence of which we now have on video.

http://www.ajc.com/news/u-s-rep-hank-230506.html [Broken]

What has the leadership done, specifically, and what power do they have in a sitution like this, according to the law? Rather than propping him up, perhaps they are limited in their power to remove him from committees without a clear ethical or legal violation to reference. Clearly he has issues, but are they severe enough for anyone to take action? What other examples can be cited showing that Congress should have taken action? Even now, I'm not sure what can be done, legally, without a voter recall.

What is the basis for your accustation that he has been allowed to serve strictly due to political preference, and not that it's just a difficult situation? Frankly, no one in their right mind would prop up someone like this who can easily become an embarrassment. What you are suggesting makes no sense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Furthermore, your suggestion that a black democrat from Georgia is a concern during tight votes, strains credibility. You need to present evidence that he has a tendency to vote with Republicans.

 

[mheslep]

...

What is the basis for your accustation that he has been allowed to serve strictly due to political preference, and not that it's just a difficult situation? Frankly, no one in their right mind would prop up someone like this who can easily become an embarrassment. What you are suggesting makes no sense.

As you know, I did not say "allowed to serve." Nobody but the voters of the 4th district Ga have a say in that. However, the Democratic leadership could ask Johnson to refrain from making remarks in committee in light of his illness or even to resign for the good of the republic. Historically, leadership has some large hammers to use should he decline which are publicly known:
-Johnson's seat on that Armed Services committee is under the control of the Democratic caucus, as are all Democratic committee seats. The D caucus could move him to the Committee on Nothing.
-The chairman and ranking members of those committees have control over time and scope of Q&A in those sessions. That which chairmen do not directly control, they can otherwise enforce by the granting or disallowing amendments to bills (e.g. earmarks) on other issues.
-The DNC can cut off campaign money, or even choose and support a primary opponent.

As to the motivation for keeping him there, Johnson has a vote. He has voted against against his party on some major issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Johnson#Congressional_career" leaving the seat empty until next January, and the US House Dems would be minus one. So I assert it is completely plausible that the ailing Rep. Johnson is allowed to ramble on about wobbling islands for the good of the Democratic party and not the republic at large.