[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Do you really believe this? I suppose if you are extremely literal, the Senate doesn't enfoce laws at gunpoint, but it does have very serious and important oversight responsibilities. I think the point is that what happens to T.O. is not relevant to the important business before the Senate. But the Senate spends far too little time these days performing oversight IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really believe that the Senate should do useful work. High profile, low-content issues like T.O.'s labor dispute, steroids in baseball, violence in video games, etc., etc., serve only to provide a national media stage for the pompous airbags of the Senate to pontificate about how important they are. It is the Senators who testify at those hearings, not the witnesses. They do not ask questions, they give campaign speeches.

As an aside, there is equal guilt on both sides of the aisle, but few things are more disgusting than watching Teddy Kennedy try to take the moral high ground on any issue. It's like watching Jabba the Hutt preaching about moderation and civility.

That said, the Senate has appropriate oversight responsibilities. If a particular law or policy enacted by the Congress is not working or not being enforced, the Senate should determine why and, if appropriate, act to rectify the situation. A law may have to be strengthened, enforcement officials may needed more resources, etc.

But the Senate has no business micro-managing selective enforcement issues like T.O.'s labor contract. It's all show and no content.