cereal

Emily, tell me metaphor, please.

Ahem. So, let's say you have this lovely nutritious liquid, full of all kinds of good things to make you richer and stronger and smarter and more powerful, etc. and there's an endless supply of it coming through a tap. You're in charge of the tap, and there's about thirty people who need to get some. One option would be to say, "Okay, folks, get your cups and come on up, get as much as you can handle at once -- I've got all kinds of flavorings and stuff up here, so you can go ahead and add sugar or lemon or chocolate, or you can have it as soup and add curry or vegetables or whatever. If there are any problems with it, you let me know." The other option is to get a hose, tell people to sit down and open their mouths, and spray them with it.

ETA: You think that'll take up a minute, or should I add the moral onto the end?

Oh crap.

I have actually been assigned a somewhat-important task - one that I can finish in my remaining time this afternoon if I work efficiently.

Crap.

I like your metaphor, Emily. It takes less than a minute to read, and I was trying to read at the speed I would rad it aloud.

Sorry about the working, tommyrot. You shouldn't have to actually do work when you're about to be on vacation.

Can someone explain this filibuster/nuclear option business to me in a way that I can understand? Because everytime I try to read about it my eyes glaze over and I find that my head feels unusually heavy and then I wake up with my face stuck to my keyboard.

Yay! Honestly, I wonder what she was thinking when she told us to give one-minute presentations. One minute is about enough time to recite your thesis statement.

You shouldn't have to actually do work when you're about to be on vacation.

True. Except if it's a crisis, it makes the remaining time go by faster. Maybe I can pretend it's a crisis, while at the same time avoiding the anxiety a real crisis would produce... hmm, that's gonna be tricky....

The Republicans (well most of them) are threatening to change the rules of the Senate such that Judicial nominations cannot be filibustered. Therefore instead of needing 60 votes to end debate and allow a vote on the nominee, then the nominee can go right to a vote and pass with 51 votes.

Can someone explain this filibuster/nuclear option business to me in a way that I can understand?

If we lose the filibuster option then the party with 51 votes gets their way on every damn thing. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster, which gives a minority party a chance.

So their assumption is that they'll have the majority 4evah?

That's just silly.