Thursday, January 04, 2007

It depends on what 100 means...

The Influence Peddler is covering the first, uh, second, no, dammit, the third version of what the 'first 100 hours' of the 110th Congress really means. (Originally posted on January 4th.)

100 hours is four days plus four hours, if we consider a day to be 24-hours long.

100 hours is 12 days and 4-hours, if we consider a day to be 8-hours long.
So, that is two (work) weeks plus two and a half (work) days if the new Congress works a full 8-hours per day. (The new Congress is apparently going to adopt a 5-day workweek as opposed to the 3-day average of the prior Congress.)

100 hours is 25 days, if we consider a day to be 4-hours long.
That's five work weeks of five days each, or it's eight work weeks of three days each, plus one day.

Let's see where we are when the Dems officially pronounce the first 100 hours over. That should give us some insight as to what kind of hours they are actually working.

Update: Well, it's now January 19th and the Dems are declaring their success after using only 42 hours of their 100 legislative hours. Sooooooooo, that's 10 working days (9 if you count the BCS day off) for the 42 hours, which averages out to a blistering 4 hours and a bit per workday.

Whew! They better pace themselves before they burn out.

Happy 2007!

OK. So I haven't posted very frequently in 2006. I'll do better in 2007 (hard to do worse).

I'm frequently (2-3 weeks per month) on the road, so I don't usually keep up unless something really gets me going.

So, I'll try to get here at least once a day, regardless of where I am or what's going on to keep you entertained, dear readers, uh, reader, um, Mom.

Here's to a great new year and the pursuit of liberty and happiness.

Whence Negroponte?

Confederate Yankee: Lateral or Downward? The Negroponte Shuffle discusses the possible reasons for Negroponte's move from Director of National Intelligence to Deputy Secretary of State.

Following a tangent in the comments section, I posted:

As to 2008.

I think the obvious, but overlooked, ticket for the left is Clinton/Clinton. There's no clause preventing a former President from serving as a Vice-President, is there?


As to an pleasing (sounding) ticket for the other party, how about Rice/Bol (as in Mnute Bol the former NBA star)?

Actually, I think I'd like Rice/Thompson (Fred) for '08.

Update: Commenter Jack over at Confederate Yankee educates me regarding my ignorance of the 12th Amendment. To wit,
Twelve Ammendment (sic):

" .... But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

I loooooove the self-correcting nature of the blogosphere. Imagine if we can get our Congresscritters to interact with us in such a manner.