Is this supposed to be such a circus?

If these events are meant to accompany the family singers and the dog-and-canary show that usually pop up this time of year, they sure are having the opposite effect.

I wonder if politicians' votes are really based on the well-being of the citizens in their constituencies and (if I've got the translation correct) a certainty of the law, as opposed to the fulfillment of a wish before year's end.

I'm more curious about a recent award winner's full discussion of "this dysfunction" than I am about the op-ed that takes up the rest of the video.

It remains to be seen whether or not this process ends up broadcast on a basis as regular as the staple entertainments of this time of year, but from a general sense of what I've read and watched - having seen this particular clown show, at least it will be unforgettable.

Bit of an aside, this part, but I also have questions about why organizations who sought an international ruling on a water issue - and who received a ruling in their favor - later dropped their suit, but coverage on this issue's better with networks that are closer to it, geographically and otherwise. And on a slightly more upbeat note, that 3D flick with the old nautical borderline sure is pretty. (IME, 微软?)

Addendum - now that that part's over, among the recommendations of MMA title fights and Army surplus sales come article after article of what sounds remarkably like regret. Why? It couldn't be because party lines were so clearly defined in all votes, or that there was no room left for moderate views. Was it because the groups that called for censure and any efforts made to check this haste were ignored, perhaps - or because polling showed an audience, not so much eager for this process, but eager to just get it over and done with? Because it couldn't possibly be awareness of having done a greater harm than that done to one unpleasant politician.

Or is all that regret just another black suit?