Skip to main content

Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 43: "The Pen Is Mightier Than the Needs of Families Trying to Slow a Pandemic.," is now available!

Podcast: "I Feel Snitty"

Episode 43: The Pen Is Mightier Than the Needs of Families Trying to Slow a Pandemic.

Premiere Date: 4/27/20

Length: 5:26 (802 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/the-pen-is-mightier-than-the-needs-of-families-trying-to-slow-a-pandemic/

Transcript:

Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 43, entitled, “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Needs of Families Trying to Slow a Pandemic.” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.

About a month ago, Congress passed a $2.2 trillion bill to try and help Americans stay afloat economically during the coronavirus lockdown. While most people I know personally were able to get their checks from the bill directly deposited into their bank accounts, others received personal checks. This all sounds well and good until you reach the fact that many who were to receive paper checks in the mail saw their payments delayed due to… Wait for it… Donald Trump’s insistence that his signature be placed on the checks.

This is sick and misleading on multiple levels. First off, with his signature on these checks, Donald Trump essentially makes it seem as though he’s paying the American people money from his own pocket. This is ironic, considering the fact it seems that Russia and China own any money which would potentially be in Trump’s pockets in the first place, but I digress. The money being sent to Americans hasn’t come courtesy of Donald Trump; it’s come by way of the taxpayers. Also, speaking of signatures, that’s the only thing Donald Trump did throughout this entire legislative process. Not only did he not provide American families with his own money; he had nothing to do with the bill itself. It was written and passed by lawmakers in Congress. All Trump had to do was provide his strange polygraph-looking signature on the bill in order to validate it.

Secondly, Trump is delaying essential funds to families struggling to survive financially, just to try and get them to believe he’s the one to thank for the money. It’s an incredibly misleading vote-for-me-look-what-I-did-for-you tactic. Yes, as he so often seems to do, it’s essentially a quid pro quo, yet he was in no way responsible for the quid, so it’s really just a pro quo.

Here is just another example, in a line longer than an eagle with binoculars could see, of Donald Trump showcasing he cares only about himself. It’s like the antithesis of Oprah’s-you-get-a-car spiel. For Trump, it’s more like, “I don’t get a shit about you. I don’t give a shit about you. I don’t give a shit about you. I don’t give a shit about you.” Yes, Donald Trump will make families go bankrupt and homeless through wanting them to believe it was because of him they didn’t go bankrupt and homeless, and then suggesting to vote for him because he prevented them from going bankrupt and homeless, even though they went bankrupt and homeless. Taking credit for accomplishments which aren’t yours and then screwing up said accomplishments. A master strategy from a master narcissistic dumbass.

Here’s how I’d see him doing similarly in the following situations:

Ending Slavery

“You guys are finally free? You’re all free? That’s terrific, just fantastic. My idea. All mine, believe me. But do you know what’s even terrific-er? That giant, sky-high wall over there. As soon as you climb that wall, while being tasered throughout, you will really be free. You’re welcome.”

Marriage Equality

“I said long ago, even though it made me go, ‘Ew, gross,’ people should be able to marry other people who are people like them, or whatever. So I’m glad the Supreme Court followed my guidance here. Before any one of these couples can marry, though, they must tattoo my name and face on their foreheads. I want this to be like really sacred and shit.”

Freedom of Religion

“As you all know, I was one of the Frowning Fathers who wrote this, but it’s 2020. Let’s get with the times – get more modern and stuff. So from this day forward, you’re allowed to worship the God of your choice, so long as that God’s name is Donald Trump. Capisce?”

For my Twitter Poll of the Week, I asked the question, “Stephanie Grisham, White House Press Secretary who never held a briefing, has officially lost her job. In light of this bit of news, what will her inevitable book about the experience be titled?”

After receiving 148 votes, here were the results:

-        Coming in 1st place with 53.4% of the vote was Where’s the Brief?

-        Finishing 2nd, with 20.9%, was Too Brief or Not Too Brief?

-        Coming in a close 3rd, with 19.6% of the vote, was The Young and the Briefless.

-        Finally, finishing a distant 4th place, was Boxers Over Briefs.

My favorite response came from Steg68, who wrote, “Brief Encounter.” Thanks to everyone for participating.

That’s it for today’s episode. I’ll see you again next week. Until then, check me out on Podbean, Twitter, Amazon, and Blogger. This has been I Feel Snitty with Craig Rozniecki. Take care.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"