Hat tip to Veronique de Rugy.
The Weekly Standard has the story.
A piece of viral humor circulating these days without attribution. The earliest example I found appeared here, but the posting says it came from somewhere else.
The U.S. government has just passed a new law entitled “The Affordable Boat Act” declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat by April, 2014. These ‘affordable’ boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance, or repair costs.
This law has been passed because, until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new law ensures that every American can now have an ‘affordable’ boat of their own, because everyone is ‘entitled’ to a new boat. If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive four ‘free’ life jackets (does not include monthly usage fees).
In order to make sure everyone purchases an ‘affordable boat,’ the cost of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. But, to be fair, people who can’t afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents boat(s) to party on until they turn 27, after which date they must purchase their own boat.
If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can’t). If you don’t want or don’t need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one, or face imprisonment. If you cannot (or don’t want to) purchase an ‘affordable boat’ from a private business, you can buy a starter boat from the U. S. government ‘affordable boat exchange.’ Such a boat will have the basic necessities (hull, oars or paddles) and will only cost ‘slightly more’ than a similar boat purchased from a private business. Plus, since your tax dollars will subsidize the purchase of a boat from the U. S. government’s ‘affordable boat exchange,’ it will appear that you are getting a good deal.
Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert, ghettos, inner cities, or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Neither age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge, nor lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat.
A government review board (that doesn’t know the difference between the port side, starboard side, or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including when, where, how often, and for what purposes you can use your boat, along with how many people can ride your boat. The board will also determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their boat, and will also decide if your boat has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories(like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.
Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so … it’s only fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.
Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free at the expense of tax payers. Unions, bankers, and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.
[A] New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.
“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”
“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.
Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.
In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.
Read the whole thing.
The Onion, of course, publishes satire, but I tend to suspect that a real life poll would not come out very differently.