Brawl Day on Capitol Hill

Whilst having my morning coffee and reading the morning computer I was hit by the news of brawling in parliament in Ukraine. A communist was going on about how they never should have ousted Yanukovych, and a couple of Ukrainian nationalists pushed him around-- always the feckin nationalists, of whichever country, starting the violence-- and a brawl broke out, and I thought, wouldn't a lot of tension be relieved if a big brawl broke out in our American legislative branches?

Here are some photos of Ukrainian parliament:

Whoops! Sorry, wrong photos. Those are photos of extremely violent 'cage rage.'

Let's try again:

Hmmm,yes, those are the right photos.
Did I say that Cage Rage looked extremely violent?
Yet, there is an element of black comedy in fighting politicians not found in cage rage. 





Anyway, brawling legislators on Capitol Hill-- it is not a completely novel idea-- it has happened before:

This was a fight, literally, about immigration. The battle goes on, though now it is only tongues lashing out at one another.

Here's another:

This was a fight over slavery. This good ole boy pro-slavery South Carolina senator beat an anti-slavery Massachusetts senator unconscious. Note the chuckling faces in the background.

You can find the other fightin legislators stories here:

 

http://voices.yahoo.com/ready-rumble-greatest-fistfights-us-congress-2129050.html?cat=9


But alas, the last of these brawls seems to have occurred in 1902. So I ask, "What if a brawling day could be organized in Congress or the Senate?"

That boring as hell channel that watches our legislators all day long would get a huge boost in ratings.

But rather than just having a legislative cage rage match to act as 'circuses' for the masses, and as a sort of catharsis for the legislators, there could be some meaningful outcome from the match between Democrats and Republicans. If the Democrats won, for example, a certain law would be passed that they've been pushing. If the Republicans won... you get the picture.

We've all had this idea before, but we usually think of it in terms of world leaders fighting, like George W. duking it out with Sadam. But that gives individual world leaders way too much power. And Putin would dominate the world for sure. He would kick everyone's ass. Merkel might give a good run for the money-- a knee to Putin's groin once or twice-- she might have Putin turning red with frustration at the humiliation he'd be suffering at her hands, but in the end he would probably have her pinned down.

Takin you down Vlad

Uhhh... (hard swallow)

I might like to see Kim Jong-Il in a match with somebody though, if he were still alive. His chubby son might be fun to watch in  a Sumo wrestling match.

Kim just before other world leader rams big stick up his butt

Anyway, while the leader-to-leader matchup might be entertaining, the results would be too decisive and ill matched.

But a team of House and Senate Republicans and Democrats pummeling one another? That would be good. There would be no more hypocrisy. Just savage beatings. Honest. And the result would only be for this or that particular law, not for world domination. And even if one side out-muscles the other, teamwork and superior strategy could win the day over muscle. For example, the Democrats, who I think are probably a bit less muscular, a bit less savage by nature, might outflank the Republicans, or do a pincer movement, or manage to divide the enemy, or something.

There would have to be some rules.

1. On Brawl day in the House and Senate, all legislators must wear their typical going to pseudo-work attire. Suits and dresses. Ties. There is nothing more entertaining than watching formally-dressed middle-aged people brawl with each other.

2. All legislators must participate. If they choose to cower in a corner, they may-- perhaps there could be a 'cowards corner' designated for the less robust, but the news crews would surely have a camera set up there to show the world exactly who is cowering.

3. No weapons except as would be considered normal wear. Rings, for example, but not brass knuckles. Canes for those who always have a cane anyway. Belts of course. A belt can be a nasty weapon, but it would be permitted.

4. The brawl would last either until one side or the other side is sprawled on the floor unconscious or has surrendered by withdrawing to their respective coward's corner. (To make it more interesting, the 'coward's corner' could have limited space, say, for only 2/3 of the legislators of a given side to cower in. That way, if the whole team-- say, all of Team Democrat-- wanted to cower, they would have to fight among themselves to squeeze in to the 'coward's corner'. So behind them would be Republicans thrashing them with their belts, and in front of them their own teammates clawing and kicking, trying to push them out.)

5. The winning side would get the law of the day passed. So if Team Republican won the day, beating half of Team Democrat into unconsciousness, and driving the other half into the 'cowards corner' , they could get a law passed that makes the poor poorer and the rich richer, or they could invade Syria and Russia and North Korea and France. Something like that.

6. All legislators must show up for work the next day, not to legislate, but for reconciliation. They could sit down and chat about the battle the previous day. One legislator, for example, marked with black eyes and belt buckle cuts, could sit with the guy who thrashed him, who is perhaps less badly beaten, and could say things like, "Johnny B., you swing a mean belt," and Johnny B. could say, "It took you forever to go down, man, I respect that." Or maybe there would be a Team Republican guy in pretty bad shape sitting with one of the few Team Democrat legislators who came out of the battle unscathed. He might say, "Damn, Nancy, did you have to bite so hard?" and she might chuckle a little  and say, "No hard feelings?" and he might wink.

7. The most important rule of all would be this one: non-violent resistance would be absolutely prohibited. Non-violent resistance would destroy the event. To have one side, say Team Republican, thrashing non-violent resisters with belts would just... well... mess it all up. You might cheer for a while if you were a Republican, but then you'd say, "whoa man, that's enough, look, they aren't thrashing back, shit, they don't even look angry, whoa guys, back off, damn," and then the whole Brawl Day would come to an end. So-- no non-violent resistance. Fight or flight only.