You

“Space…the final frontier…”
–Captain James T. Kirk

Since man first looked to the heavens, he has wanted to go there. To fly, to touch the stars, to break the ethereal bonds of Earth and ascend to glory. Since Daedalus turned his mind “to arts unknown” to escape the labyrinth of King Minos, up to the Apollo space program that first brought men from Earth to touch another celestial body, humanity has used the only—and best—tools available to achieve this lofty goal: the human mind and the human spirit.

But since that grand day in July of 1969, when we finally brushed the heavens and returned to tell the tale, we have let the dream wither on the vine, focusing less on exploration and ascension and more on the drudgery of near-Earth industry in the name of mere profit. It’s not enough; humanity’s destiny requires more. We need to once again turn our hearts and minds and spirit to the stars and seek our future beyond the gravity well of our own planet. We must be explorers, adventurers and dare ourselves to leave the cradle of Earth and make our homes in the cosmos around us. We need to aggressively return to space.

The cost is not negligible. As found in On the Shoulders of Titans by Barton Hacker and James Grimwood, as well as the figures from The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, the American space program from Mercury through Gemini and up to Apollo cost $20.5 billion dollars (387, 1 respectively). Adjusted from 1969 dollars to today’s rates that would come to $481.2 billion. That may sound like a lot of money, until one compares it to the outlay of funds for the current war in Iraq. As of March, 2008, costs of that conflict had reached $564 billion dollars in five years, according to Steve Schifferes in his article “The Iraq War: Counting the Cost” (par. 2). He also predicted that by the end of 2009 the war cost would reach $1 trillion (par. 4). What took NASA ten years of development, testing, and technological advancement to spend, the war in Iraq has more than taken up in less than half that time. Removal of our troops, materiel, and bases from that region would free
up more than enough to duplicate the Apollo program from its inception.

Of course, we don’t have to. The technology already exists and requires only refinement and enhancement. NASA’s current space program, Constellation, is based largely on designs derived from the development of the Apollo program forty years ago and technologies refined and honed under the current Space Shuttle program. That greatly mitigates the cost of a renewed program to reach the moon and, after, the other planets of our solar system.

Additionally, we can enlist the help of the rest of the world. International cooperation in space-based endeavors is not unheard of: the International Space Station (ISS) stands as testimony to the possibility of such a joint venture, and the European Space Agency (ESA) is a cooperative space agency with 19 different contributing member nations.

However, despite the possibilities of mitigation and cooperation, many people point out that the ambitious goals of the Constellation program, i.e. return to the Moon, establish a continuous human presence there, and proceed from the Moon on to Mars, will not show short-term profitability. And they are right.

There are some short-term gains to be made. Throughout the 1960’s the American space program employed 400,000 people (Chaikin, viii). In the first half of 2009 America lost 467,000 jobs, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Wouldn’t it be nice to gain some of those jobs back in a short time?

But we must remember that it was the pursuit of short-term profitability that led to the slips in safety standards that resulted in the catastrophic failures of the Challenger shuttle in 1986 and Columbia in 2003. In Challenger’s case, an overly ambitious launch schedule, aimed towards showing the shuttle program as a viable money-making endeavor, led to a NASA culture of “launch at any cost”. In Challenger: A Major Malfunction, Malcolm McConnell noted that “In order for NASA to keep the confidence of its commercial, civil-government, and military customers…NASA’s credo had become ‘Fly out that manifest’” (65). Similarly, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board stated that “during the course of [the Columbia] investigation, the Board received several unsolicited comments from NASA personnel regarding pressure to meet a schedule” (Gehman et. al. 131).

NASA needs to take a longer view, obviously. The profits from space require investments of time as well as money to retrieve, develop, and exploit.

But there are profits to be had. Helium-3 is a much cleaner fuel for fusion reactors than deuterium and tritium, with little to no dangerously radioactive heavy neutrons released in the process. Helium-3 is incredibly rare on Earth, but naturally occurring in massive quantities on the Moon. In 1993, W.M. Braselton, Jr., vice-president of the Harris Corporation said in an address to the United States Space Foundation that “One space shuttle load of twenty-five metric tons [of helium-3] will electrically power the U.S. for one year. It would have a market value of seventy-five billion dollars today and there is in excess of one million tons on the Moon” (qtd. in Burrows 627). Similarly, Robert Zubrin in “The Case for Colonizing Mars” tells us that there is roughly five times the amount of the rare isotope deuterium on Mars as there is on Earth. “Its current (1996) value on Earth is about $10,000 per kilogram, roughly fifty times as valuable as silver or 70% as gold” (par. 10). Near-Earth asteroids offer large amounts of platinum, which is not only a precious metal for jewelry, but a valuable component of super-conductors and super-conductive circuits for advanced computers. They also provide millions of tons of nickel and iron ores, used in many industrial and manufacturing processes and products, ranging from stainless steel and rechargeable batteries to simple wrought iron and common steel used in most building construction.

Besides monetary gains, other benefits can be imagined. According to a 2001 United Nations report on world population growth, the estimated “carrying capacity” of Earth is, on average, 10 billion people (40). A separate United Nations report, World Population Prospects, The 2006 Revision, projects the world population by 2050 to reach 9.2 billion people (9). Colonization of the solar system is an obvious solution. In The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, 3rd Ed., Gerard O’Neill postulates that the material found just in the asteroid belt, let alone the Moon and Mars, would be enough to fashion habitable areas 3,000 times the habitable areas of Earth (113). With appropriate recycling and solar power generation technologies, these habitations would be self-sustainable for hundreds of years.

Others believe in the terraforming of other worlds, specifically Mars. “Terraforming” refers to the process of taking an inhospitable world and making it more Earth-like and capable of easily sustaining human life. The Spirit and Opportunity probes have found significant metallic and mineral deposits on the Red Planet, and orbital surveys of Mars reveal extensive water icecaps at the poles. Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer and manned-mission-to-Mars advocate states “It is the richness of Mars that makes the Red Planet not only desirable, but attainable” (qtd in Burrows 644). Quoting a report by Synthesis Group, a think-tank headed by former astronaut Thomas Stafford, Burrows writes “Space is a unique store of resources: solar energy in unlimited amounts, materials in vast quantities from the surfaces of the Moon and Mars, gases from the Martian atmosphere, and the vacuum and zero gravity or space itself. With suitable processing, these raw resources are transformed into useful products” (627).

Scientific research can be further advanced via aggressive expansion into space. Spurred by a need to refine industrial processes to maximize sustainability and increase profitability over time, money would have to be allocated to the types of low- or zero-gravity experimentation that are currently being performed in small scale aboard the ISS and the scientific missions of the space shuttle. Crystal growth, health effects of zero gravity…increased experimentation in fields like these can only enhance our understanding of material sciences, the universe at large and our own selves.

But beyond benefits both material and educational, there are, believe it or not, spiritual benefits.

Mankind has always felt the urge to explore and expand the boundaries of humanity’s reach and knowledge. From the global explorations of Magellan and Columbus to the incredible voyage from the Earth to the Moon of Armstrong, Aldrin and all who followed them, we have ever striven to move further, fly higher, and know more. It is in our nature, our hearts and our souls. As John F. Kennedy said in 1962 at Rice University “We choose to go to the moon….Not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept…” (qtd. in Chaikin 2).

Many involved in the space program, past and present, advocate an aggressive return to space. Apollo astronaut Ken Mattingly, the ninth man to walk on the Moon, says “We will go to Mars. And who knows what they will find? Once again it will be the journey that is the true test, as much as what you learn when you get there” (ibid. 579). In regard to returning to the Moon, in his book Failure is Not an Option former NASA flight director Gene Krantz says simply: “Our work is unfinished” (384).

The space shuttle program is scheduled to perform its last mission in 2010 with the completion of STS-134.

“It is good for the human spirit to explore beautiful places,” says astronaut Dave Scott, commander of Apollo 15 (Chaikin 403). We need it, for our knowledge, for our economies, for our future…and for the illumination of our very souls.

We need to choose to go back to the moon.

Works Cited

Apollo Program Budget Appropriations. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology. 3 August 2009.

Burrows, William E.. This New Ocean. New York: Random House, Inc. 1998.

Chaikin, Andrew. A Man on the Moon. New York: Penguin Books. 1994.

Gehman, Jr., Adm. (Ret.) Harold, and Maj. Gen John L. Barry, Brig. Gen. Duane W. Deal, James N. Hallock, Ph.D., Maj. Gen. Kenneth W. Hess, G. Scott Hubbard, John M. Logsdon, Ph.D., Douglas D. Osheroff, Ph.D., Sally K. Ride, Ph.D., Roger E. Tetrault,, Stephen A. Turcotte, Steven B. Wallace, Sheila E. Widnall, Ph.D. Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Volume 1. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2003.

Glenn, John and Nick Taylor. John Glenn: A Memoir. New York: Bantam Books. 1999.

Hacker, Barton and James Grimwood. On the Shoulders of Titans. NASA Special Publications. 1977. 3 August 2009.

Kranz, Gene. Failure is not an Option. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2000.

McConnell, Malcolm. Challenger: A Major Malfunction. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1987.

O’Neill, Gerard K. The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, 3rd Ed. Ontario, Canada: Apogee Books. 2000.

Schifferes, Steve. “The Iraq War: Counting the Cost.”, BBC News, 19 March 2008. 2 August 2009.

World Population Monitoring, 2001. New York: United Nations. 2001. 4 August 2009.

Zubrin, Robert. “The Case for Colonizing Mars.” Ad Astra. July/August 1996. 4 August 2009.

This was a paper I did for my Composition Lab. It’s short, I admit; hey, I had a pretty hefty workload, no time to mess around extending things just to extend them. But I thought there were some pretty good ideas in it, so I submit it to you, my readers, for consideration.

“Globalization” generally refers to a movement to help emerging nations develop their economies and infrastructures so they can enter the global market as valid competitors. This goal is exceptionally important to future generations. Improved markets and infrastructures usually lead to improved quality of life. If nations are engaged in open and profitable trade, the tendency for those nations to wage war on one another is reduced. Overall, globalization is a noble goal that can improve the situation of everyone on the planet. However, the current methodologies employed to bring developing nations into the global market are often lacking and lead to worse financial problems for the nations involved. There are three primary means for emerging nations to receive funds for trade and infrastructure improvement: International Financial Institutions (IFIs), corporate investment and development, and commercial loans. All three, either separately or in conjunction with one another, have led to a repeating pattern of economic crises in recent decades. Clearly, a new paradigm must be introduced with an eye towards removing the inherent flaws of the current system.

Many people like to leave globalization efforts and development of emerging nations to private corporations. Private corporate development offers many apparent advantages: a corporation does not impose economic reform as a condition of bringing funds into the country; they do not ask for human rights or environmental reforms, which some developing countries’ governments may interpret as a threat to that government’s sovereignty; there are no political considerations to a corporation’s investment that may be ideologically opposed to an emerging nation’s governing ideology. To many nations, this sounds like free money and jobs. Micah Akuzue states in his article “The US in Global Context” that corporations benefit in turn from such foreign investment by increasing their workforce, either in their home countries, or by outsourcing many jobs to developing nations (21).

This, however, ignores the reality that corporations are, by definition, self-serving entities. Their overwhelming responsibility is to their shareholders. Micah Akuezue contends that a company that has invested in a developing country would be forced by market forces and a desire to stay competitive against other corporations to re-invest in a developing country in which they have a stake (22). This position seems to ignore characteristics of corporations and their philosophy. A corporation has primary responsibility to its shareholders and no one else. Employees, customers, governments and local populace are all secondary in a corporation’s considerations. Shareholders are notoriously short-sighted. If a corporation’s investment in a developing country does not profit quickly and measurably, its shareholders will demand an explanation; if they are not satisfied with that explanation, they will command the corporation to shift its policy and cut its losses. This often has devastating and debilitating effects on the economy of a developing nation as that nation suddenly loses a promised stream of income upon which it was basing improvement projects. It also has to cope with half-finished improvements that have left the infrastructure in disarray.

Corporations are not interested in human rights; in fact, the lack of human rights enforcement may make a developing nation more attractive to a corporation seeking to expand or move its operations. A major incentive for a corporation to invest overseas is the ability to maximize profits by paying local workers lower wages. Lack of workplace standards lead to “sweatshop” environments, which, while morally reprehensible, can be extremely profitable for a company. A company can pay sweatshop workers less money and force them to work longer hours than they would for a first-world workforce. As Alexander Reynolds states in “Between Theory and Fact: Free-Trade Theory and Free-Trade Agreements,” “Sometimes it is exactly a countries’ poor records of protecting such things that allow them to offer a competitive advantage in terms of productive efficiency” (par. 5).

In contrast there are organizations like the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank. Created near the end of World War II, these institutions’ aims were, respectively, to adjust and regulate current-account imbalances and manage currency exchange rates and to provide funding for the post-war reconstruction of Europe. These IFIs offer conditional low-interest loans to developing nations, along with advice on how best to change macroeconomic, structural, and human rights policies to better place the developing country in a competitive market position. Their goals are to enhance emerging nations’ infrastructures, economic policies, and market viability with an aim of promoting free and fair trade throughout the world and raising the standard of living for all citizens of all nations. However, the methods these IFIs employ are toothless and ineffective. There is no formal oversight to guarantee that economic policies are revised in line with the conditions of the loans, and there is no way to enforce any of those conditions is met, aside from withholding of funds. This is seen as undesirable by the IMF and World Bank as sustainable projects are considered “successes” even if they mean continued funding of the failing nation, whereas cancellation of funding is often viewed as “failure.” Allan Meltzer brings to light the example of Mexico in the mid-1990s in his article “What’s Wrong with the IMF? What would be Better?” The IMF continued to lend Mexico money, even though those funds were not being used for any of the usual improvement projects; instead, the money was being used to pay high-interest commercial loans that Mexico had taken from private lending institutions. The sole reason the IMF sent more money to Mexico was to guarantee that foreign lenders were protected from the risk of Mexico defaulting on its expensive loans (par. 27).

The lack of ability to enforce conditions, in conjunction with a reluctance to appear to “fail” renders these institutions largely ineffective in meeting their stated aims. Often this leads to “moral-hazard lending”. “Moral hazard arises when the private risk to the lender is less than the risk borne by society,” states Meltzer (par. 39). It may seem ironic, but these institutions, founded on “moral” principles for “moral” reasons, are largely subject to “moral hazard”. It seems clear that these IFIs, on their own, are not the answer to effective globalization. Another way is needed.

Leaving out corporations and IFIs, what alternatives are left? Commercial loans are the same as corporate investment without the added bonus of development and with the added downside of punishingly large interest rates. Direct national lending from one country to another poorer country is undesirable as any funding coming directly from a richer nation is almost guaranteed to be burdened with conditions. These conditions may regard economic reform, governance, and possibly even extend into areas such as defense. The receiving nation would undoubtedly view these conditions as colonial in nature and a threat to the debtor nation’s sovereignty. Additionally, Joseph Montgomery points out in “Globalization as Modern-Day Colonialism” that “[t]hose with the power to make the rules will, except in rare cases, make rules which favor their own continued control and prosperity, as well as break rules without consequence, at the expense of those without power” (par. 2). What nation or government would willingly and knowingly put themselves in such a position of disparate power?

The answer may lie in the formation of a “third party” agency, the goal and aim of which would be the management of funds and projects for developing nations. Funds for improvement projects would not be left in the hands of a possibly corrupt or incompetent government; rather, the funds would be directly controlled by the third-party managing agency to guarantee that they would be spent wisely and correctly. Projects would be implemented by carefully screened contractor companies who would be paid from the agency’s funds. Those funds would be provided by the IFIs, as before, but those institutions and their member nations would be assured that the funds were being used as they were intended, and could more easily rely that those funds would be repaid by a country that had improved its’ viability and competitiveness in the global market. Rigid enforcement would still be an issue, naturally, as any agency would lack any real “stick” to back up a financial “carrot”, but this agency would not be so married to a faulty concept of “success” that it would continue to fund projects if the conditions were not being met. It would be more willing to withdraw the funds and return them to the IFIs in the event the developing country failed or refused to comply with necessary modifications to economic policy, human rights laws, and infrastructure improvement.

Globalization is important for our future. The more countries available to freely and readily trade on a global market, the more resources are available throughout the world. The more countries are involved in mutually beneficial trade, the less likely those countries will engage in deadly warfare with one another. But globalization cannot reliably be implemented through corporations with their short-sightedness and lack of interest in enhancing the most valuable resource on the planet– people. And it should not be left to fangless and craven lending institutions who meekly continue to hand money to emerging nations even when it is glaringly apparent that those nations are losing that money without meeting even the most basic conditions necessary to meet the obligation implicit in acceptance of those funds: to improve themselves and their citizens’ lives so that they can, in turn, contribute to the world’s markets and resource availability. No, another way must be found. The world is too important to leave things as they are.

Works Cited
Akuezue, Micah. “The US in Global Context.” Contemporary Political Issues. Apr. 2008: 21-23.

Meltzer, Allan. “What’s Wrong with the IMF? What would be Better?” Hoover Institution Public Policy Inquiry International Monetary Fund. Fall 1999. 24 June 2009 .

Montgomery, Joseph. “Globalization as Modern-Day Colonialism.” Free Green World. 7 June 2008. 24 June 2009 .

Reynolds, Alexander. “Between Theory and Fact: Free-Trade Theory and Free-Trade Agreements.” Theories versus Realities. May 2008. 24 June 2009

…we turn now to an overheard conversation on Wall Street…

Cock-knocker Executive #1: Can you believe this shit? A $500,000 salary cap! That fuckin’ Obama!

Cock-knocker Executive #2: Shhhh!

CE #1: I mean, what the hell can you do with $500,000?! Nothing! It’s a travesty! Obama’s a jerk!

CE #2: Shut up!

CE #1: What is your problem?

CE #2 (pointing upwards): He can hear you!

CE #1: Who can?

CE #2: President Obama!

CE #1: Oh, fuck off! No he can’t!

CE #2: Yes, he can!

CE #1: If he can hear me, maybe he can answer my question: What the hell can you do with a mere $500,000 a year?!

A burst of HEAT VISION lances from the clouds, melting the glass of the office windows and searing the finely carpeted floor. A MESSAGE is scorched into the flooring, flames dancing merrily. It reads: BUY A WHOLE LOT OF FUCKING RAMEN, YOU DILLWEED.

CE #2: See?!

CE #1: …I suppose I could do that.

* * * * *

In other words, Wall Street: Shut the fuck up.

I make less than $25,000 a year. If I spent NOTHING and that $25,000 was just frosting and could languish in big fat rolls of bills under my mattress it would take me TWENTY YEARS to make what you do in one with a salary cap!

So I hope, Wall Street, that you will forgive the fuck out of me if I do that really obnoxious rubbing-my-finger-and-thumb-together trick while rolling my eyes and saying “I’m playing a sad, sad song on the world’s smallest violin for you, you used enema bag.”

I could buy three houses, four cars and live for the rest of my life on the interest of what’s left over on one year of your new, “pathetically small” salary. And my wife and I are not the poorest people we know. I know people who would blow a hobo, gargle his spunk and then kill and eat the transient bum for your amusement if you offered them $500,000.

How DARE you assholes come to D.C., all weepy-eyed and snot-nosed, begging for money to fix the economy you broke and then whine when Daddy America says “Okay, but we demand you be somewhat responsible with this money.” “Aww, Daaaaaad,” you pule “…we were gonna get us a shiny new jet plane!”

Fuck you guys, seriously. I think Obama’s being nice. If I were president, you would have to deal with a salary cap of minimum wage with no overtime and a punch in the balls so hard you’d taste your own testicles for the rest of your life.

So thank your lucky stars I’m NOT the Commander-in-Chief. I’d be detailing entire squadrons of Marines to Ball Punching Duty. Or maybe I’d make it part of the infrastructure package and assign the task to some real rough and ready blue-collar guys from the auto plants. I’m sure they’d love to have some work that they’d enjoy.

I may run for president myself on that platform: Vote Miracleman in 2016! Get a job punching Wall Street whiners in the junk!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go price campaign buttons.

What is it with these presidential nominees and taxes?

Timothy Geithner, nominee for the Secretary of Treasury…you know, dealing with MONEY…had an issue with unpaid back taxes. Now Tom Daschle, former nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services has had to step aside because of some $146,000.00 in unpaid taxes.

Are these guys criminals or just retarded?

Because I’m such an unabashed Obama apologist I imagine scenes in the Oval Office like this…

President Obama: Oh, hey, Tom…c’mon in.

Daschle: Mr. President. You wanted to see me?

President Obama: Yes, yes I did. It’s about this tax thing, Tom.

Daschle: I know, it was stupid…

President Obama: Yes it was.

Daschle: I’m gonna step aside, turn down the job.

President Obama: Okay, that’s a start.

Daschle: Start?

President Obama: Yes. See, I’m very disappointed, Tom. You’re sullying the image of myself, this administration and the Hall of Justice.

Daschle: Hall of…?

President Obama: I meant “White House”.

Daschle: I’m sorry.

President Obama: So I’m going to have to do this…

President Obama steps from behind his desk and PUNCHES Daschle in the COCK.

Daschle: …

President Obama: And if I find out you took a job with the Legion of Doom, you’re a dead man. Got that?

Daschle: …

President Obama: Good. You may go.

Daschle hobbles out. President Obama sits behind his desk. There is a KNOCK at the door, then it opens.

President Obama (looking up): Oh, hey, Zan, Jayna. Glad you could make it.

Wonder Twins: You wanted to see us, sir?

President Obama: It’s about this “Gleek” thing…

*****

Maybe that’s not how it happened. But it should have.

Also, for your amusement, is the following image from my brain:

Have a good one!

Today is February 2, 2009 and I still do not have the flying car I requested. I believe, in fact, that I was promised a flying car in one of your campaign speeches. I don’t remember which one. It was in one of our states. Anyway.

Also, I note that people are still hungry somewhere. I, myself, would like a sandwich. I am willing to have the price of my sandwich deducted from my tax returns, however I must remind you that if the sandwich does not appear at my desk within thirty minutes of posting this letter, the sandwich is free. As to the other people who are hungry, please fix it as per your campaign promise that I heard about somewhere, maybe NPR, in that speech you gave in some state.

I would also like a plastic rocket and a pony.

I heard on the radio this morning that we are launching missiles into lawless parts of western Pakistan (and if you could hear the way I pronounced “Pakistan” I think you would approve; it was just like yours: “Pah-kee-stahn.”) in an attempt to eradicate Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I must admit I was shocked. Why are we doing this? I was given to understand that you would hover in high earth-orbit and use your super-hearing to pinpoint the location of Taliban and Al-Qaeda bases and then defuse their weaponry with tightly focused bursts of your x-ray and heat vision. I understand that you have a bunch of bills to sign and whatever, but can’t you take those with you into the upper atmosphere? If it’s a problem of the ink in the pen freezing at those altitudes I will gladly purchase you one of those revolutionary “space pens”. You can deduct the price of the pen from my tax return. Seriously, I’m cool with that.

And, while we’re on the subject of global evil, where is Osama bin Laden? I assumed you would immediately scour the four corners of the earth at just under the speed of light and find him. Or check your “Naughty/Nice” list…do they still list delivery addresses on that if they’re “Naughty”? Or, you know, spot him from high earth-orbit as we previously discussed. Though, come to think of it, bin Laden is a wily foe indeed. Like all super-villains he probably has a secret lair somewhere just loaded with anti-Obama technology. It’s probably lead-lined and has sound baffles and stuff. Still, I hope you are working hard to find him before he can lay his hands on some Obamanite, your sole weakness.

I probably shouldn’t have posted that bit of info on the Internet, should I? Dang.

Well, I hope you won’t hold an innocent mistake against me when once again considering my requests. To reiterate: Flying car. Magical flying pony that craps money. Salma Hayek. Oh, and world peace an end to hunger and poverty, etc. etc. The usual.

I understand you’re a busy superman, but if you could get on this post-haste I would greatly appreciate it. After eight years of living under the thumb of a second-rate villain who can’t even pronounce “nuclear” I think I deserve it. I mean, seriously. Captain Boomerang would have been a better president than that yahoo, except for the whole being Australian thing.

I hope this letter finds you in good health.

Sincerely,

–Joe

P.S. Oh, and a B.B. gun. I promise to use it responsibly.

© 2008 Joe Conat

As the sun climbs higher into a bright blue Michigan sky this fine November morning, I am compelled, at long last, to write again for You’ll All Pay.

Last night, along with everybody else in the country I imagine, I watched history aborning as Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States and this nation’s first African American president.

I felt as though someone had lifted a mill-wheel from my shoulders.

In 2000 I watched in bafflement and outrage as President George W. Bush stole…I will maintain that ‘til my dying day, he stole…that year’s presidential election. In 2004 I raged and gnashed my teeth in crushing disappointment in my fellow Americans…how could they re-elect that patently moronic shitheel?!…and then slumped in resignation and despair.

In 2008 I watched something else entirely.

I remained very aloof during this election. Oh, I wanted Obama to win, I wanted it very badly…but I was superstitious by this point. I had desperately wanted Gore to win…and he lost. I had desperately wanted Bush to lose in 2004…okay, I admit it, I didn’t vote for Kerry so much as I voted against Bush…and Bush won. Fate seemed to conspire to ruinously crush my most fervent political hopes. Crush them, grind them into the dirt, spit on their neck and call them funny names.

I watched, dead-eyed, as Bush’s administration went crazier and crazier. I watched as the economy tanked, our standing in the world slid into the crapper and our men and women killed and died overseas in a seemingly never-ending and increasingly pointless crusade against shadows.

I stared, bleak, at Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate. I shook my head and averted my eyes from the rabid response to her insane near-jingoistic rhetoric, her hate-speech wrapped in a flag and a campaign poster.

I drew funny pictures of rabbits until I couldn’t even bring myself to do that anymore.

I refused to credit polls, even…perhaps, especially…if they said what I wanted to hear. I wouldn’t be gut-punched again.

Over the past eight years I have watched as people who were unqualified, evil or both ascended to the highest seats of power in the land. I have watched them gleefully take advantage of the worst attack in the history of America to justify torture, domestic spying and an insane invasion. They used the pretense of this attack to declare anyone who opposed them “unpatriotic” and they ignored, defied or outright mocked the very Constitution on which this country is founded.

I was one of those people out there who doubted that America is a place where all things are possible, who wondered if the dreams of our founding fathers was still alive in our time, who questioned the power of our democracy.

I didn’t dare hope, not even a little.

Not until last night.

We invited friends over. Comfort in number, perhaps. There was beer and jollity and me constantly flipping between news channels, sprinting back and forth between the TV and the computer to check for updates on NBC.com or Associated Press.

I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

There were moments of tension, of course. For the longest time it seemed that Obama hovered at 207 as McCain made gains, jumping from the 70s to the 100s to the 130s…something in me tightened up and prepared to suffer the blows of disappointment again.

Our friends went home around 10:45 or so. The beer was gone, the tension had gone from electrifying to stultifying, they were tired, we all had to work in the morning.

I wasn’t about to go to bed. I’d stay up til dawn if I needed to. Pensive, aloof, not daring to really hope.

I had flipped to the Daily Show’s special coverage. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert joshing each other. And suddenly Jon Stewart says:

“At 11 pm, eastern time…the president of the United States is Barack Obama.”

Wha-huh?

I mean…it’s the Daily Show. Jon was just messing with Stephen, right? Could it…it’s so early, it can’t…could it…?

Every network I flipped to. CNN. NBC. ABC.

Aims, my beloved wife, was “resting her eyes” on the couch beside me. I shook her.

“They called it!” my voice an excited, awe-filled whisper. “Honey. They called it. It happened.”
We watched McCain’s concession speech and remarked on his surprising graciousness. We snarled and hooted at Palin and her glazed smile.

Aimee jumped online to celebrate with friends in cyberspace. I watched TV for a while and went to bed.

We watched Obama’s speech upstairs, on the bedroom TV. I held Aims’ hand as she wept.
I could only lay, stunned but…

…but…

…happy.

President-elect Obama told an inspiring story about Ann Nixon Cooper, a 106 year old black woman who saw the best and worst of the 20th century. She saw the highs and lows, the miracles and catastrophes and yesterday she got to vote for a black man to hold the highest position in the country, possibly the world. And damn if he didn’t actually win.

He asked if his daughters lived to be as old as Ann Nixon Cooper what changes and progress would they witness? What miracles await them?

And I thought of my daughter, asleep in her bed downstairs, safe and snuggled up and dreaming, unaware of the awesome and terrible, wondrous and frightening, fantastic and horrible future that lies ahead of her.

I thought back on the history I have witnessed, much of it bad: Nixon’s disgrace of the Oval Office; Challenger; Columbia; 9/11. But…the Berlin Wall came down. We landed machines on Mars. We can speak across the globe in picoseconds and on my desk is more processing power and access than anybody ever had in the whole of history.

And last night, the first African American was elected President of the United States.

But that, to me, isn’t the miracle. It’s that we, as a nation, turned our backs on the power-mongers and cheaters, the thieves and liars and embraced hope.

I thought of my daughter down in her bed and how, before I came up to see President Obama speak, I tiptoed into her bedroom, wrapped my arms around her sleeping form and whispered in her ear “It might just be okay, now.”

Might it? Is the future brighter? Can we, perhaps, dare to breathe a little, loosen our cynicism, open ourselves up to the possibility of hope?

“Yes we can.” - President Barack Obama, November 4, 2008.

*ahem*

.

.

.

.

.

(deep breath)

.

.

.

.

BOO!YAH!!

IN YOUR FUCKING FACE, LORDS OF DARKNESS!!

ALL YOUR CONGRESS ARE BELONG TO US!

Love,

The Democratic Party

Congratulations, America!

(This week’s entry is by a guest columnist, so to speak…Aimee Conat, my wife. This is something she wrote for one of her college classes recently and it’s also relevant to the overall tone of this here blog, so…with her gracious permission I am reprinting it here in its entirety. Enjoy.)

A Complete Education: Why Public Schools Need Comprehensive Sex Ed Programs

Aimee McVay Conat

A Complete Education: Why Public Schools Need Comprehensive Sex Ed Programs

Don’t drink. Don’t smoke. Don’t take drugs. Don’t get pregnant. Public schools teach teenagers about the consequences of drinking, the health risks of smoking, and the dangers of doing drugs, yet teenagers remain woefully ignorant about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Public schools should adopt comprehensive sexual education programs that teach abstinence as being the only way to prevent pregnancy 100%, and teach birth control.

Sexual education is a hot topic in the United States right now. Most people fall on one side of the debate or the other: those that feel an abstinence-only program is the sole answer to preventing unplanned pregnancy, and those that feel a more comprehensive birth control program should be the standard. The federal government has put nearly $170 million towards abstinence-only programs in recent years according to a report prepared for Representative Henry A. Waxman on the content of federally funded abstinence-only education programs. This report discovered that most of these programs are giving incorrect statistics on condom failure and exaggerating the effects of having an abortion. They are also infecting the minds of teenagers with spurious information on the health risks of having sex (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004). Why kNOw, an abstinence-only curriculum taught in seven communities, states that “Twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual” (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004, ii). However, there are not twenty-four chromosomes in each parent; there are twenty-three. How can programs that cannot even get basic genetic facts correct hope to help prevent unplanned pregnancies in teenagers? The answer is, they cannot and they do not.

One of the gross misrepresentations in abstinence-only programs is the failure rate of birth control in particular condoms. They are also the most readily available to teenagers. In a study conducted from 1991 to 2003, Santelli, Morrow, Anderson, & Lindberg (2006) found that condoms were the most common form of birth control among teenagers. They also discovered that condom use increased from 38% to 58%, while the risk of pregnancy declined 21%. Yet, the parent’s book for Choosing the Best, an abstinence-only curriculum taught in public school districts says, “When used by real people in real-life situations, research confirms that 14 percent of the women who use condoms scrupulously for birth control become pregnant within a year.” The rate of failure for “scrupulous” use is actually 2% to 3 % (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004, p. 12). While the 14% failure rate is technically accurate, instructing teenagers to use condoms every time they have sex and the proper way to use them would ensure that condoms continue to lower the number of unplanned pregnancies. Not surprisingly, most of the abstinence-only programs are strongly against abortion. Teaching correct condom use would lead to fewer unplanned pregnancies, which, in turn, leads to fewer abortions. Educators run the risk of teens choosing to bypass condoms altogether if the message they are receiving is they don’t work anyway.

Because abstinence-only curriculums are anti-abortion, they exaggerate the effect of having an abortion on a woman’s body and mental state. Me, My World, My Future tells students “Studies show that five to ten percent of women will never again be pregnant after having a legal abortion.” The same program also tells students “Premature birth, a major cause of mental retardation, is increased following the abortion of the first pregnancy” and “Tubal and cervical pregnancies are increased following abortions” (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004, pp. 13-14). Yet several obstetric textbooks refute all of these claims. The textbooks explain “fertility is not altered by an elective abortion”, that abortion “results in no increased incidence of … preterm delivery”, and “ectopic pregnancies are not increased” (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004, p. 13-14). Furthermore, these young girls are also being told that women who have abortions are more likely to commit to suicide according to the same program, Me, My World, My Future. However, a study of women who had abortions found that “although women may experience some distress immediately after having an abortion, the experience has no independent effect on their psychological well-being over time” (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004). Why put a teenage girl through more mental distress in dealing with her unplanned pregnancy when teaching her how to use birth control would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place?

In her article “Teaching Abstinence Reduces Teen Pregnancy”, Jennifer Hurley (2000) says that comprehensive sex education is actually injurious to teenagers. She believes that teaching birth control “completely undermines any attempt to promote abstinence” by sending the message, “You shouldn’t have sex, but if you choose to have it, use a condom.” She is right. That is the entire point of comprehensive sex education. One should ask Ms. Hurley, “What about students who are already sexually active?” Teaching them abstinence might be an exercise in futility. While some might rethink their behavior and choose not to have sex again until marriage, most of them will continue having sexual relations. As abstinence-only programs teach no kind of birth control, teenagers receive a disservice when the fact that they are having sex is ignored and they are not taught how to prevent pregnancy.

Of all the fallacies that an abstinence-only program perpetuates, the most disturbing are the disingenuous facts taught about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Chlamydia, and cervical cancer. Abstinence-only programs tap into the teenagers’ fear by telling them that having sex will lead to contracting these diseases. They are only partially correct: having unprotected sex could lead to these diseases. One curriculum tells its students that “the leading medical complication from HPV” is cervical cancer (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004, p. 19). While the human papillomavirus (HPV) can lead to the disease, it is rare and is treatable if young women start getting pap smears once they become sexually active (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004). Another curriculum goes so far as to take information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and translate it into invalid statistics. For example, the CDC discovered that “41% of female teens with HIV reportedly acquired it through heterosexual contact” (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004, p. 20). FACTS, another abstinence-only program, changes the wording of the study to say, “41% of heterosexual female teens have HIV” (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004, p. 20). That is vastly different from the original study. Sexual Health Today, Slide teaches that “atherosclerotic plaque” is caused by Chlamydia, which is contracted by having sex (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004). However, the bacterium that causes the STD Chlamydia is entirely different from the respiratory Chlamydia that can cause hardened arteries (United States House of Representatives Committee, 2004). All of these claims are exaggerated and cannot be supported by any medical studies. Preying on the teenagers’ fear of death instead of educating them about how to prevent diseases is not a good way the keep them from having sexual intercourse.

Abstinence-only programs narrowly focus on one belief: teenagers who are told not to have sex will not have sex. As the generations that went before have shown, teenagers have sex. Teenagers have sex without the use of any form of birth control. Teenagers have babies. Teenagers have abortions. Telling them not to have sex is not working, and it is time that more was done about it. Making comprehensive birth control programs the standard in public schools gives students all of their options. It teaches them that abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy, and concomitantly gives them the information on how to prevent pregnancy if they do choose to have sex. Teenage pregnancy rates have been declining since 1991 (Santelli et al., 2006). The Alan Guttmacher Institutes (AGI) attributes this to teenagers choosing better birth control, as well as increased abstinence. AGI found that “[A]pproximately three-quarters of the drop resulted from changes in the behavior of sexually experienced teenagers” and that “one-quarter of the decline in teenage pregnancy … was due to increased abstinence.” (Darroch, J.E., Singh, S., 1999, pp.8,11 ). In essence, for fifteen years, some teenagers have been showing responsibility by either choosing to have sex later in life or, if they choose to have sex, they are protecting themselves from pregnancy. Why not continue this trend by giving teenagers even more education on preventing pregnancy instead of trying to frighten them into abstinence with falsehoods and lies or just telling them “Don’t”?

References

Darroch, J.E. & Singh, S. (1999) Why is teenage pregnancy declining? The roles of abstinence,
sexual activity and contraceptive use. Occasional Report, New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, No.1. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from www.guttmacher.org

Hurley, J.A., (2000) Teaching abstinence reduces teen pregnancy. Teen Pregnancy, Retrieved July 1, 2006 from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center

Santelli, J.S., Morrow, B., Anderson, J.E., & Lindberg, L.D. (2006) Contraceptive use and pregnancy risk among U.S. high school students, 1991-2003.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 38(2), 106-111. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from www.guttmacher.org

United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff Special Investigations Division. (2004). The content of federally funded abstinence-only education programs. Retrieved June 3, 2006 from www.democrats.reform.house.gov

You’ll All Pay #44

(c) Joe Conat 2006

I woke up this morning to the news that police in the UK had thwarted a massive plot to blow up American airplanes using liquid explosives.  Coffee?  No thanks, I’m set.

Bush is still…Bush.  Though, hey, he shrunk a quarter of an inch.  Any chance he’ll shrink a whole lot more and slip down the shower drain or get eaten by a spider?
 There’s just too much going on in the world and this here column languishes unattended, dust gathering in the corners.  Something must be done.  Attention must be paid!
So…we’re going for a change of pace today.  Today I will intrepidly venture into the realm of pop culture and all its stupid stupidity that I stupidly enjoy. Okay, I know the “blogosphere”…all right, irrelevant aside here:  I’m kinda sick of the term “blogosphere”.  I don’t know why.  It’s not like I’m some meteorological nut all offended by the merging of atmospheric terms with the already weirdly shortened “web log” to “blog”.  I’m just tired of it. I think it’s starting to lack punch.  I say we should start referring to the “blogosphere” as the Realm of Blog.  Or possibly the Blog Empire.  I think it makes for better introductions at blogger gatherings, if there are any.  “I am Co-N’at of the Realm of Blog!  I come to ravish, pillage and mock your culture!”  “Hey, I read your stuff.  Good work.”
 

…anyway, the Realm of Blog has been in uproar for months and months over the coming-soon-to-a-theater-near-you late summer blockbuster “Snakes on A Plane”.  I know that bandwagon has been on the road for awhile and I’m a latecomer to the convoy, but I’m-a jumpin’ on, ’cause…funny.
 

It’s brilliant.  Not the movie, I haven’t seen the movie.  The *name*, man!  “What’s your movie about?”  “Snakes on a plane.”  “Cool, I guess.  What’s it called?”  “Snakes On a Plane.”  “Neat.”
I think it’s a trend we should encourage.  It’s honest.  It’s refreshing.  Imagine, if you will, the gravelly stentorian tones of Don LaFontaine growling out at you from a THX Surround Sound system:  “In a world…without honor.  A time…without justice.  A town…without hope.  One man…will stand against the darkness.  One man…will bring hope…to the hopeless.  Coming Summer 2007…Bruce Willis Shoots Everybody!”
 

Who wouldn’t go see that?  I would personally lay down the $9.00 for a ticket plus sign the loan papers necessary to acquire enough funds to buy snacks to see “Bruce Willis Shoots Everybody“.  In IMAX.
 

Here’s a few more that I came up with:
-Stupid Movie About Cheerleading
-Stupid Movie About High School
-Inspirational Story Involving Football
-Inspirational Story About Some Crippled Guy
-Inspirational Story About Baseball Aimed Almost Exclusively At Middle-Aged Men.
-Denzel Washington Gets All Intense
-Chick Flick, or, Two Hours Any Man Will Never Get Back
-Peter Jackson Spends Lots of Money And You *LOVE* It!
-Hugh Grant Stammers A Lot and Gets the Girl
-Sci Fi Movie With Plot Holes Big Enough To Pilot a Star Destroyer Through, But Has a MONSTROUS SFX Budget So You Will Go See It On The Big Screen
-Jay and Silent Bob Make Fart Jokes for Two Hours (with Added Donkey Scene)
-Sex Comedy For the Brain Dead
-A Will Ferrell Movie
-Horror In a Cave, Or Possibly While Camping!  From the Makers of Horror With Carpentry Implements! and Horror In a Hotel!
-Hot Chicks Robbing Banks or Something.  Mmmmm…Hot Chicks…
-Isn’t Sandra Bullock Cute?
-Remember When Meg Ryan Was Cute?
-Some Guy In A Cape You Read About In a Comic Book, The Casting of Whom An Entire Horde of Comic Fanboys Collectively Gnashed Their Teeth Over For, Like, A Year.
-M. Night Shyamalan Blows It Again
 

This would make things alot simpler at the box office, I tell you what.  “Hey, which should we see:  The 7:15 showing of Horror In a Cave, Or Possibly While Camping!  From the Makers of Horror With Carpentry Implements! and Horror In a Hotel! or the 8:05 showing of M. Night Shyamalan Blows It Again?”  “Let’s see what Netflix sent us this week!”  “Okay!”
 

And what about TV?  We could apply the same  principle! 
 -Comedy Starring Washed-Up Has Beens
-Comedy About Fat Guy With Improbably Hot Wife
-Unexpectedly Good SitCom
-Cop Drama
-Cop Drama, But Grittier
-Cop Drama, But In a Different City
-Hospital Show
-Hospital Show With Sexiness!
-A UPN Show.  Change The Channel.
 

Or even books!
-Another Bodice Ripper
-A Bodice Ripper, But With Authentic Historical Detail
-Science Fiction Where The Physics Are Hand-Waved
-Science Fiction You Will Need A Slide Rule and An Engineering Degree To Understand
-Science Fiction You Will Need A Slide Rule and An Engineering Degree Just To Get The *Jokes*
-Crappy Swords & Sorcery Fantasy
-Surprisingly Good Swords & Sorcery Fantasy
-Classics You Will Never Actually Read, But They Look Impressive and Scholarly On Your Bookshelf
-Sure, Stephen King “Retired”.  Whatev.
-John Grisham.  Put It Down.
 

A new age is dawning, children.  Honesty.  Integrity.  Literalism to an annoying degree.  Embrace the future!
 

I myself am thinking of encouraging this trend.  From here on in You’ll All Pay will be known as “Who’s This Guy Who Keeps Filling My Inbox With Annoying F@#$ing Rants?  How Do I ‘Unsubscribe’?“ 
 

…
 

Maybe not.
 

“Who’s This Guy Who Keeps Filling My Inbox With Annoying F@#$ing Rants?  How Do I ‘Unsubscribe’?” is written by Joe  Conat.  You can send him An Electronic Message Through the Internet here.
 

Like what you read?  Click here for updates!

You’ll All Pay #43 

(c) Joe Conat 2006

It’s tempting, when thinking about the upcoming November elections, to frame it in terms like “David vs. Goliath”; The plucky underdog Democrats stepping into the arena, the irrefutable truth acting as a simple sling and stone and slaying the bumbling tyrannical Republican giant.

But more and more it’s looking like Democrat David can’t find any rocks, and has poor aim.

I present to you House Resolution 861 for the 109th congress, a primarily self-congratulatory piece of work which accomplishes two things: 1) links the War on Terror with the War in Iraq and 2) declares it “not in the national security interest of the United States” to set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

So, okay, here’s the nastiness the Republicans played with this one: no amendments to the resolution. So to vote no is to also vote no to “honor[ing] all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as service-members overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;” “honor[ing] the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;” and “declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.”

To recap: to vote “no” would be to say we don’t honor our troops’ sacrifice, our allies’ troops’ sacrifice and we do not declare the U.S. will win the war on terror. Also, a no vote probably means you like to kick puppies, hate springtime and Christmas and secretly worship Adolf Hitler while sodomizing goats. It’s a trick. “Hey, Democratic Party…have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

So, I guess it’s understandable that *42* democratic representatives voted a hearty “hell yes!” on H.R. 861. the same way it’s understandable that Nazi concentration camp guards were “just following orders”.

I am so tired of my political party being timid little panty-waists! C’mon…look, you know the vote for the damnable thing is going to pass with or without your vote; at least abstain. Vote “this is horseshit”. And then have some balls, walk out to the steps on the Hill and tell the press “This is a bogus resolution. H.R. 861 stands for ‘Horseshit Resolution 861′ and I refused to sully my standing with my constituents or stain my soul by partaking in this blatantly manipulative vote.”

Because, really, what is this resolution other than a Loyalty Pledge? Go read it. “Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary” and “Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world” and such self-back-patting verbiage as “Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation’s history has taken office;” “Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;” etc. etc. and moving on to resolving to honor our troops and our allies’ troops and congratulating the prime minister of Iraq and finally declaring that America will prevail in the Global War on Terror and…I mean, seriously. Who could say no? Oh, and in there is the whole “and we resolve that it would be a bad idea to say exactly when our soldiers are coming home”. If you agree with Mom, the Flag and Apple Pie, you have to also agree to shut up about troop withdrawal deadlines. Vote no…you’re a troop-hating, unpatriotic, Hitler-worshipping puppy-kicker. Vote yes…MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! Gotcha, sucker!

So 42 of my party’s representatives tucked their tails between their legs and sold their manhoods cheap and whispered “aye” with shameful voices. They caved to the bullies and I wouldn’t be surprised if they forked over their lunch money without protest both in school as children and again in the cafeteria on Capitol Hill.

Even the “Democratic presidential nominee hopeful” Hillary Clinton (and, I must admit, that phrase leaves a vile acidic taste on the back of my tongue) has been so bold as to state unequivocally “I have to just say it: I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country.”

In other words, “I want my cake and I believe it is in my best interests to eat it, too.” Hillary evidently paid very close to the “double speak” portions of Orwell’s “1984″.

I’m tired of the Dems doing this pussy-footing around, afraid to alienate the moderates while being afraid to alienate the left. “I think not having a deadline is a bad idea; on the other hand, I think *having* a deadline is a bad idea.” “I voted for the war before I voted against the war.”

Or maybe I’m the dimwitted one, here. Maybe it’s a kind of Zen koan, like “the sound of one hand clapping”. Their answer is occult, but not a non-answer…it is shrouded in mystery, like the ineffable will of God or something. “Ponder this riddle…how does one not have a deadline to withdraw troops while not NOT having a deadline to withdraw troops? When the answer is clear to you, you shall have attained Political Enlightenment.” Like suddenly the Democratic Party is comprised of Shaolin Politicos. “Snatch the resolution from my hand, Grasshopper…”

November is not that far away, people. We don’t need obfuscatory speech and shifty-eyed evasion. We don’t need “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” What we need is direct action, a clear path, a viable and attainable goal.

And we sure don’t need 42 Democratic representatives licking GOP wingtips by voting yes on what is clearly a crap resolution.

Of course we support the troops. Of course we honor their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of our allies. Of course we want the United States to prevail in the Global War on Terror. But that doesn’t mean if somebody tacks on “And if you support those things you have to support a lack of deadline for troop withdrawal” you should shrug and go “Okay, I guess.” It’s like saying “Do you support breathing?” “Yes. Yes, I do.” “Then you also support the mandatory attachment of leeches to one’s private parts.” “Wh–? Okay. That makes sense.”

Because, 1) No, it doesn’t. and B) NO. IT DOESN’T.

So, please, Democratic Party…can we please go out and find somebody with a spine? Actually…can we get 43 somebodies with spines? 42 for the House and 1 for President?

We need a true David with a good slingin’arm and decent aim. David wouldn’t have won if he’d been too busy debating where to hit Goliath, you know? “Well, if I hit him in the head, I’ll annoy the Head Lovers Associations, but if I get him in the heart there’s the whole Heart Aficionados coalition to contend with and I could really use their support…I don’t even want to think about the headaches a groin shot would bring down on me…”

Meanwhile, GOP Goliath has moseyed on up and just tromped on David’s spinning little head and moved on to pillage and rape.

For the love of God…pick a direction. After the total SNAFU Bush has turned this country into, any direction that isn’t “Further into the quagmire!” would be welcome.

The giant is that way. Here’s a rock…it’s called The Truth.

Hit somebody, will ya?

You’ll All Pay was discovered buried in the desert near Yemen on some rotting papyrus. Parts of this translated “gospel” have been extrapolated using the scientifically approved “well of course he meant to say ‘sodomizing a goat’” method. You can reach beyond the veil of dust and time to tell the author he’s no prophet, just a madman in the desert here. Please be sure to phrase your comment in Aramaic.

Like what you read? Click here for updates.