(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.”
Â
…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.
Â
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!”
Â
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.
Â
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
Â
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!”
Â
And what about TV? We could apply the same  principle!Â
 -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.
Â
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.
Â
A new age is dawning, children. Honesty. Integrity. Literalism to an annoying degree. Embrace the future!
Â
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’?“Â
Â
…
Â
Maybe not.
Â
“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.
Â
Like what you read? Click here for updates!
You’ll All Pay #43Â
(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?â€
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…â€
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.
You’ll All Pay #42
(c) 2006 Joe Conat
First, I have to start off by retracting something from last week’s YAP. According to the Washington Post, Karl “Turd Blossom” Rove will not be charged in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case.
They say in Hollywood, you fail upwards. In D.C. you have to break the law to get anywhere. But our government is not corrupt.
…in Bizarro World.
Moving on: Â The Supreme Court has decided that, even if police officers broke the law by not waiting and giving fair warning before busting open a door and serving a warrant to search a private residence…the evidence they collected can still be used.
Hrrr?
The Exclusionary Rule was established in 1914, in Weeks v. United States on a federal level and brought down to the state level with Mapp v. Ohio in 1961. Evidence obtained illegally, like, say, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, would not be permissible as evidence in a criminal trial. Okay? Simply put: If the cop breaks into your house without a warrant and discovers four hundred kilos of horse tranquilizers with big “For Sale to Pre-Schoolers” stickers on the packages…tough titty. He can’t present that evidence in trial. Shoulda got a warrant.
Tied into that was the common law “knock and announce” rule, that said the police had to knock on the door, announce their presence and identity…the old “Open up! Police!” we’re so familiar with from the teevee…and give the occupants the chance to open the door and let them in. Police have generally waited 20 seconds or so before opening the door.
Today’s Supreme Court ruling poo-poos that old technicality of knock-and-announce. Naw, forget that. If police violate knock-and-announce, well, that’s not nice…but any evidence they collect is just dandy.
Michigan law is clear on the service of a warrant: MCL 780.656 clearly states an officer can bust open (or, presumably, just open) any outer door or window after giving notice of his authority and purpose and being refused admittance. Or if necessary to liberate himself and anyone helping him; so does California Law (sections 1531 and 1532); and New York Law (section 690.50).
So tapping on the door and saying “Openuppolice” and walking in doesn’t cut it.
But now there’s no disincentive. There’s no reason to not do that.
Let’s put it this way: We all agree that it’s not legal to hit a guy in the face with a shovel, right? No matter how cool the sound it makes (”Ptang”) the act of smacking a guy in the physiognomy with a spade is just against the law.
If you smack a dude in the mug with a shovel, you go to jail. Right?
Now, what if the law was changed. What if it was more…”Well, hitting a guy in the face with a shovel is against the law…but there’s no real penalty, if you see what I mean. We’ll frown upon it, sure. We’ll think less of you. We may even say ‘We’re very disappointed’. But you won’t go to jail, no.”
I’ll tell you what would happen. I got a list. Ptang!
So, now what? There’s no reason a cop shouldn’t just do a whispered “openuppolice” and smash your door in a with a battering ram. Sure, he might get a stern talking-to, but the collar is still good and his record looks spiffy. “Look at all these busts! And they all stuck! Man, am I Super-Cop, or what?”
Jackboots in the streets, children. Â Hear the clomp clomp clomp.
Listen real hard for that clomp clomp clomp. It may be the only warning you get before “Hands up, scumbag!” as you sit on the john with the morning paper.
It may be the only warning that lets you hide behind the door before they kick it in.
With a shovel.
You’ll All Pay is written on scraps of paper towel and smuggled out of his cold and stony prison cell on patiently trained carrier pigeons to his few supporters. You can send him messages of hope and flyers for Home Depot (”Shovel on Sale!”) here.
Like what you read? Sign up to be notified of updates here!
You’ll All Pay #41
(c) 2006 Joe Conat
Are you kidding me?!
From the Associated Press:
“In a debate with powerful echoes of the turbulent civil rights era, four Republicans running for Alabama’s Supreme Court are making an argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents. The Constitution says federal law trumps state laws, and legal experts say there is general agreement that state courts must defer to the U.S. Supreme Court on matters of federal law.
Yet Justice Tom Parker, who is running for chief justice, argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents they believe to be erroneous. Three other GOP candidates in Tuesday’s primary have made nearly identical arguments.
“State supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are `precedents,’” Parker wrote in a newspaper opinion piece in January that was prompted by a murder case that came before the Alabama high court.”
(Story can be found here.)
So…what are the state supreme court judges supposed to do…flip a coin? Make it up as they go? “I know there’s a ‘precedent’ that says murder is illegal, but we’re gonna ignore that because everybody knows Jim Bob was a sonuvvabitch, so you know what? Case dismissed. YEEEEEE HHHHAAWWWWW!!!”
There’s a perfectly valid way for Alabama to not adhere to the Supreme Court’s pesky ‘precedents’. It’s called “secession” and would anybody really *miss* Alabama if they left the union? I mean, really? Granted they’re geographically inconvenient, being mostly surrounded by, you know, the rest of the United States, but if we can put up a wall along the border with Mexico we can put a wall around Alabama. And good riddance to them, really.
Hey, ‘bama. Just to let you know, sort of a friendly FYI from a stuck up citified Yankee…here’s Article III of the Constitution of the Country You Should Probably Consider Just Leaving, It Would Be Better For Everyone, Really:
(pertinent bits bolded for Alabama’s edification. Edification. Go look it up in the dictionary, Alabama. Dictionary. It’s a big book with–oh, forget it.)
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So, according to the Constitution, State courts are totally superceded by the Supreme Court in matters of federal law. Whether or not you agree with “precedent” is immaterial…it’s the law and you have to follow it. If you don’t like the law appeal it, you backwards redneck morons! There are steps you can take! GAAAAHHHH!!!
This is just typical of what we’ve been seeing from most of the Republican party lately. Don’t like those annoying “laws” and “ethics” and all that? Ignore them! Wanna listen in on private citizens’ phone calls? Go ahead! Forget FISA! War in Iraq? Let’s lie about WMDs! What? No WMDs? Just shrug and mug and keep shootin’, by golly.
I mean…I know it’s hardly topical anymore, but Dick Cheney SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE and there was no investigation, no real legal repercussions, no anything. They wait hours and hours before having the local Roscoe P. Coltrane doofus sherriff mosey on up to the ranch. “Mr. Vice President…did you shoot that man in the face?” “Yes, but I didn’t mean it.” “Good enough for me! Want some barbecue?”
Does law mean nothing to the GOP? Seriously. How many Abramoffs and Scooter Libby’s do we need to have before we just round up all the party controllers and march them off to the hoosegow? “You did something, just ‘fess up.”
Oh, now I remember why we don’t do that: The Democratic Party has decided to be complete wusses.
C’mon, Dems! John Lewis calls for impeachment and the Democratic Party’s response seems to be embarrassed shushing. “You’re being too loud! Inside voices! Somebody call him a cab, get him to sleep it off.”
Oh, and would somebody in the “mainstream media” please report on Karl Rove’s indictment? The curtain’s been pulled back, the Wizard is exposed as a conman, a cheat and a liar! Dude, this is big news for all of Oz, not just the Emerald City! Munchkinland must hear of this!
Blatant disregard for the laws of this land has characterized just about every aspect of this administration, from its shady allegedly stolen elections to its vengeful treatment of naysayers to its deception intended to lead the country into a misguided war to its misuse and shuffling of funds. If this were a business, Bush and Co. would be lined up next to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling in some prison jumpsuits singing “Swing Low Sweet Chariot”. But we do nothing because, according to one excuse I’ve heard, we “wouldn’t get the votes we need to do it.”
We don’t need votes. Send the POLICE!
Oh, wait…that’s right. The Democrats have their own scandal to deal with in the form of Rep. William Jefferson.
Man…how can the Democrats, in good conscience, scream for the blood of the administration due to its incompetence and corruption while screaming just as vehemently against law and order when one of their own is found to be (allegedly) corrupt?
Let’s be clear. The raid on William Jefferson’s office was, in my view, entirely legal and justified. I’m no lawyer or constitutional scholar, but it’s apparent that the Constitution does not protect Congressmen from criminal prosecution or investigation; it only protects them from civil actions brought by private citizens that would call them away from performing the duties of their elected office and disenfranchise the people they represent.
Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
I’m pretty sure the bribery charges Jefferson is facing are felonies, and this article does not protect Congressmen from investigation.
It’s embarrassing, and it’s embarrassing that my party is questioning the DoJ on what, to me, appears to be a perfectly valid investigation. Plus, Bush seals the records for 45 days…which means the Dems now owe Bushie Baby a *favor*. Way to handle that one, dumbasses.
It would be better, I think, if the Dems would just step up and say “Yeah, okay, it appears he’s a bad bad man” and accept his investigation with good grace rather than squee like indignant little girls that the G-Men kicked in a door on the Hill. Get over it. A crime has been committed…the dude had $100K in his *freezer*, like, what…he’s one of those dudes that doesn’t trust banks? “I know it looks bad, but I like to keep my legitimately earned money in odd places. Don’t look in the toilet tank, heh heh, that’s where I keep my bonds.”
So now the whole shebang is even more suspect. Is there not one good soul in D.C. who can, I don’t know, be a good and ethical leader for the country? Makes you yearn for the days of Bill “O Face” Clinton, doesn’t it? Semen on a dress seems kinda trite in comparison to $100K all Reynolds Wrap-ped in the freezer, let alone what the feds might have found in the representative’s office.
Given all this…well. Now I come to think of it, maybe we should all secede from the United States. Take some of the leftover Mexican Wall material and just build a border around my house. Declare my house the United State of Joe. National Motto: Truth, Justice and Get the Hell Offa My Lawn!
It’ll be me an’ Alabama, I guess.
Roll tide, bitches.
You’ll All Pay is written by Joe Conat who is even now designing his own flag. It has stars on it. And a monkey. Who knows with this guy? You can send him design suggestions here.
Like what you read? Click here to receive notification of (rare) updates.
You’ll All Pay #40
© 2005 Joe Conat
Crime. There is no other word for it.
Everybody, of course, is talking about the devastation in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I’ve even heard some people around the office mention irritably that they were “sick of it…isn’t there any other news?†Then, of course, they turn and gawk at the pictures on the front page of the L.A. Times, gasping at the ruin. “Wow, man. Just wow.â€
That’s not the crime. I mean…it is a crime, but it’s one of the myriad petty stupid crimes that petty stupid people inflict on the world around them every minute they draw breath, so you just get used to that trickle of horror going down your throat and don’t even notice you’re swallowing it.
Crime.
In New Orleans, even as you read this, all civility has abandoned the area. Any shred of decency is long gone, washed away perhaps, maybe blown north on the winds of Katrina. People shoot at rescue helicopters, angry that the helicopters are not coming for them, for their families. A madman shot at people trying to evacuate a hospital.
In the convention center, bodies stack up. Rape and murder is common. Supplies can’t be dropped off because of the rushing crowds, desperate for food and clean water and maybe, just maybe, a way out.
Bodies lie in the street. People are resorting to animalism, barbarism. Police are scared…or absent.
Crime.
Do you understand me? Crime. And what’s worse?
This is not the crime I’m talking about either.
Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast early in the morning of August 29th, 2005. On that day the leader of our country attended two staged events to promote his Medicare plan, and held a birthday cake with John McCain.
On August 30th he spoke about the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory in World War II, taking the opportunity to plug his ever favorit war in Iraq at Naval Base Coronado, where he also received a guitar from a country music singer.
Then he went back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas and took a nap.
President Bush got back to the Oval Office on August 31st, two days after Katrina wiped out the Gulf Coast. Two. Days.
To be fair, he did do a quick flyover of the destruction. Probably just to say he did. In his Rose Garden address upon his return to, you know…his job…Mr. Bush gave us a laundry list of things that were bad, things that were needed but said he was “confident that, with time, you can get your life back in order, new communities will flourish, the great city of New Orleans will be back on its feet, and America will be a stronger place for it.â€
Note that he used the pronoun “youâ€. “You can get your life in order. I will be taking a nap. Now watch this drive.â€
Crime.
In the New Orleans convention center desperate refugees broke into the kitchen searching for food. There they encountered National Guardsmen, who threatened to kill them right there and then. Civilians become thieves, Guardsmen become murderers.
10,000 more people crowd the Superdome, hoping for a ride out of Hell. FEMA is not visible. Not a single FEMA representative can be found.
Starving infants scream, gathered around the dead body of an old man on his lawn. Infants. BABIES are dying in the streets, in the convention center, in the Superdome and the leader of the free world can’t be bothered to cancel some photo ops with chuckling charming old ladies and a god damned country singer.
Crime.
This morning on “Good Morning America†the President had this to say in response to criticism of his slow reaction to the tragedy: “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded.”
Experts Had Predicted Levee Failures
We Saw It Coming, Yet We Still Didn’t Prepare
New Orleans Facing Environmental Disaster
In fact, the predictions go back even further than that. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested substantial monies to fortify the levees that surround New Orleans. They got an insignificant sliver of what they said was necessary to maintain the safety of the city.
Crime.
Who will pay, Mr. President? When all is said and done, when the dead have finally been laid to rest, when the hungry are finally fed…when the flood waters roll back, who will stand accountable for the incredible depth to which these people were forced to sink because the resources they needed were in another country? Because the money they needed was in another country? Because the leadership they needed was asleep?
Crime.
Who will pay?
Have a nice nap.
You’ll All Pay is written by Joe Conat. You can e-mail him here.
Like what you read? Click here to receive notification of updates.
You’ll All Pay #39
© Joe Conat 2005
Main Entry: lib•er•al
Pronunciation: ‘li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
Main Entry: lib•er•al•ism
Pronunciation: ‘li-b(&-)r&-”li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
Main Entry: con•ser•va•tive
Pronunciation: k&n-’s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of or relating to Conservative Judaism
Main Entry: con•ser•va•tism
Pronunciation: k&n-’s&r-v&-”ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
What’s this all about, Joe? Why for the dictionary entries? Is this going to be…educational?
It might. Hang in there, okay?
See, the thing is…I’m getting pissed off. I’m sorry, but I am. Every third article I read throws in how the political right has taken over the language and turned “liberal” into a bad word. “How do we take the language back?” they moan, wringing their sweaty hands and wiping them on their ACLU cards. “Whatever shall we do?”
You know how you take language back? You use it.
Look at the definitions above. Liberal: of or befitting a man of free birth. Marked by generosity. Broad-minded…not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.
Liberalism: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity (moral values, anyone?). A theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard (isn’t that also called “free market economy” or am I high?) A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. (Hey! Sounds like a free democracy!)
Now let’s take a look at conservative: Preservative (okay, makes me think of formaldehyde). Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.
Conservatism: Disposition in politics to preserve what is established. A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change. The tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.
So what does that say to me? Liberal = freedom loving, patriotic, highly moral and dynamic. Conservative = stuck in a rut, status-quo loving and afraid of change.
But the right has made “liberal” a bad word. How did they do it? By saying it with a sneer in their voice, and prefacing it with terms like “bleeding heart” or “tree hugger”. Their strategy has been to paint the liberal as overly sentimental…as naive…as weak. When they talk about “liberal policies” that would give government funds to needy people or further education or whatever, the implication when they mock and deride these policies is that the people those programs would help…and by extension the liberals that propose them…are incapable of fending for themselves, they lack the American spirit of do-it-yourself rugged individualism.
We know that’s not true. Liberals are not, as a species, weak, naive or incapable of self advancement. We know this…but do we show that? No. We play into their image of liberals by whining that the conservatives are meanie-heads and moaning that they’ve usurped the language.
Well, it’s time to fight back. You take language by using language.
So, like the right tends to preface liberal with “bleeding heart” and the like, I say everyone who reads this, no matter the context, prefaces the word “conservative” with “afraid-of-change, rut-loving, corrupt bastard” or similar. Doesn’t matter who you’re talking to.
“Hey, mom…I was just reading in the paper that the afraid-of-change, rut-loving, corrupt bastard conservatives are still pushing that afraid-of-change, rut-loving, corrupt bastard conservative John Bolton for the U.N.”
“You know…some of my best friends are afraid-of-change, rut-loving, corrupt bastard conservatives…”
“$400 for my brakes?! Is that an afraid-of-change, rut-loving, corrupt bastard conservative estimate?”
Just do that all the time. Call up Air America or any other “liberal” talk radio or television venue and use that over the phone. Encourage others to do the same. Soon we’ll hear Al Franken saying “Today the afraid-of-change, rut-loving, corrupt bastard conservatives again tried to bend the country over without a kiss…”
And make sure you hit that sneer in your voice when you say “conservativeâ€. Make your voice full of scorn and absolute derision when you say it. Just…think of whatever you despise. When you say “conservativeâ€, think “pervertâ€, but not that fun kind of pervert that you sort of want to hook up with at parties. No, the kind of pervert that’s into something that make you blink and wrinkle your nose in disgust no matter how hard you try to be polite when they tell you they really get off on fantasies of John Bolton and a midget nun.
I mean…the midget nun I could understand, but…
Think of cockroaches. Earwigs.
Think of No Child Left Behind.
Whatever it is you think of, just keep it up. Never let the word “conservative†or the phrase “right wing†by your lips without conveying utter revulsion. Make it an epithet, a curse. Spit between your two fingers when you say it, make the sign of the Evil Eye.
Within a few years, perhaps, “conservative” will be the bad word, and Republicans will use the same embarrassed prevarication liberals use today. You know what I’m talking about…”I’m not ‘liberal’ I’m ‘progressive’.” Might as well just deny everything. “I’m not ‘Irish’, I’m ‘off-the-coast European’.” “My hair isn’t brown, it’s off-black with auburn highlights…”
It’s weak. It’s making excuses for what you believe and that makes your beliefs a lie. Knock it off. Take the language by using the language. Make *them* start saying “I’m not ‘conservative’, I’m ’social stability oriented’” and we can all snicker behind our hands for once for their ineffectiveness.
I mean it. Stop apologizing, stop agonizing. Call a conservative a jerk and fight back. I’ve been saying it again and again…fight back. Forget the Marquis of Queensbury rules, fight just as hard and dirty as they do. We’re not weak, we’re not naive. Take back the language.
Use the language.
You’ll All Pay is written by hand-wringing, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging liberal weenie Joe Conat. Actually, call him that and he’s likely to knife you in the spleen. He also once killed a man just because of how he voted. You can take your chances by mailing him here.
Like what you read? Click here for updates.
You’ll All Pay #38
© Joe Conat 2005
Okay, so it’s been months. I could tell you all about why…the goings on in my life, the whirlwind travel to exotic locales, the late nights with squalling infants, the mad pre-dawn rush to a new job…but you don’t care, so let’s get back to it, shall we?
My, my, my…so much has gone on in the past few months, huh? Where to start? So much to say, so little time to say it. Water, water everywhere…
The “nuclear optionâ€. Correct me if I’m wrong on this…even NPR’s coverage seemed spotty and confused at times on this issue. So lemme sum up: The Bush administration wanted to appoint a few anti-activist judges…activist judges, but from Bizarro world, where extremism on the right-hand side of the political spectrum is somehow not activism.
(Which seems to me to be saying: “Bob Dylan is an activist…boo! David Duke is politically active…admirable!†But anyway…)
So, we have these Bizarro-activist judges being nominated to lifetime federal judgeships. And of course the Democrats are “She said the New Deal was a socialist plot!! If you’re gonna put her up there, why don’t you dig up and clone Howard Hughes and Joe McCarthy?! They were right-wing and crazy, too!†And they get their little heads together and say “Screw that! We’ll filibuster!â€
Now, it turns out that filibustering has no real legal standing in Congress…it’s just a tradition, right? No rules that allow it, per se.
So the Republicans say “Do that and we’ll outlaw filibustering! Hah! Double hah! Hah hah!â€
And the Democrats respond with “You’re big meanie stupid-heads!â€
And so forth and so on. Until some weenie dumbasses decide to compromise. And the compromise goes like this: “If you say we can filibuster…we won’t. Unless it’s really, really important. Like, if Godzilla is attacking Capitol Hill and can only be stopped by filibustering, that’s when we can use it.â€
Is that right? If so…that’s the stupidest damned thing I’ve ever heard!
Gah! My disgust knows no bounds. What the hell kind of a “compromise†is that? Can you imagine going to war with that attitude? “Okay, you don’t like tanks. You wanna say we can’t use tanks. Okay, here’s what we’ll do…if you just drop it and say we can use tanks…we won’t use tanks. We’ll use the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile.â€
*sigh*
So, Deep Throat was Mark Felt. Now, okay…that’s kinda cool, that Deep Throat’s been revealed. I mean…it would have been cooler if it had been somebody that people had heard of, like John Dean or Haldeman or Superman or somebody. But, hey…mystery solved. Deep Throat revealed.
That puts me in mind of some more recent events…like, say…the Downing Street memo?
We now have proof…solid proof from a whole other country and stuff…that Bush was horny for war with Iraq, was planning to remove Saddam Hussein by hook or by crook and was fudging intelligence to bolster that move. Proof! Proof that he lied to the American public, got his cronies to lie, bald-faced, to the American public, and sent our troops to die in Iraq for no other reason than, golly, he sure didn’t like that Saddam Hussein fella.
PROOF!
Is that the front-page story? Is the Washington Post leaping on that nummy news treat and calling it “Watergate II: Deceitful Boogaloo�
No. Why? I don’t know. I suspect they’re pussies.
Thirty years ago the power of the truth brought down a corrupt administration and, you know what? Everybody cheered. The system works, yo! Excelsior to the Fourth Estate! Booyah!
Nowadays, it’s like the news media’s sort of embarrassed to report on stuff like this. “Well, gee…that seems kind of mean. And we don’t want to rock the boat or hurt anybody’s feelings or anything. And, frankly…we’re kind of scared of the Bush administration. They don’t do anything, but they look at you and shake their heads and they just look so disappointed…â€
Gah! My disgust knows no bounds.
Is Bush still pushing his cockamamie Daffy Duck Social Security Plan? Shut up, Bush.
Hey, the Schiavo autopsy came back. Turns out Dr. Frist’s assertion that Terri Schiavo wasn’t brain dead based on her apparent response “to visual stimuli†is completely wrong…Schiavo was blind. Her vision centers were gone. Blind.
Shut up, Frist.
I’m going to come right out and say it: I wanna have Howard Dean’s babies. Lots of them. And all of them will be named Howard. Yes, even the girls.
Since September, 2001 Republicans have taken every opportunity to imply that being a Democrat made one an unpatriotic, anarchic, perverse and twisted, maniacal, homosexual terrorist. During the 2004 election, they came damnably close to calling every Democrat on the planet a Satanist who likes “water sports†with gnus.
But the instant we say “You know where the high road goes? Off a cliff!†and fight back like for like, suddenly we’re big ol’ mean name-callers.
Yeah, Howard Dean said no Republican has ever worked an honest day’s work. And, you know, I winced…every Republican I know works damn hard.
But I hadda give him style points for balls. I laughed and laughed and laughed.
So I say to those Democrats who didn’t step up and back their boy: Screw you, you unpatriotic, anarchic, perverse and twisted, maniacal, homosexual terrorists! Screw you and the Donkey you rode in on!
On the other hand…shut up, Howard Dean.
You know who else I wanna have Democrat babies with? My boy from the home state Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), that’s who. Despite being consigned to the dungeon of Capitol Hill, past that bathroom that hasn’t worked since the first Roosevelt (Teddy) administration, around the corner from the filing cabinet that’s filled with rats’ nests and just down the hall from the secret room where they stack the bleached and dusty bones of all those mouthy congressional aides, and despite the Republicans calling 11 votes, holding a major appropriations hearing, doing bed-checks and holding a no-cover-charge kegger, making it difficult to attend, Conyers held a forum that called for a congressional inquiry into the aforementioned “Downing Street Memoâ€.
Damn skippy, my brother!
The heady aroma of impeachment was in the air, like blood on the water, and for once the Democrats realized “Holy crap! We’re sharks!†And the feeding frenzy is scheduled for real soon now.
Is Bush a criminal? Are you asking my opinion?
Hell yes, he is. He misled the country and deceived us into going into a useless and unnecessary war. In my opinion, he’s guilty of high treason and over 1,700 counts of murder.
So, about damn time. I’m sharpening my pitchfork and stockpiling torches even as I type this. Out of the village, monster!
Maybe there’s a New Age of Reason on the horizon. Captain Freedom Fries a.k.a Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) is now calling for a deadline for troop removal from Iraq, and he’s not the only GOP-ster to say the same thing. AND, in a rousing 238 to 187 (meaning some Republicans voted with the majority on this issue) an amendment to restrict the USA PATRIOT Act from searching libraries and bookstore records. There’s a rising sentiment to shut down Gitmo unless we can be decent human beings with our prisoners and not engage in torture and religious desecration. The new Summer Fashion statement is: Brains and reason in; jackboots OUT!
So maybe my absence was not such a bad thing. So much bad, but for once some good to talk about. The Reign of Stupid is nearing its end, perhaps.
Well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves…we have til 2008, after all. Two and a half years is a long time in which a monkey can steer a car into a minefield. We’re still largely hated across the globe because of our arrogant bullying, we’re still regarded as stupid backwards redneck ‘tards across the globe because we somehow not only gave the monkey a gun, but then gave it to him again, and our gas is finally stabilizing at $Outrageous.99 a gallon rather than $AreYouEffin’KiddingMeWhatIsThis1977?.99 a gallon.
And don’t forget Bush still wants to appoint as ambassador to the United Nations a man who said the United Nations was completely unnecessary. A man foaming at the mouth to “reform†it, whatever that means. It’s starting to sound like a Western…â€I’m gonna reform this here governing body if’n I gotta kill every damn Injun in the territory to do it.â€
But, hey…maybe the U.N. needs reform and maybe Bolton’s just the savvy diplomat to do it. After all, don’t we want a man who wrangled and manipulated to get access to high-level national security intercepts to spy on other officials and get them to back his warmongering policies to schmooze and charm the representatives of other nations? What better way to say “We’re ready to cooperate in an atmosphere of good willing and bonhomie†than to sidle up to the delegate from France and whisper “Hey, Henri…nice suit. So, I understand you like hookers dressed as Hilary Clinton…â€
Better yet, why don’t we just load G. Gordon Liddy with seven pounds of crack cocaine, a loaded assault rifle and a post-hypnotic suggestion to “paint the General Assembly crimson�
As it turns out, Bush may just send Bolton to the U.N. anyway under a recess appointment. Because when the Will of the People doesn’t jibe with W’s vision of a Candyland Fantasy World where everyone loves him and he’s always right and his mommy calls him a “smart boyâ€, well, the best thing is to say “screw the people, I’ll do what I want†and then go drink some Ovaltine and desultorily play with your Tinkertoys. And mutter to yourself that all those mean kids are just jealous anyway.
What else? Oh, don’t you just love that cute Porter Goss? He recently claimed he has an “excellent idea of where [Osama bin Laden] is.†Yeah, I’m sure. “Well, we checked the attic and the pantry and we’re pretty sure he can’t fit under the sink, so the only place left he could hide would be in the closet in the master bedroom. Ollie ollie oxen free!â€
And when asked if the United States could possibly go to war again based on false intelligence, Mr. Goss’ response was “I would not agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on false intelligence. I would say that the right question is: Should America be checking out threats to America? The answer is yes. And will we find some threats were more talk than real? Yes, we will.â€
So in a couple of months when Bush pushes his case to invade Erromango because “I swear they were lookin’ all shifty†then we should whole-heartedly commit more of our troops to a useless, pointless and wasteful extended operation. Just in case.
To further justify possible future action in yet another Middle Eastern country, Congressman Curt Weldon [R-PA] has this to say about bin Laden’s whereabouts: “I’m confident that I know for sure he’s been in and out of Iran, where Ayatollah Khomenei has been protecting him with his Revolutionary Guard.â€
The CIA feels differently. Weldon’s sooper-sekrit intelligence source, “Ali†(no, I’m not kidding) has been completely dismissed by The Company as not “the slightest bit credible†and as “a waste of time and resources.â€
I just love that bit about being protected by the Ayatollah and his Revolutionary Guard, though. Everyone knows bin Laden is in Latvia, sequestered deep in Castle Doom and surrounded by a phalanx of killer Doombots at all times. Pshaw.
So the world is still wacky, the United States government still seems to be largely controlled by brain-dead wackaloons and I appear to be back, at least for now.
At least I’ll have something to write about.
SO DECLARES DOOM!
You’ll All Pay is written, on occasion, when the planets are in the correct alignment, by Joe Conat. You can tell him to get his head back in the damn game, I mean, your daughter’s cute and all but, dude, there’s a whole world goin’ to Hell in a handbasket right outside your window, would you get crackin’ for the love of all that’s holy? here.
Like what you read? Click here for updates.
You’ll All Pay #37
© Joe Conat 2005
My wife has a sore throat. So far, she has only gone so far as to suck on some Ricola throat lozenges to alleviate her pain and attempt to get well. I think that’s craziness, but she refuses to drink TheraFlu because, to quote her, it “tastes like rotten ass in a teacupâ€.
I guess I’ll just have to have Congress force her to drink TheraFlu.
What? Isn’t that Congress’ job? Hey, if they can force Terry Schiavo to eat through a tube, they can certainly take five minutes, or five hours if necessary, to draft legislation that would allow a federal judge to review whether or not my wife should drink TheraFlu, and enforce said drinking of TheraFlu should they decide that way.
No, I don’t think Congress has anything more important to do. Iraq? Pfah…it’s a loss, everyone knows that. Social Securi-what? Aren’t they going to exchange benefits for casino chips from Morongo and let the elderly play Pai-gow to enhance their future or something? Problem solved. North Korea? Nuclear schmuclear.
No, no…I truly believe that Congress’ real concern is getting my wife to drink TheraFlu. I think, in fact, that they should send federal marshals to my home, weapons drawn, and force a funnel into her mouth and pour hot, steaming good-for-you TheraFlu down her gullet.
Taxpayers’ money? What? Pfah. That’s a loss…everyone knows it.
If the TheraFlu doesn’t work, I believe the government should send a National Guard unit to my house and force at least 48 hours of bedrest on my wife. At gunpoint, if necessary, though we all pray it won’t come to that.
Federalist rule? States’ rights? Look, if “states’ rights†actually worked, my wife would not, even as I type, be suffering from a sore throat despite my exhortations to her that she drink TheraFlu. And yet, I do not see Arnold Schwarzenegger shoving a mug full of yummy medicine-filled TheraFlu in my wife’s face while wearing bitchin’ Gargoyle-brand shades and intoning some witty one-liner like “I vill terminate your sore throat like I terminate special interest groups in Kah-lee-fornyaâ€. If you can’t get the star of “Predator†to shatter my wife’s kneecaps if she doesn’t take her medicine and get rid of her sore throat, then I guess the Congress and the United States Military will have to do it.
Look, we live in a nation that has embraced a “culture of life†whatever that is. I don’t know, I just know I can use it to justify outrageous wastes of time, effort, government resources and money to make sure my wife drinks TheraFlu. I don’t need to adhere to constitutional articles if I say “culture of lifeâ€. It’s a magical phrase that lets me get what I want…my wife to drink TheraFlu…and ignore law, precedent, jurisdiction and propriety. “But—“ No. Shut up. “But—“ “CULTURE OF LIFE! CULTURE OF LIFE!†Now sit down.
I understand that for thirty years my wife has done just fine without TheraFlu and that there are many facts and preceding circumstances in which the anti-TheraFlu “theory†was tested and proved to be just spiffy. “Culture of life!†I think she should take TheraFlu, her grandmother agrees with me and we’re going to Washington D.C. where the House and the Senate will undoubtedly pass hasty, poorly judged and completely outrageous legislation backing me up.
Prepare to drink TheraFlu, honey. Your country demands it. Well, I demand it and I’m pretty sure I can get a bunch of lawmakers to ignore the Constitution and get my back on this.
I can’t wait for when Emeline gets older and I can call in Special Forces to enforce bedtime, just like they did for that cute little Elian Gonzales.
You’ll All Pay is written by Joe Conat, and you will read it, by special order of Congress under their “Monday Just After Palm Sunday Compromise Thingy†law. You can tell Joe to shut up and take his anti-depressants regularly he thinks he’s so high and mighty just look at what he does and does Congress say anything about that? here.
Like what you read? Click here for updates.