How come Republicans always want to get in the bed with me? They want to know who I'm having sex with. They want to legislate whether or not I am eligible to use birth control.
The best of all is they want to know if I am into beastiality. Rick Santorum is interested in man-on-dog sex! You kinky bastard.
Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Larry Craig hires attorneys to...ummm....I'm not sure
Larry Craig (R-ID) has hired two high profile attorneys recently to represent him in regards to his lewd conduct in a men's room in Minnesota.
I'm not sure why Craig needs an attorney now. He already pleaded guilty to the charge, and received a sentence. It is hard to believe that he is going to mount an appeal, or something else as equally bogus out of this whole charade.
The funny thing is, one of the lawyers he hired is the same one who represented Michael Vick, Billy Martin (Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan). I guess Mr. Martin is looking for a strange professional resume. He has represented a professional athlete who likes to torture animals. Now he is adding a seeming pervert, who likes to have anonymous sex in the men's room, and subsequently already pleaded guilty to the charge and been sentenced. Yeah, I'd love to have him on my legal team, too. It would make for some interesting stories, nonetheless.
The other attorney, Stan Brand, who previously represented Major League Baseball's congressional investigation for steroid use, will be representing Senator Craig in regards to issues surrounding the investigation of the Senate Ethics Committee.
It sounds like a challenge for all involved.
I'm not sure why Craig needs an attorney now. He already pleaded guilty to the charge, and received a sentence. It is hard to believe that he is going to mount an appeal, or something else as equally bogus out of this whole charade.
The funny thing is, one of the lawyers he hired is the same one who represented Michael Vick, Billy Martin (Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan). I guess Mr. Martin is looking for a strange professional resume. He has represented a professional athlete who likes to torture animals. Now he is adding a seeming pervert, who likes to have anonymous sex in the men's room, and subsequently already pleaded guilty to the charge and been sentenced. Yeah, I'd love to have him on my legal team, too. It would make for some interesting stories, nonetheless.
The other attorney, Stan Brand, who previously represented Major League Baseball's congressional investigation for steroid use, will be representing Senator Craig in regards to issues surrounding the investigation of the Senate Ethics Committee.
It sounds like a challenge for all involved.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Larry Craig's Loophole
When Senator Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, on June 11, 2007, he should have invoked a little known power of the legislative branch, as afforded by the Constitution, instead of simply throwing down his Senate business card and asking, "What do you think of that?"
If I had been him, and truly innocent of the charges, I would have excused myself from the interrogation room and set myself free from the judicial branch's authority.
Article I, Section 6, of the United States Constitution, states: "[Members of Congress] 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."
In doing so, the checks-and-balances of our government may be maintained, without undue interference from the other branches of government.
So you see, unless Senator Craig was attempting to join the Minnesota chapter of the Taliban, in hopes of engaging in an insurrection against his nation, robbing an airport shop, or leading a riot on the tarmac, he was pretty much free to come and go as he pleased, without the hassle of the police interfering with him.
Simply engaging in lewd behavior may not meet the burden of being a felony. Besides, it would be up to state law to determine if the crime was felonious, or only a misdemeanor, as I believe it was (under Minnesota law).
But he wasn't in Washington, DC, at the time. Does he still get the protection of this portion of the Constitution? Of course he does. He was en route from Washington to his home in Idaho. As a result, he met the burden of the portion stating, "...in going to and returning from the same."
Certainly, George W. Bush, as president, uses the Constitution to his advantage (even the parts he creates) to protect himself, and his cronies, from congressional oversight, for such things as illegal wiretapping and secret international prisons; therefore, I believe it is plausible that a senator could use such directly expressed constitutional protection to ward off a policeman who said he/she was attempting to solicit sex in a public restroom.
If I had been him, and truly innocent of the charges, I would have excused myself from the interrogation room and set myself free from the judicial branch's authority.
Article I, Section 6, of the United States Constitution, states: "[Members of Congress] 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."
In doing so, the checks-and-balances of our government may be maintained, without undue interference from the other branches of government.
So you see, unless Senator Craig was attempting to join the Minnesota chapter of the Taliban, in hopes of engaging in an insurrection against his nation, robbing an airport shop, or leading a riot on the tarmac, he was pretty much free to come and go as he pleased, without the hassle of the police interfering with him.
Simply engaging in lewd behavior may not meet the burden of being a felony. Besides, it would be up to state law to determine if the crime was felonious, or only a misdemeanor, as I believe it was (under Minnesota law).
But he wasn't in Washington, DC, at the time. Does he still get the protection of this portion of the Constitution? Of course he does. He was en route from Washington to his home in Idaho. As a result, he met the burden of the portion stating, "...in going to and returning from the same."
Certainly, George W. Bush, as president, uses the Constitution to his advantage (even the parts he creates) to protect himself, and his cronies, from congressional oversight, for such things as illegal wiretapping and secret international prisons; therefore, I believe it is plausible that a senator could use such directly expressed constitutional protection to ward off a policeman who said he/she was attempting to solicit sex in a public restroom.
Same sex marriage legal in Iowa, for a while
Yesterday, a judge in Iowa found that the state's Defense of Marriage Act (1998), violated the constitutional rights of six gay couples who stated the law violated their rights to due process and equal protection.
Later today, the same judged issued a stay to his original ruling, in order to allow the supreme court of Iowa to rule on the case, after an official request from the Polk County (Iowa) County Attorney.
Before this happened, though, ten homosexual couples had applied for a license, with several of them being officially and legally married.
Later today, the same judged issued a stay to his original ruling, in order to allow the supreme court of Iowa to rule on the case, after an official request from the Polk County (Iowa) County Attorney.
Before this happened, though, ten homosexual couples had applied for a license, with several of them being officially and legally married.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Senator Craig a Victim?
After listening to the audiotape of the police interview of Republican Senator Larry Craig (ID), I am pretty convinced that he was looking for some man-on-man sex in that airport bathroom stall.
Craig conceded that he was "not going to fight" the arresting cop on the charge. Apparently, he was more concerned about the facts of the case getting out to the media, which might trash his reputation. The cop then told him that he was not interested in media publicity, but simply getting at the truth of the matter.
Additionally, Senator Craig stated that he visited the particular airport frequently, in what I can only assume is a connecting airport for flights between Washington and his home state of Idaho. Perhaps, as a frequent visitor to this particular airport, he was familiar with the availability of the types of sexual activity he could receive.
In the audiotape, Craig stated that he utilized a wide stance, in order to keep his pants from simply falling down his legs and landing against the floor, which was the immediate cause of his foot brushing up against the undercover policeman's foot in the next stall. Okay, that is pretty understandable and plausible.
Next, the senator alleged that he was reaching down for a piece of toilet paper, which was on the floor, and not running his hand along the bottom of the stall as the cop states. My suspicion with this statement is simply why would anyone want to pick up a piece of toilet paper from the floor of a public bathroom?
That's pretty icky.
Furthermore, the cop got pretty upset at what he called the senator's inability to be honest with him about the facts of the case.
He accused Craig of passing his left hand--palm up, not down as if picking up an item from the floor--along the bottom of the stalls' diving wall, even though his right hand was immediately closest to the wall in question. The police officer stated that he could see the position of the hand's thumb and the gold ring that was on a finger of the senator's left hand.
So what does it all mean? It means that Senator Larry Craig was overly zealous in accepting a plea in this case, if he was truly innocent. He simply wanted to pay his fine, hope the cop really didn't want publicity, and go on about his merry way, as if nothing had happened.
I think that more interesting facts in this case will surface as it goes further.
Craig conceded that he was "not going to fight" the arresting cop on the charge. Apparently, he was more concerned about the facts of the case getting out to the media, which might trash his reputation. The cop then told him that he was not interested in media publicity, but simply getting at the truth of the matter.
Additionally, Senator Craig stated that he visited the particular airport frequently, in what I can only assume is a connecting airport for flights between Washington and his home state of Idaho. Perhaps, as a frequent visitor to this particular airport, he was familiar with the availability of the types of sexual activity he could receive.
In the audiotape, Craig stated that he utilized a wide stance, in order to keep his pants from simply falling down his legs and landing against the floor, which was the immediate cause of his foot brushing up against the undercover policeman's foot in the next stall. Okay, that is pretty understandable and plausible.
Next, the senator alleged that he was reaching down for a piece of toilet paper, which was on the floor, and not running his hand along the bottom of the stall as the cop states. My suspicion with this statement is simply why would anyone want to pick up a piece of toilet paper from the floor of a public bathroom?
That's pretty icky.
Furthermore, the cop got pretty upset at what he called the senator's inability to be honest with him about the facts of the case.
He accused Craig of passing his left hand--palm up, not down as if picking up an item from the floor--along the bottom of the stalls' diving wall, even though his right hand was immediately closest to the wall in question. The police officer stated that he could see the position of the hand's thumb and the gold ring that was on a finger of the senator's left hand.
So what does it all mean? It means that Senator Larry Craig was overly zealous in accepting a plea in this case, if he was truly innocent. He simply wanted to pay his fine, hope the cop really didn't want publicity, and go on about his merry way, as if nothing had happened.
I think that more interesting facts in this case will surface as it goes further.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)
After being arrested and pleading guilty to committing a lewd act, while at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, on June 11, 2007, Republican Senator Larry Craig (ID) is denying that he is gay, or committed any of the acts he openly admitted to engaging.
Apparently, Senator Craig was looking for some hanky-panky, with another man.
The Republican Party seems to be full of old men, who never quite made it out of the closet. Like Senator Craig, former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), spent time online soliciting former congressional male pages.
Unlike Foley, Senator Craig pleaded guilty to attempting to solicit an undercover police officer, while inside the airport's bathroom.
Now the question remains, will Senator Craig resign or be retired by the voters of Idaho? He is up for re-election in 2008. Perhaps, the voters of Idaho will be forgiving of their "closeted" elected official.
Apparently, Senator Craig was looking for some hanky-panky, with another man.
The Republican Party seems to be full of old men, who never quite made it out of the closet. Like Senator Craig, former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), spent time online soliciting former congressional male pages.
Unlike Foley, Senator Craig pleaded guilty to attempting to solicit an undercover police officer, while inside the airport's bathroom.
Now the question remains, will Senator Craig resign or be retired by the voters of Idaho? He is up for re-election in 2008. Perhaps, the voters of Idaho will be forgiving of their "closeted" elected official.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Blow Job Equals 10 Years
It would seem, in George, at least, that if you are 17 years old and you have a consensual sexual encounter, also with a minor, who is 15, then you can be sentenced to ten years in prison and then forced to register as a sex offender.
Even though the sentence has been overturned by another judge, the case continues as the state's attorney general filed an appeal, stating the judge overstepped his bounds by overturning the trial court's original sentence.
It's hard to believe that such a court in America would give the time of day to such a case. It seems rather frivolous to me. It stands to reason that both parties should have been tried and convicted, since they are both minors.
What's good for the gander is also good for the goose, right?
Even though the sentence has been overturned by another judge, the case continues as the state's attorney general filed an appeal, stating the judge overstepped his bounds by overturning the trial court's original sentence.
It's hard to believe that such a court in America would give the time of day to such a case. It seems rather frivolous to me. It stands to reason that both parties should have been tried and convicted, since they are both minors.
What's good for the gander is also good for the goose, right?
Monday, December 11, 2006
Billy Crystal & Legal Torts
It would seem a Wisconsin man, who engaged in sexual acts with a dead deer, was arrested for immoral acts with an "animal." His lawyer goes on to reference various 20 year old versions of dictionaries to hold the fact a carcass lies outside the scope of any standard definition of what constitutes an animal, per-se.
The clincher came when his attorney referenced Billy Crystal from his 1987 movie, The Princess Bride, in which he extols the logic of things not having the ability of being only half-dead. Although, his wise words may have been apt in the confines of his dramatic portrayal, they are seemingly outside the scope of good lawyering and have no bearing in legal precedent. I am sure, however, another lawyer, in the future, may find merit in referencing this erroneous legal quotation, to the peril of their client of course.
Accordingly, the district court, as I did, found no merit to this legal argument and dismissed the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Although, I am not a legal expert on Wisconsin legal code, or precedent, if a jurist were to hold to the strict interpretation of the state's statute regarding this issue, then this individual has committed a crime by engaging in a sex act with anyone, or anything, besides his lawfully wedded wife.
In the meantime, the people of Wisconsin can take notice, considering any sex act outside the bonds of matrimony can land them before the court (i.e., consenting sexual contact between adults who are not married).
What about that deer? I guess it had a pretty mouth.
The clincher came when his attorney referenced Billy Crystal from his 1987 movie, The Princess Bride, in which he extols the logic of things not having the ability of being only half-dead. Although, his wise words may have been apt in the confines of his dramatic portrayal, they are seemingly outside the scope of good lawyering and have no bearing in legal precedent. I am sure, however, another lawyer, in the future, may find merit in referencing this erroneous legal quotation, to the peril of their client of course.
Accordingly, the district court, as I did, found no merit to this legal argument and dismissed the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Although, I am not a legal expert on Wisconsin legal code, or precedent, if a jurist were to hold to the strict interpretation of the state's statute regarding this issue, then this individual has committed a crime by engaging in a sex act with anyone, or anything, besides his lawfully wedded wife.
In the meantime, the people of Wisconsin can take notice, considering any sex act outside the bonds of matrimony can land them before the court (i.e., consenting sexual contact between adults who are not married).
What about that deer? I guess it had a pretty mouth.
Friday, December 08, 2006
House Leadership NOT Liable
Today, a panel of "experts" found the leadership of the United States House of Representatives was not liable in their refusal to stop former Republican Representative Mark Foley (FL) from inappropriate conduct with congressional pages.
It's not surprising the panel found this conclusion. Perhaps, the investigation should have been postponed until someone besides the wolves have control over Congress.
Just a thought!
It's not surprising the panel found this conclusion. Perhaps, the investigation should have been postponed until someone besides the wolves have control over Congress.
Just a thought!
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Foley's Priest
After watching the Mark Foley drama play out over the past month, or so, I am not sure who is the bigger victim here: Foley or his former priest. The alleged incident took place over 30 years ago. It is certain that the whole incident would never have become public, for the priest at least, if Mark Foley (former Republican point man) hadn't gotten busted for his extracurricular communications/activities with congressional pages.
Let's also ask ourselves, in a candid manner, would the whole Mark Foley issue have been so big had the pages been female? It is my belief that society has long withstood the multitude of tests between older men and their younger liaisons and indiscretions. With those, they were simply being old, dirty men. Something people only giggle about as they half-heartedly address the issue.
It would seem the double standard applies to this issue.
Let's also ask ourselves, in a candid manner, would the whole Mark Foley issue have been so big had the pages been female? It is my belief that society has long withstood the multitude of tests between older men and their younger liaisons and indiscretions. With those, they were simply being old, dirty men. Something people only giggle about as they half-heartedly address the issue.
It would seem the double standard applies to this issue.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Just fondling...
The priest who molested former Republican Congressman Mark Foley stated that he only fondled Foley when he was a teenager. He even said, "he seemed to like it." That's pretty funny.
Of course, nothing legally will happen to the priest. He is currently living in Malta. Who is going to extradite over something that happened over thirty years ago?
Of course, nothing legally will happen to the priest. He is currently living in Malta. Who is going to extradite over something that happened over thirty years ago?
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Foley Aide Delivers the Dirt
Kirk Fordham, a former aide to Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), resigned today. He states that he notified the office of Dennis Hastert (R-IL), who is the Speaker of the House, of his former boss' exchanges with congressional pages. When did the notification take place? Two years ago! What did Hastert do about it? Nothing!
Hastert & Foley sitting in a tree...
It would seem the Foley "buck" is going to be stopping at the office door of the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
It's election season. In essence, it is every man and woman for himself or herself. Even at this time of year your political party can be put on the back burner, when it doesn't benefit you in a meaningful way. The Mark Foley scandal is going to be around a month from now when elections are about to go into full gear. It will be election day on November 7, after all. No doubt there will be lots more to discover and learn about the Foley scandal between now and then. Many Republicans are moving the blame to the top very quickly. Some Republicans in the top echelon of power wanted to "spread" the blame around, in order to minimize the damage any one member of the House would be forced to endure. It doesn't seem that idea is going to pan out. No one is going to be sharing in the blame of this fiasco unless they absolutely were involved in the scandal cover-up. And even then some members of the House are not going to be accepting blame right away.
So, what have we learned exactly? We found out from Foley's attorney that he is an alcoholic who was abused as a teenager by a clergyman. Is that the makings of a class "A" pervert? According to some of the experts I heard on television the other night, yes it is. It is very interesting that he is suddenly meeting the criteria for being a "no-fault" deviant.
Now what about Dennis Hastert, who is the lead Republican in the House of Representatives? Yes, he doesn't deny that he knew about some "inappropriate" communications between Foley and a congressional page that took place a few years ago. In fact, he's known about it since 2005. But what did he do about it? Nothing at all. He turned a blind eye to the facts. He stood in complete party mode. He chose not to rock the boat, because if he did he might give Democrats some leverage to rock the boat in a different direction. Honestly, would the fall-out from the Foley scandal be as broad as it is now if Hastert, and other Republicans, made this issue public in 2005? I doubt it. It would have been almost as if they were doing the right thing. Now there's a novel idea for Washington!
It's election season. In essence, it is every man and woman for himself or herself. Even at this time of year your political party can be put on the back burner, when it doesn't benefit you in a meaningful way. The Mark Foley scandal is going to be around a month from now when elections are about to go into full gear. It will be election day on November 7, after all. No doubt there will be lots more to discover and learn about the Foley scandal between now and then. Many Republicans are moving the blame to the top very quickly. Some Republicans in the top echelon of power wanted to "spread" the blame around, in order to minimize the damage any one member of the House would be forced to endure. It doesn't seem that idea is going to pan out. No one is going to be sharing in the blame of this fiasco unless they absolutely were involved in the scandal cover-up. And even then some members of the House are not going to be accepting blame right away.
So, what have we learned exactly? We found out from Foley's attorney that he is an alcoholic who was abused as a teenager by a clergyman. Is that the makings of a class "A" pervert? According to some of the experts I heard on television the other night, yes it is. It is very interesting that he is suddenly meeting the criteria for being a "no-fault" deviant.
Now what about Dennis Hastert, who is the lead Republican in the House of Representatives? Yes, he doesn't deny that he knew about some "inappropriate" communications between Foley and a congressional page that took place a few years ago. In fact, he's known about it since 2005. But what did he do about it? Nothing at all. He turned a blind eye to the facts. He stood in complete party mode. He chose not to rock the boat, because if he did he might give Democrats some leverage to rock the boat in a different direction. Honestly, would the fall-out from the Foley scandal be as broad as it is now if Hastert, and other Republicans, made this issue public in 2005? I doubt it. It would have been almost as if they were doing the right thing. Now there's a novel idea for Washington!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Cyber Sex, The State's Business?
Today, we learned from our friends at ABC News that Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) delayed voting in the House of Representatives to have "cyber sex" with his page pal. In other news, George Bush said, "Democrats can't be trusted" to control the Congress of the United States.
Now, let me ask you: we can't trust Democrats to run the Congress, but we can trust a Republican who delays the People's business to have an orgasm with his online boyfriend? That sounds pretty fucked up to me. Do we really need George Bush as president? I won't even answer that. You already did in your head. :)
Now, let me ask you: we can't trust Democrats to run the Congress, but we can trust a Republican who delays the People's business to have an orgasm with his online boyfriend? That sounds pretty fucked up to me. Do we really need George Bush as president? I won't even answer that. You already did in your head. :)
Monday, October 02, 2006
Mark Foley an Alcoholic
Alcoholism! What a great excuse for diverting scandal! It would seem the six-time congressman, Mark Foley (R-FL), has checked into a rehab clinic for the treatment of alcoholism. I wonder if this is a clue as to his behavior? Or is it merely a tactic by some shrewd political spin doctor to divert our attention from the real cause of his fall-from-grace?
Let's see...
Let's see...
Friday, September 29, 2006
Republican Hypocrisy
Republicans claim they are the moral authors of this nation's future. They want to put us back onto he "straight and narrow," but they have so many hang-ups and fallacies. Let's admit it: they are simply human, like the rest of us.
Now, we have this former United States Congressman, Mark Foley (R-FL), who is accused of inappropriate e-mails with a sixteen-year-old male, who was a former Congressional page. The only good thing to surface out of this scandal is Democrats may have a shot at the House. Interesting. Bush will find a way to "off" this guy (politically, of course). I believe, however, he has "offed" himself sufficiently. He has resigned his seat in the House of Representatives and now he faces an investigation of his conduct.
Let's investigate Bush instead. I think that is more important than someone's foolish fantasies that never came to fruition.
Now, we have this former United States Congressman, Mark Foley (R-FL), who is accused of inappropriate e-mails with a sixteen-year-old male, who was a former Congressional page. The only good thing to surface out of this scandal is Democrats may have a shot at the House. Interesting. Bush will find a way to "off" this guy (politically, of course). I believe, however, he has "offed" himself sufficiently. He has resigned his seat in the House of Representatives and now he faces an investigation of his conduct.
Let's investigate Bush instead. I think that is more important than someone's foolish fantasies that never came to fruition.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
More Government Mismanagement
It would seem the Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS), Michael Leavitt, has been using a GulfStream 3 jet that belongs to the Centers for Disease Control for his own private agenda.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the private jet has been used on several occasions to transport the secretary to events all across the US, which comes to a total of around $700,000 (just this year). The primary purpose of the jet, however, is to quickly transport personnel and equipment in the event of an emergency, not act as the secretary's personal aircraft.
The US Congress implemented into the HHS budget for the year that the secretary could use the CDC's aircraft "in times of emergencies and in the days following such emergencies." I'm not sure taking the jet on 19 separate trips to promote George Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan qualifies for an emergency. I'm sure, however, the fall out from Bush's Medicare initiative will create a national emergency in the future. Perhaps, they are just "paying the emergency forward."
This is only in addition to the FEMA fiasco which is really only coming into light in the past few days. We see tax dollars being used to take Caribbean vacations, to buy Dom Perignon champagne at Hooters, to visit XXX clubs, and pay for a sex change operation. Wow...how come I didn't go down there and get my hand in the cookie jar?! Damnit, we all should have! Apparently, they wouldn't have known if you were from Mars. They must have been throwing the money from the back of a dump truck!
Bush=Fiscal Responsibility (HAHAHAHAHAHA!)
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the private jet has been used on several occasions to transport the secretary to events all across the US, which comes to a total of around $700,000 (just this year). The primary purpose of the jet, however, is to quickly transport personnel and equipment in the event of an emergency, not act as the secretary's personal aircraft.
The US Congress implemented into the HHS budget for the year that the secretary could use the CDC's aircraft "in times of emergencies and in the days following such emergencies." I'm not sure taking the jet on 19 separate trips to promote George Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan qualifies for an emergency. I'm sure, however, the fall out from Bush's Medicare initiative will create a national emergency in the future. Perhaps, they are just "paying the emergency forward."
This is only in addition to the FEMA fiasco which is really only coming into light in the past few days. We see tax dollars being used to take Caribbean vacations, to buy Dom Perignon champagne at Hooters, to visit XXX clubs, and pay for a sex change operation. Wow...how come I didn't go down there and get my hand in the cookie jar?! Damnit, we all should have! Apparently, they wouldn't have known if you were from Mars. They must have been throwing the money from the back of a dump truck!
Bush=Fiscal Responsibility (HAHAHAHAHAHA!)
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Idiots in the Senate
It would seem that Americans are more consumed with same-sex marriage than the price of gas. I didn't know that. Of course, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) was able to set me right on that. I can't believe how foolish I was to think Americans were more worried about how much gas costs and how they're going to pay for it when it would seem they're more worried about who their neighbors are sleeping with tonight.***
Wow! The things you learn by watching debate on the Senate floor!
(***Note my seething sarcasm!)
Wow! The things you learn by watching debate on the Senate floor!
(***Note my seething sarcasm!)
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Bush is in the toilet...again
Considering George's radio address this morning, I have tweaked my letter sent to senators McConnell and Bunning from yesterday, which will now be sent to the White House.
Dear Mr. President:
As the US Congress returns from Memorial Day recess, the Senate will be faced with many important issues, including how to solve the energy crisis facing America, illegal immigration, and the war in Iraq.
The United States Senate, also, has again taken up the issue of a marriage amendment. Mr. Bush, how a person lives their life in the confines of privacy and family simply is not the business of the state. Fifty years ago, the US government was faced with issues such as this which ultimately opened society to all citizens. Of course, I am speaking of the civil rights movement. Some members of Congress during this time advocated and voted to maintain the status quo of segregation within public institutions and venues. Those members, in their later political careers and lives, lived to regret their decisions, which simply were based on intolerance and the popular sentiments of the time. I do not recall reading where President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, or President Johnson were against the civil rights and liberties of the minority; rather, they worked to increase civil rights and liberties. You, on the other hand, are attempting to implement a policy of intolerance and bigotry.
Banning homosexual citizens from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual citizens is akin to banning African-Americans from enjoying the same rights as European-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Where is the logic? The United States was not founded on the principle of minority segregation. Certainly, we can argue for ages the "Founding Fathers" never envisioned homosexuality as they crafted our Constitution; however, that point is moot, considering the Constitution, through and by the laws of this nation, has never confined nor limited the rights of individuals. Furthermore, our Constitution is a living document that encompasses all citizens and the immediate conditions of society. It does not confine or limit rights and liberties.
Mr. President, society was not unraveled by giving African-Americans their civil liberties and rights. I am certain you agree, as well. I argue the same will be said in twenty-five years about homosexuals. By protecting a minority, American culture will not be destroyed nor undermined. Instead, those public servants who oppose basic rights for all Americans today will be labeled as regressive and narrow-minded by posterity. You proclaim this so-called “marriage amendment” will work to counteract the moral decline in this nation. You profess your belief that marriage is inherently a right between a man and a woman; however, you overlook the strains placed on society by the lack of appropriate family planning and the lack of sex education for young people. Obviously, from your point-of-view, by placing everyone in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship America will become a utopia. That is simply flawed and misguided. Social reform begins in solid policies that promote the general welfare and education of all citizens. Not the segregation of a convenient minority to win a few votes from another minority, which happens to be conservative.
It is obvious, Mr. Bush, the politics at play in this amendment. During the 2004 election cycle, the same political stunt was crafted by the Republican-led Senate as a means to shift the conversation of American politics; however, I dare say, the political continuum in this nation will certainly shift in November. The Republican-controlled Congress, in concert with your Administration, has repeatedly refused to take up the causes which truly matter to Americans, which include why I am paying almost $3 per gallon to fill-up the tank of my car, outsourcing of American jobs, why companies who choose to stay in the US can replace American labor with cheap, undocumented aliens, and the seemingly unending war in Iraq, which has cost this nation dearly in lives and dollars. Let's address the issues that are truly impacting our society and economy.
Mr. President, these are the issues I will take with me to the polls in November. It is unconscionable the Senate of this great nation would dare waste my tax dollars to debate such a useless issue as a marriage amendment, which will never be ratified. The climate of America has changed since 2004. Simply, the voters need more to occupy their minds during this election cycle than with whom I go to bed with tonight.
As an American citizen, I express my whole-hearted dissent against this ill-conceived and intolerant amendment which is now before the United States Senate.
Dear Mr. President:
As the US Congress returns from Memorial Day recess, the Senate will be faced with many important issues, including how to solve the energy crisis facing America, illegal immigration, and the war in Iraq.
The United States Senate, also, has again taken up the issue of a marriage amendment. Mr. Bush, how a person lives their life in the confines of privacy and family simply is not the business of the state. Fifty years ago, the US government was faced with issues such as this which ultimately opened society to all citizens. Of course, I am speaking of the civil rights movement. Some members of Congress during this time advocated and voted to maintain the status quo of segregation within public institutions and venues. Those members, in their later political careers and lives, lived to regret their decisions, which simply were based on intolerance and the popular sentiments of the time. I do not recall reading where President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, or President Johnson were against the civil rights and liberties of the minority; rather, they worked to increase civil rights and liberties. You, on the other hand, are attempting to implement a policy of intolerance and bigotry.
Banning homosexual citizens from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual citizens is akin to banning African-Americans from enjoying the same rights as European-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Where is the logic? The United States was not founded on the principle of minority segregation. Certainly, we can argue for ages the "Founding Fathers" never envisioned homosexuality as they crafted our Constitution; however, that point is moot, considering the Constitution, through and by the laws of this nation, has never confined nor limited the rights of individuals. Furthermore, our Constitution is a living document that encompasses all citizens and the immediate conditions of society. It does not confine or limit rights and liberties.
Mr. President, society was not unraveled by giving African-Americans their civil liberties and rights. I am certain you agree, as well. I argue the same will be said in twenty-five years about homosexuals. By protecting a minority, American culture will not be destroyed nor undermined. Instead, those public servants who oppose basic rights for all Americans today will be labeled as regressive and narrow-minded by posterity. You proclaim this so-called “marriage amendment” will work to counteract the moral decline in this nation. You profess your belief that marriage is inherently a right between a man and a woman; however, you overlook the strains placed on society by the lack of appropriate family planning and the lack of sex education for young people. Obviously, from your point-of-view, by placing everyone in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship America will become a utopia. That is simply flawed and misguided. Social reform begins in solid policies that promote the general welfare and education of all citizens. Not the segregation of a convenient minority to win a few votes from another minority, which happens to be conservative.
It is obvious, Mr. Bush, the politics at play in this amendment. During the 2004 election cycle, the same political stunt was crafted by the Republican-led Senate as a means to shift the conversation of American politics; however, I dare say, the political continuum in this nation will certainly shift in November. The Republican-controlled Congress, in concert with your Administration, has repeatedly refused to take up the causes which truly matter to Americans, which include why I am paying almost $3 per gallon to fill-up the tank of my car, outsourcing of American jobs, why companies who choose to stay in the US can replace American labor with cheap, undocumented aliens, and the seemingly unending war in Iraq, which has cost this nation dearly in lives and dollars. Let's address the issues that are truly impacting our society and economy.
Mr. President, these are the issues I will take with me to the polls in November. It is unconscionable the Senate of this great nation would dare waste my tax dollars to debate such a useless issue as a marriage amendment, which will never be ratified. The climate of America has changed since 2004. Simply, the voters need more to occupy their minds during this election cycle than with whom I go to bed with tonight.
As an American citizen, I express my whole-hearted dissent against this ill-conceived and intolerant amendment which is now before the United States Senate.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Society's Debt
Now, before I get started on a rant, let me preface it with the fact that I've NEVER been convicted of a crime in a court of law (in your face you stupid pig cop who tried to call me a speeder). Now, ladies and gentlemen, the rest of the show...
People are convicted of crimes everyday in this country, it's a fact. These include homicide, rape, burglary, grand theft auto, etc. If I stab someone to death and receive my 25 years in a state lock-up, then the day I am set free, I am really, well, free. I can go back into society and live as I see fit. Now of course, I may choose to live in the mainstream, but I can also choose to re-offend, which many felons do.
The title of this blog is "Society's Debt." What does society require of those who live outside of mainstream values? Do they require them to serve a prison sentence, as most criminal activities entail? Of course, they do. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a punitive justice system. If someone kills me, I hope they go to jail for a long, long time. Perhaps, that will keep them from hurting someone else in the near future. If we're really lucky, they may turn over a whole new leaf. Hey, it can and does happen!
When my convicted murderer is up for release after 25 years in prison (let's pretend he was never paroled, etc., he just paid for his debt straight up), he isn't required to become a registered murderer with the state and county in which he lives. Seemingly, special conditions aren't placed on the way he can live his life as a free member of society. We place, however, special conditions on certain types of convicted felons, such as sex-based offenders. Now, these are terrible crimes, like murder, I agree. They deserve to be punished within the confines our jurisprudence system, just like every other criminal. That's not my point, however. My point is this: once you pay your debt--you serve your maximum time as imposed by a court of law--then you are no longer under obligation to the state; ergo society. Society requires sex-based criminals, like being a rapists, child molester, etc., to not only serve time in prison, but also to register within a community as essentially a pervert (for all time, really). It's society's double jeopardy; however, we aren't a law of mob justice (seemingly). We have laws that dictate how we can punish criminals. These laws are written out and apply to everyone, including the criminal. In essence, being a criminal of the sexual persuasion requires you to wear a scarlet letter on your chest forever.
There is no website I can go to and look up who is a formerly convicted murderer in my community. There is no website where I can look up former car thieves, who might be looking at my new car in the drive-way. But sure, I can go to a state website and look at everyone in my community who has raped someone. I can find out who molested little Bobby (who isn't so little anymore) down the street 15 years ago. If our jurisprudence system is fair, then we must have websites with EVERY criminal listed with their offenses; if not, we have violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which directly protects the accused individual from excessive and unjust punishment by the state. We have imprisoned some criminals, like sex offenders, for a lifetime, without bars, while sanctioning others for a terminal period of time without future social sanctions against their freedom. This is not justice, this is excessive and unfair punishment.
Someone will say, but this hasn't happened to your family. If your mother was sexually assaulted by a pervert, don't you think that criminal deserves to rot in jail forever. That is simply a gut reaction to a crime against a loved one. Sure, I want to beat the person to death with a baseball bat, but that makes me a criminal and that is not the society in which we want to live. The individual committing the crime deserves his punishment, which will be a set term of imprisonment where he will lose his civil rights and liberties as a citizen. Then, he will be released after said sentence has been fulfilled. I don't expect him to be a slave to the past forever, even for my mother.
When we watch each other, we become a society of vigilantes. We become a society of street justice. "I don't want that pervert living next door to me." No one could say that about this person without someone having forced him/her to register as a sex offender on a website, etc. It's not about protecting victims. It's about protecting our personal feelings and security without regard to the civil liberties and rights of another individual, who committed a crime and paid his debt to society. It's a factor of our relationships among each other where our government allows us to offend against and offender. It would be akin to a murderer serving a sentence in prison and then when he is released, he is then taken to a tree in town and hanged by the people of that community. Do we allow this type of second chance justice for such crimes? Of course not!
Simply, we can't require certain criminals to repay a debt to society over-and-over, while other criminals go their merry ways free and clear!
People are convicted of crimes everyday in this country, it's a fact. These include homicide, rape, burglary, grand theft auto, etc. If I stab someone to death and receive my 25 years in a state lock-up, then the day I am set free, I am really, well, free. I can go back into society and live as I see fit. Now of course, I may choose to live in the mainstream, but I can also choose to re-offend, which many felons do.
The title of this blog is "Society's Debt." What does society require of those who live outside of mainstream values? Do they require them to serve a prison sentence, as most criminal activities entail? Of course, they do. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a punitive justice system. If someone kills me, I hope they go to jail for a long, long time. Perhaps, that will keep them from hurting someone else in the near future. If we're really lucky, they may turn over a whole new leaf. Hey, it can and does happen!
When my convicted murderer is up for release after 25 years in prison (let's pretend he was never paroled, etc., he just paid for his debt straight up), he isn't required to become a registered murderer with the state and county in which he lives. Seemingly, special conditions aren't placed on the way he can live his life as a free member of society. We place, however, special conditions on certain types of convicted felons, such as sex-based offenders. Now, these are terrible crimes, like murder, I agree. They deserve to be punished within the confines our jurisprudence system, just like every other criminal. That's not my point, however. My point is this: once you pay your debt--you serve your maximum time as imposed by a court of law--then you are no longer under obligation to the state; ergo society. Society requires sex-based criminals, like being a rapists, child molester, etc., to not only serve time in prison, but also to register within a community as essentially a pervert (for all time, really). It's society's double jeopardy; however, we aren't a law of mob justice (seemingly). We have laws that dictate how we can punish criminals. These laws are written out and apply to everyone, including the criminal. In essence, being a criminal of the sexual persuasion requires you to wear a scarlet letter on your chest forever.
There is no website I can go to and look up who is a formerly convicted murderer in my community. There is no website where I can look up former car thieves, who might be looking at my new car in the drive-way. But sure, I can go to a state website and look at everyone in my community who has raped someone. I can find out who molested little Bobby (who isn't so little anymore) down the street 15 years ago. If our jurisprudence system is fair, then we must have websites with EVERY criminal listed with their offenses; if not, we have violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which directly protects the accused individual from excessive and unjust punishment by the state. We have imprisoned some criminals, like sex offenders, for a lifetime, without bars, while sanctioning others for a terminal period of time without future social sanctions against their freedom. This is not justice, this is excessive and unfair punishment.
Someone will say, but this hasn't happened to your family. If your mother was sexually assaulted by a pervert, don't you think that criminal deserves to rot in jail forever. That is simply a gut reaction to a crime against a loved one. Sure, I want to beat the person to death with a baseball bat, but that makes me a criminal and that is not the society in which we want to live. The individual committing the crime deserves his punishment, which will be a set term of imprisonment where he will lose his civil rights and liberties as a citizen. Then, he will be released after said sentence has been fulfilled. I don't expect him to be a slave to the past forever, even for my mother.
When we watch each other, we become a society of vigilantes. We become a society of street justice. "I don't want that pervert living next door to me." No one could say that about this person without someone having forced him/her to register as a sex offender on a website, etc. It's not about protecting victims. It's about protecting our personal feelings and security without regard to the civil liberties and rights of another individual, who committed a crime and paid his debt to society. It's a factor of our relationships among each other where our government allows us to offend against and offender. It would be akin to a murderer serving a sentence in prison and then when he is released, he is then taken to a tree in town and hanged by the people of that community. Do we allow this type of second chance justice for such crimes? Of course not!
Simply, we can't require certain criminals to repay a debt to society over-and-over, while other criminals go their merry ways free and clear!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)