More Questions Revisited

I'd like to revisit some of the questions asked in earlier columns. The reason for the redundancy is simple, I've never gotten an answer that made any sense. The best I've found were answers that blamed someone else, not because there was guilt or culpability but rather because there was a difference in political labels.

First question: If sex in movies or advertising or magazines or even in education is evil and will only give the appearance of permission for sexual activity to our young men and women, why do the conservatives fall all over themselves in the idol worship of the likes of John Wayne or Arnold Swartzenager or Sylvester Stallone? These barely talented movie actors make violent, sexist movies that glorify the killing, maiming and destruction of huge numbers of other human beings. The few people that I know who enjoy this nastiness claim that anyone who watches it understands that it is only "entertainment" and not to be taken seriously.

Could someone please explain, in sentences that don't include "Liberal" or "Anti-American", or any of the other silly little buzzwords so easily floated once the brain quits working, just why the most basic and beautiful human act is so hated and denied while those who portray violence and causing death is held to be somehow superior?

Next up is the issue of drug testing. When even janitors at supermarkets or high school athletes are required to submit to the indignity of an unconstitutional act without even the semblance of cause, why don't the people who supposedly govern us have to pass these same strict requirements?

The state of Georgia recently passed a law to require just that. Nevertheless, while noting that several recent cases allowed drug tests based on "special needs", such as for railway workers, customs officials and high school athletes (what?), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the new law, saying that the state had failed to show a special need that was important enough to override the individual's privacy interest. Does any of that make sense to you? The idea that the individuals who make the laws that we must obey are protected by the Fourth Amendment but, somehow, a high school basketball player or supermarket employee is not just isn't reasonable! Somehow it "diminishes personal privacy for symbol's sake" only if it protects politicians but not kids? Pretty ludicrous, huh?

The US District Court recently also struck down as unconstitutional the latest attempt of Congress to hide from the responsibility of acting as if they have any possibility of controlling their basic natures. The "Line-Item Veto" law was passed in order to give the President the power to remove the massive amount of pork and other nonsense that Congress normally passes. Why do these imbeciles need to have a hall monitor to keep themselves from acting like children? Can't they just pass a law that stipulates that each piece of legislation voted on must be confined to only one subject with absolutely no riders or added clauses? This would force Congress to vote on each separate pork project or Corporate tax give away without the benefit of hiding these rip-offs within completely unrelated legislation. That way, Congress would have to face up to the pros and cons of each individual motion and the President could sign or veto each according to the benefit of that law alone and not be forced to accept a bad rider in order to pass a good bill. Is there a reason that Congress can't control themselves, otherwise?

The same question concerns the ridiculous "Balanced Budget Amendment". Why must Congress be constitutionally restrained from acting like drunken sailors on leave? Is changing our Constitution the only way to thwart their free spending behavior? Doesn't that seem just a tad hysterical? Are politicians so inept that they have to make their own inadequacies illegal to put a stop to them? Pretty depressing if it is true, wouldn't you agree?

Okay, here are the questions that, so far, have no answers.

1) Why is sex depraved and violence admirable?

2) Why is it okay to invade the bodily privacy of janitors and high school athletes but not politicians?

3) Why doesn't Congress have the courage to control themselves without either passing the responsibility on to someone else or requiring a change in a nearly perfect document?

It's your turn, now. Let's hear from anyone who can answer these little conundrums. Remember, folks, pretending that one political philosophy or the other is perfect is just pure nonsense. Neither party cares about you, they just care about being re-elected.

Return To Front Page

Go To Next Column

Return to Index of Columns

Go To Archives of Columns

Visit Our Unique Shops At:

The Progressive Mind
Haiwee Fashions
Filipino Soul
Impeach The Moron
Rosetta Stone - Your Name In Egyptian Hieroglyphs
Signs of the Zodiac Gifts

Write me