Battery sales are going to plummet...
From he who calls himself the "other white meat" comes a link to a shocking story out of Tennessee.
Yes friends, it seems the state that has both the most churches and the most adult stores per capita is trying to eliminate the latter by first eliminating that ever-present threat to national security, dildos.
Hmmm, let's see, last time I checked, we're engaged in a "war" in Iraq with no end in sight; we have a ginormous budget deficit, a failing education system, a non-living minimum wage, a problem with illegal immigration; we're continually losing business to overseas competitors; millions of citizens are unable to get much-needed health care; indicted politicians continue to experience popular support; and to top it off, our executive seems to think he can do basically anything in the name of national security, including ignoring certain federal laws.
But, in spite of all these issues, apparently state senator Charlotte Burks and representative Eric Swafford are laying awake nights because some woman, somewhere, might be getting off using a plastic phallus. Well, if nothing else, maybe this ridiculous law will help them sleep better.
In conclusion, as the "other white meat" said, "What next, are they gonna outlaw showerheads?" (groan)
Today's song lyric, from a classic 80s song about masturbation, is oddly appropriate, in a really scary sort of way.
Song lyric of the day:
"I can't stop messin' with the danger zone
Hey, I won't worry, and I won't fret
Ain't no law against it yet"
- Cyndi Lauper, She Bop
(Sorry, Cyndi, guess you gotta stay outta Tennessee from now on.)
(And that's the last time I will quote or refer to Cyndi Lauper in this blog.)
Yes friends, it seems the state that has both the most churches and the most adult stores per capita is trying to eliminate the latter by first eliminating that ever-present threat to national security, dildos.
Hmmm, let's see, last time I checked, we're engaged in a "war" in Iraq with no end in sight; we have a ginormous budget deficit, a failing education system, a non-living minimum wage, a problem with illegal immigration; we're continually losing business to overseas competitors; millions of citizens are unable to get much-needed health care; indicted politicians continue to experience popular support; and to top it off, our executive seems to think he can do basically anything in the name of national security, including ignoring certain federal laws.
But, in spite of all these issues, apparently state senator Charlotte Burks and representative Eric Swafford are laying awake nights because some woman, somewhere, might be getting off using a plastic phallus. Well, if nothing else, maybe this ridiculous law will help them sleep better.
In conclusion, as the "other white meat" said, "What next, are they gonna outlaw showerheads?" (groan)
Today's song lyric, from a classic 80s song about masturbation, is oddly appropriate, in a really scary sort of way.
Song lyric of the day:
"I can't stop messin' with the danger zone
Hey, I won't worry, and I won't fret
Ain't no law against it yet"
- Cyndi Lauper, She Bop
(Sorry, Cyndi, guess you gotta stay outta Tennessee from now on.)
(And that's the last time I will quote or refer to Cyndi Lauper in this blog.)
9 Comments:
What's wrong with Cyndi Lauper? She even did a duet in Nellie McKay's still-unreleased album!
Just to play Devil's Advocate - I'm not sure I buy your argument against this law. You aren't arguing that it's a silly law (although you are, of course, implying that and I agree) or bad policy. You argue that - with all these important issues facing the nation - Tennessee shouldn't be wasting time on this law.
But the government can do more than one thing at once. It's not THAT incompetent. I mean, even in the midst of World War II, somebody had to make decisions about zoning laws. Even in the midst of a "war" on terror, the government can make decisions about whether it will allow or support dildos.
And by the way, what do you mean "war" in Iraq? In what way is it not a war? We've engaged in undeclared wars since the Adams Administration. The Supreme Court said that the "Quasi-War" with France was, indeed, a war for legal purposes. The Iraq War is being waged pursuant to a Congressional authorization (which is more than could be said for the Korean War). Soldiers are dying. It's a war.
The "war" on terror's a more interesting bird. Bush is claiming War Powers (b/c it's undisputed that Presidents do have more power in times of war) for an amorphous conflict with undefined enemies, uncertain length, and unlimited geographic scope. That's actually going to be the topic of a paper I plan to write next week.
To respond:
There's nothing wrong with Cyndi Lauper. I just guarantee I will never refer to her again on this blog. (Wait, I just did. Dammit!)
Also, I am, of course, fully aware that the government can do more than one thing at once. It could fix our national education system, reduce the deficit, solve Medicare, give the military back the Internet, raise minimum wage, undo the ridiculous gerrymandering of Texas, repeal the income tax, imprison Tom DeLay, impeach President Bush, give me a million dollars, and even stay the everloving fuck out of people's bedrooms and privately-owned stores. All at the same time! It could, if it wanted to, but I see absolutely no indication that it does. Which is too bad, particularly on that second-to-last point.
And finally, I simply do not recognize presidential wars. Military action does not constitute a war war unless it is declared by the legislature. Just because it has happened in the past doesn't make it right. I say this not to deride the actions of our brave servicemen and women overseas, merely to point out my particular objection to the nomenclature of this "war". People are dying in New York City, Washington, D.C., all over this country. Are we engaged in war there?
(Actually, in a sense, yes, but not a Congressionally declared war and therefore not a war war. Argh, I give up. What else can I say except, "So it goes." Oh yeah, and "busy, busy, busy.")
You make a point about the "war" on terror. I'll look forward to reading your paper, provided you'll allow me.
In other news, I couldn't access my blog about an hour ago. I thought maybe it had been blocked due to my earlier post about blocking military soldiers web access. Wouldn't that have been ironic?
just think. In the amount of time it took her to write up this bill, she could've used a dildo and gotten off a few times. This would've allowed her to relax, loosen up(pun intended I guess)and think clearly. Then she would figured out this was really a waste of time. If it works for men, I'm sure it would work for women.
What you were taught in your high school civics class was simply dead wrong.
Many wars have been congressionally authorized but not congressionally declared. To say that you do not recognize them as wars cuts against the grain of law and history. The political theory to which the Founders subscribed recognized undeclared wars. The Supreme Court has recognized things like the "Quasi-war" with France as a war for legal purposes. The only thing a congressional declaration does is make it Total War, putting the entire resources of the nation behind it. But a war's a war.
I do believe there's such thing as an illegal war if Congress has not authorized the Presidential use of force. (I'm not alone in that opinion, but neither is that opinion unanimous among legal scholars). Unfortunately, Congress has the backbone of a slug and authorized this war. It's a war.
I think the notion of whether or not a certain use of force represents a war or a War is fairly secondary to the details of the conflict, such as who's fighting, who's dying, who's paying, and for how long the fighting can be expected to continue. It is true that certain moments in military/governmental history have been given War status as waypoints, and that these waypoints are not arbitrarily chosen, but that doesn't make the designation more important than the details.
Not that anyone needed my approval or anything, but as long as judgments are made on the details and not the designations, then I'm happy. In our case here, IMHO, the details point to an expert gaming of our system and an authorization of force. I doubt half of 2060's schoolkids will be able to remember the exact nature of the Congressional authorization for what they will probably call the Iraq War of 2002 (or something like it). Whether or not we approve of the Iraqi conflict, it seems to me to be a very important cautionary tale for generations to come, which will probably merit it War status in the history books as a secondary effect. :)
I didn't take a civics class in high school, and I don't remember the one in middle school touching on the issue. It's more my personal opinion.
Our disagreement here is simply one of semantics. I don't intend to argue against the seriousness of military conflict. I'm trying to draw a distinction between wars that Congress authorized and wars that Congress by-God declared (which I referred to in my last comment as "war wars"). You want to consider them all the same, which is fine. I don't, which is also fine. Neither of us is wrong here.
And Bob (who amazingly posted a comment between the time I started and the time I finished mine) makes a good point. Semantics arguments are really unimportant anyway.
In the case of the Iraq war, the label of is unimportant. I'll concede that. Bob's right.
In the case of the "War" on Terror, the label is all-important because of what follows from it. If we are in a war, then the President has the expanded powers which Presidents get when we are at war. If it's something else (what exactly? A criminal investigation? A state of emergency? just another foreign policy?), then the President's powers are adjusted accordingly. That's why Bush is so insistent on calling this a War on Terror. When Rumsfeld tried to call it "the global struggle against radical Islam", Bush shot him down faster than a Vice-President can shoot a lawyer.
This, again, will be the topic of the paper I hope to have written by Wednesday. (Ha! Like that's gonna happen.)
How did we get into this discussion from a blog post about dildos?
Again a good point about the war on terror. Semantics notwithstanding, I see where classification of such as a war (whether a war or a war war) would have ramifications for executive power. (That may be the most confusing sentence ever.)
How did we get here following a post on dildos? Well, I guess we're discussing a bunch of pricks.
(Ouch.)
Post a Comment
<< Home