Monday, June 30, 2003
Since last week’s Supreme Court decision overturning the Texas anti-sodomy laws elements of the right wing have reminded me of Comedy Channel’s Up All Night host Dave Atell’s story of a guy’s horrible gardening accident where he slips and a cucumber accidentally slides up his ass.
As reported in this morning’s Washington Post, limelight loving Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, seemingly fresh from his own gardening accident, was ironically trotted before Disney-owned cameras in Washington where the pain from that lodged proto pickle was very evident:
"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually -- or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week”… "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between -- what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined -- as between a man and a woman. So I would support the [constitutional proposal to ban gay marriages in the United States] amendment."
What “criminal activity” do you think the in-over-his-head amateur theologian has in mind as a potential privacy encroacher? I can’t imagine but I know Senator Rick Santorum and former Congressman Bob Dornan could regale the good Doctor Frist with their personally revealing and orifice-widening expertise on privacy protected consensual anal excess.
Yes, America, the Church Ladies of the right are attempting to again grind America to a halt with the anti-American blurring of Church and State distinctions. A report in this morning’s New York Times would suggest Frist’s remarks are part of coordinated campaign positioning:
Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, said, "There are two issues that are nonnegotiable for the base: the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage."
I’ve said it before and Ill say it again; this is going to be one viciously ugly Presidential campaign.
I would like to draw your attention to a curious column in Sunday’s Washington Post by ombudsman Michael Getler on the paper’s coverage of PFC Jessica Lynch. Mr. Getler has been left wondering about the same unanswered questions that have puzzled so many readers:
Why did the information in that first story, which was wrong in its most compelling aspects, remain unchallenged for so long? What were the motivations (and even the identities) of the leakers and sustainers of this myth, and why didn't reporters dig deeper into it more quickly... How do these unnamed sources explain putting out this information and not correcting it sooner? Did the government intend to manipulate the press? Was The Post itself reluctant to revisit this episode?
I’m guessing Mr. Getler is somehow prevented from picking up the phone to ask reporters in his paper’s employ a question or two about a story so vital to that newpaper’s reputation. Perhaps if he runs into Sue Schmidt or Dana Priest at the hot cocoa machine this week he could get some answers.