Outer Monologue

Another woman in my life who finds me tiresome

I purchased a new cellphone a few months ago, complete with bluetooth handsfree earpiece.

This new phone includes cutting-edge 2001 technology that allows me to "Say a command" and dial various people by just saying their names.

This feature operates via a pleasant female voice (we'll call her Sarah) who will make statements and ask me questions like the aforementioned "Say a command" and "Did you say name?"

Anyone who knows me well knows I have a tendancy to break into silly voices at the drop of a hat. I foolishly think it makes me funnier (luckily my wife finds it endearing in a very pitiful sort of way; it's why I married her).

Apparently Sarah is not quite so amused.

Often when I "say a command" and she asks back "Did you say name?", I will unthinkingly answer "Yes" in one of a variety of silly/stupid accents or inflections.

Sarah, in reaction, will pause, as if thinking "dumbass" and then will (I swear) give a barely-audible sigh and turn off, leaving me talking to dead air.

Think I should buy her flowers? Perhaps a new carrying case?

I just want to be loved...

I don't know why...

But this image amuses the hell out of me.

They read (and write) letters.

So it's closing in on the mid-term elections (Nov 7th) and that means that in the rare cases that I have the time and energy to post these days, I'll probably be posting about politics.

Today I wanted to relate an interesting personal tidbit of the grand political scene.

A few weeks ago (Sept 28th), an atrocious bill was passed by the Senate (yeah, that doesn't narrow it down these days, I know) called S3930, or "The Military Commissions Act of 2006".

This horrible bill (now law), which basically existed to try and boost the republicans in the polls (by making them look "tough" on terror) has several frightening aspects to it, but the most important three are:

1) It seriously undermines the concept of habeas corpus (the right of prisoners to challenge the reason for their imprisonment), one of the fundamental concepts of the american legal system.

2) It allows the preznit (the great decider) to interpret what torture is as per the Geneva conventions. If another nation did that, we'd call it a horrible breach of the treaty (imagine if Iran made the same ruling). Only the most ardent Bush-ite could believe he could be trusted with such a decision these days.

3) It allows for NO congressional or judicial oversight of the commission process.

It goes back to Ben Franklin's statement: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I believe that statement wholeheartedly.


So anyway... the personal bit of this...

When the Senate passed the resolution, several Democrats voted in support of it. Why anyone would, I can't understand, but the republicans at least had political reasons to vote for it.

One of those Democratic senators was Debbie Stabenow (MI), who is up for election this year.

Frankly, my annoyance that it passed at all was great, and the fact that one of my senators voted for it just pissed me off.

So I exercised my rights as a citizen and voter and emailed Debbie's office.

As any reader of mine can guess, the resultant missive was long, rambling and filled with controlled anger. I don't have the text of it anymore, but I basically told her that I could not in good conscience vote for anyone who would support such a measure.

Since I also can't support a Republican candidate for senator this year (this country desperately needs at least one house of congress to be in opposition to this president), it leaves me voting for a third party candidate (not a new thing for me).

So anyway, weeks passed and I assumed my email was carefully filed in the circular file by her office.

And then yesterday, I received a response, and it doesn't seem to be a form.

Here is the text of the letter.

Now I'm not confident that Stabenow actually had a hand in reading/writing this, but it clearly isn't a form letter. And Mary relates a story about how she once called her congressman (while in college) looking for his position on an issue and didn't get an answer, but that a few days later he personally called her parents' home (having figured out where they lived and their number) and gave them the answer himself.

So it's possible Debbie wrote, or at least dictated, this response.

The response gives me some insight into her reasoning (she's clearly an incrementalist, which I am not in most cases), but I still disagree with her.

With most presidents, this might have been an acceptable workaround (until a better law could be crafted), but in the case of the current resident of the White House... these people just can't be trusted.

That's not a gut thing. They've proven it repeatedly. They put politics over everything else, and they put "looking tough" over the basic tenets of the american system of government.

He must be limited, and he must be watched. And this law does neither.

I'm still not voting for Senator Stabenow, but at least I understand better why she did what she did (and that it wasn't pure politics, according to her).

And I may even respond to her response. I'm sure she's waiting for it with baited breath...

A moment of silence...

...For the New York Mets.

I'm shocked but not surprised.

After all, I'm a Mets fan. You get used to if after awhile...