« my little mouse of consciousness | Main | Sad to say, nice guys finish last »
My Conversation with Tom
by anna at 07:12 PM on March 24, 2005
Tom DeLay: This is a sad day for those of us who believe deeply in the Sanctity of Life. Teri Schiavo is going to die of thirst because no one in the judiciary was willing to come to her rescue.
Me: Are you familiar with the origin of the word sanctity? It is derived from the Latin sanctitas -atis f. [inviolability , sanctity; purity, chastity].
A related term is sanctuary. You know, where all the animals and plants are protected. Sanctity has a very absolute connotation to it.
DeLay: My Republican colleagues and I absolutely believe in the sanctity of life. That is why we rammed that bill through Congress in the middle of the night, with no hearings or debate. It’s also why we oppose stem cell research and most forms of abortion. And morning after pills and rubbers. Fags like Barney Frank, they could care less about life.
Me: Really? Then why are you guys so gaga over the death penalty? Aren’t criminals forms of life too?
DeLay: That is a different matter altogether. Society has a right to be protected from the predatory likes of Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer.
Me: Dahmer wasn’t legally executed. He was set up by prison guards who looked the other way while another inmate gutted him with a shiv. How do you feel about that? Another sad day for those who value the sanctity of life, no?
DeLay: He had boys’ skulls in his freezer. Certainly his death was justified.
Me: What about the absolute sanctity of life? Do you apply that principle selectively? How about your opposition to needle exchange programs, which kills people?
DeLay: Um.
Me: Okay so we’ve established that there is no sanctity of life in your minds. There are folks you want snuffed and others you don’t. Let’s move on. You dig guns and think everyone should have an arsenal in their homes, right?
DeLay: I’m for citizens’ right to bear arms.
Me: All citizens?
DeLay: Well, not convicted felons.
Me: Even after they’ve wiped the slate clean by paying their debt to society? How long must one pay for a mistake?
DeLay: Criminals shouldn’t have guns.
Me: Most of them do. So how about, say, white supremacists or homophobes? Should they be armed to the teeth so long as technically, they haven’t as yet run afoul of the law?
DeLay: You are framing your questions in a very deceptive and self-serving way. The fact is that we are for Family Values. That and naming everything in the country after the great hero Ronald Reagan.
Me: Yeah, he was a big family values guy. Got tired of his first family when the hot young thing Nancy Davis came along, blew him, and he dumped them and ignored his own kids. Great guy, huh?
DeLay: That isn’t a fair characterization. Besides, you shouldn’t speak ill of the dearly departed.
Me: I wouldn’t if the dearly departed had led more righteous lives. Isn’t your last name just perfect for a Congressman?
DeLay: My nickname is The Hammer.
Me: Isn’t that trademarked by MC?
DeLay: You can't touch this.
comments (19)
As fictional as your posting is meant to be, it is almost exactly what pundants are saying all over Fox News over the past week or so. Neocons are shooting themselves in the foot right now. Maybe some real Republicans will take this opportunity to take back their party from the Neocon nazi-like grip on their party and our government.
by fcsuper at March 24, 2005 8:52 PM
As fictional as your posting is meant to be, it is almost exactly what pundants are saying all over Fox News over the past week or so. Neocons are shooting themselves in the foot right now. Maybe some real Republicans will take this opportunity to take back their party from the Neocon nazi-like grip on their party and our government.
by fcsuper at March 24, 2005 8:53 PM
A point well taken. Another related word is sanctimonious, like all these grandstanding a-holes who couldn't give a shit about any individual person let alone one with as little to contribute to their campaign coffers as this chick.
by anna at March 24, 2005 8:59 PM
You never get decent Q&A type debates like this in reality, politicians have prepared speeches, which they rarely write themselves, and the media have prepared questions, you rarely see, "You just said in your speech..." - "... now doesn't that contradict 'whatever'?"
Tony Blair is the uber lord of winging it, he can 'sort of' answer a question with the best of them, and at the same time, 'sort of' appear to give a shit about the concerns of the questioner. Prime Minister's Question Time on the BBC is a promotion off his party, all of the questions are prepared and okay'd beforehand, more recently they've allowed questions from a selected audience though, still not good enough. Bush... Bush makes me chuckle, a friend of mine reckons Bush is cuddly, she thinks he's cute and innocent, she is also stupid. Have you seen the clip of him answering the question about sovereign states?
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=sovereignty.mov
I suppose he sort of answers the question, and if you were dumber than most five year olds, you'd sort of accept it as an answer. You can hear many people laughing at his in the background. I have no idea who DeLay is, so I really shouldn't have posted. :)
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at March 24, 2005 11:40 PM
Delay was an 'exterminator' of bugs.
by Lockheed at March 24, 2005 11:45 PM
He is like, the majority leader of the US House of Reps. A very powerful guy.
I've often wondered how they control these things at press conferences. I mean, how they prevent any meaningful questions, such as these, from being asked. And thus prevent any meaningful dialogue.
by anna at March 25, 2005 7:47 AM
Wow..…Anna we need to talk my friend….
This whole fictitious conversation was made possible by Anna deciding to insert one word “sanctity”. Had you not inserted this word in to your fictitious conversation you wouldn’t have a post. But for the sake of argument I will allow it in because I know that Delay had used that word in describing the Schaivo case.
Now on to your political agenda.
DeLay: My Republican colleagues and I absolutely believe in the sanctity of life. That is why we rammed that bill through Congress in the middle of the night, with no hearings or debate. It’s also why we oppose stem cell research and most forms of abortion. And morning after pills and rubbers. Fags like Barney Frank, they could care less about life.
So are you for or against the fact that the Legislative branch worked through the night to try and save this woman? The same woman that you later say isn’t worth a Republicans time because se doesn’t contribute to their coffers? Seriously, I think that the Republicans and Democrats are for keeping this woman alive. There are two factors that make what the Legislative people do pointless. One is that it is a judicial decision. Two, the reality is that it is a private decision and not any branch of the Governments. She said she didn’t want to live this way let her and her husband carry out her wishes!
Me: Really? Then why are you guys so gaga over the death penalty? Aren’t criminals forms of life too?
Anna have you ever had your wife and child out at say the mall and looked around and not seen your child right off the bat? I have and it gives you an indescribable feeling. Imagine for a moment the learning that your child’s’ head is in the freezer of another man. Pretty rough mental picture! I can’t believe that you think what happened Dahmer was equivalent to what is going on with Terry. You see Terry did nothing wrong. Dahmer did. I believe that God will give him a far worse punishment than any of us could deliver.
DeLay: That is a different matter altogether. Society has a right to be protected from the predatory likes of Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer.
Me: Dahmer wasn’t legally executed. He was set up by prison guards who looked the other way while another inmate gutted him with a shiv. How do you feel about that? Another sad day for those who value the sanctity of life, no?
DeLay: He had boys’ skulls in his freezer. Certainly his death was justified.
Me: What about the absolute sanctity of life? Do you apply that principle selectively? How about your opposition to needle exchange programs, which kills people?
Anna come on my man.. how can you really believe that the needle exchange program kills people? Never mind the fact that the drug addict just made a conscious decision to put a needle in his arm??? That is the same mentality that says that guns kill people. I have in your words “an arsenal” at home and my gun has never jumped up and shot off randomly. Ok lets buy into your point that because the Republicans are against spending money to help addicts be safe (an oxymoron in itself) it ends up killing them. So let’s blame the drug addicts death on the Republicans lack of action toward preventing said death. Now lets go to the next step and say that because Republicans didn’t outlaw cars and there are many people killed by cars then we now should blame Republicans? You and I (like the drug addict) choose to take the risk at the time we turn the car on or stick the needle in our arm. Give me a break. How about putting responsibility where it should be. If you are a drug addict and you freely choose to put a dirty needle in your arm then so be it. Don’t blame someone else. So let me come full circle with this. Don’t blame someone else for Terry Schiavo death. The Republicans and judges aren’t responsible for her death. She stated that she didn’t want to live that way. This is a decision between her and her husband.
DeLay: Um.
Me: Okay so we’ve established that there is no sanctity of life in your minds. There are folks you want snuffed and others you don’t. Let’s move on. You dig guns and think everyone should have an arsenal in their homes, right?
DeLay: I’m for citizens’ right to bear arms.
Me: All citizens?
DeLay: Well, not convicted felons.
Me: Even after they’ve wiped the slate clean by paying their debt to society? How long must one pay for a mistake?
I’ll gladly answer the question about how long felons should have to pay for their crimes. For the rest of their lives. It is a small debt to pay (not having guns) for a felony. That guy should have weighed his options to have a gun before he committed the felony if it meant that much to him. If he likes guns so much he won’t commit a felony. Again put the responsibility where it belongs. The felon screwed up and got caught. Oh well he doesn’t get to play with guns anymore!
DeLay: Criminals shouldn’t have guns.
Me: Most of them do. So how about, say, white supremacists or homophobes? Should they be armed to the teeth so long as technically, they haven’t as yet run afoul of the law?
Well the law is not perfect. Fortunately, this country is based on innocent until proven guilty. So yeah the militiamen and white supremacists and homophobes should be able to have guns until they break the law. Should people be allowed to drive until they kill someone? Yep!
DeLay: You are framing your questions in a very deceptive and self-serving way. The fact is that we are for Family Values. That and naming everything in the country after the great hero Ronald Reagan.
Me: Yeah, he was a big family values guy. Got tired of his first family when the hot young thing Nancy Davis came along, blew him, and he dumped them and ignored his own kids. Great guy, huh?
Well being that you are very liberal I will just let this go as a jab at a President who freed the millions oppressed by communism. Speaking of getting blown how bout that ole Clinton. The thing is, he looked at you and I in the eye and said he didn’t do it. Ah but alas he forgot about the spunk stain….Anna I bet $100 that you were one of those people who at the time said that what Clinton does in his private life doesn’t affect his Presidency. Then you are the same liberal person who comes up with the fact that Reagan was a divorcee? How does Reagans’ private life play into his Presidency? After all he didn’t get blown in the oval office? So are you for a Presidents personal life affecting his Presidency or not? If so, then I would love to hear you admit that Clinton was the worst President ever. If not, then I would like you to recant your statements about Reagan…or at least base them on some part of his policy. Ah the lesser of two evils for a liberal….
DeLay: That isn’t a fair characterization. Besides, you shouldn’t speak ill of the dearly departed.
Me: I wouldn’t if the dearly departed had led more righteous lives. Isn’t your last name just perfect for a Congressman?
DeLay: My nickname is The Hammer.
Me: Isn’t that trademarked by MC?
DeLay: You can't touch this
The rest of this is pretty much liberal crap. I do not however get the connection between MC Hammer and Delay.
Anna I have read a lot of you posts and normally I respect what you say. I still respect it but I think you need to rethink you fictitious conversation and frame it better. I don’t mind when a person picks apart what another says but it does bother when someone goes off in a political direction that really has nothing to do with the issue.
I am ready for your response as I am sure it is being formulated now!
by Not_Ezy at March 25, 2005 10:25 AM
The death penalty argument, and the gun argument...
... Pointless. America would do well without either. And I suppose with the gun thing, many other countries would benefit if they were not readily available too.
Those Irish chicks in the White House on St Patrick's Day, for example, you think their brother was shot with an Irish rifle? There is no logical argument for arming the 'civilians' of civilised society, in my opinion. Guns belong in the hands of law enforcement, and the army, not Joe Public. Cos Joe Public is just too damned unpredictable.
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at March 25, 2005 2:18 PM
I enjoy that a Brit knows what I would do best with... By the way how are those British fox hunts going these days... you know the ones where the dogs run and find a fox and then tear it limb from limb while the dignified Englishmen watch and laugh.
By the way I don't think that the Irish guy was shot by an Irish Rifle... He was shot by a person not a rifle! Somebody shot him not something.
The reason there is no logical argument for you is because you only see the vioent side of guns. There is a sporting side, a hunting side and a self protection side. Therefore since you are ignorant to the other aspects of the devices you can see no logical arguement.
See the difference is that we are allowed to carry guns. It is in our constitution to bear arms. It was one of those things our founding fathers wrote when we decided to make a better society than Britian could offer.
By the way, I am not pro-death penalty at all. I understand it and see both sides of the arguement. But I am not going to lose sleep when someone like Dalmer gets whacked.
by Not_Ezy at March 25, 2005 3:52 PM
Dude, I assume you have no connection with BS stalwart Ezy. But first of all, I'm no liberal. I'm also no conservative. I'm apolitical. My only opinion, and my only point is really that public people should be consistent in their beliefs and pronouncements and not be hypocrites. For instance, I totally respect the Quaker doctrine of no violence, not in war, never. I think Buddhists have a similar viewpoint. Likewise, I can accept nihilists and anarchists' views as they at least seem consistent: kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.
Reagan vs Clinton? I'd go with Reagan. I just don't know why everything was being named after him before he was even dead.
Dahmer? I'd have stabbed him myself or at least fashioned the shiv. Bully for the guards who looked the other way. It's a good thing. But if you're saying there is sanctity of life, you can't applaud his murder.
And I'm glad you enjoyed my other posts.
by anna at March 25, 2005 6:31 PM
Before you paint all Brits with the foxhunters bush... Please know that we do not all own and breed horses, we do not all sport great wealth, and we do not all straddle the horses we do not own only to blow trumpets and follow a pack of bloodhounds to an animal which is considered vermin only to hoot and huzzah as it is ripped to pieces. Fox hunting has an extremely short lifespan, in a year, two, five at the most, it’ll be illegal.
The second paragraph of your comment, I have to ask, are you Charlton Heston? Or perhaps a spokesman for the NRA? The line: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Isn't the be all and end all of the pro gun argument. Guns do kill people, in the hands of people... If guns were not readily available, people would not be killing people quite as often as they do in your country.
And to boot, you don't need a semi-automatic assault rifle to hunt, and a 357 magnum isn’t the best hunting tool either... Nor do you need an RPG to protect your home. You think you're making a logical argument, and you cite the constitution lain down by your forebears as if it can't be argued with... They lived in a completely different era, I don't think I'm so ignorant in that I can't perceive glaring differences between the time the American constitution was written, and the world turning beyond my window. Nor ignorant enough to know what a civilised society is supposed to look like, or to know that having idiots able to buy guns, lose guns, leave their guns in reach of their children… Is just a bad thing.
Maybe having guns isn’t such a bad thing, what do I know, I’m tired after my hunt today and am still tackling the images of a wild animal being torn to bits in my head to think straight enough to argue with you. You did mention a car in your other comment, and said that people should be allowed to drive until (Insert reason here)…
… It is more difficult to pass a driving test to legally drive a car in your country, than it is to get your hands on, and to legally own a firearm. You see where the logic eludes me?
America's policy on guns evokes the same reaction in me as when I see a bunch of Middle-Eastern fanatics screaming and yelling and waving AK's in the air. But I am with you, I don't lose sleep either, when murderers are murdered for being murderers, I just can't see how it has any profound affect on deterring crime.
I think I’ll end by saying the number of ‘foxes’ killed today, by the haughty upper class in my country, is less than the ‘people’ killed today, by ‘people’ with guns in yours. :)
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at March 25, 2005 6:52 PM
Well Anna, I apologize. I had you pegged for a VERY liberal person. The jabs at Reagan and Delay persuaded me incorrectly. Not that I have a problem with Democrats only I saw a very hipocritcal arguement with the Reagan was a bad person but Clinton is the democratic hero line of thought.
Crimson, I have guns, I enjoy guns, I shoot for sport (target clays) I shoot for hunting and I shoot if you enter my house uninvited. I feel strongly that it is not fair for you to tell me that I would be better off without these things. I hate the NRA and the political BS they sling!
Just like crack and all other drugs those who want them will get them even if they are illegal. I should have the right to even the playing field if one of these thugs enters my house to harm someone or take something. By the way one could (although I dont believe) that a semi-auto .357 is the best weapon for home defense. My analogy holds that if a tool can be used to kill someone it should not be automatically banned. A car can be used to kill someone but it should absolutely not be banned. A butcher knife has been and could be used to kill someone but it is more often used to prepare dinner. Guns are more often used for sport and target shooting and hunting than killing other people.
In our country you have to pass a test and be 16 to get a drivers license. However to get a gun you have to pass a criminal backgreound check, have not been treated for mental illness, be 21 for a handgun and 18 for a rifle. More criteria than driving tests. So your statement about it being easier to (legally)buy a gun than get a drivers license is bunk. By the way you have to wait 48 hours in most cases to buy a gun. You can drive away from the DMV with your new drivers license.
For some reason this post really stirred me up this morning at work. I am sure that after all this Shiavo crap settles down I will go back in my hole and just lurk here.
By the way my Not_EZY name is because I posted once before and MG noticed that it was same IP as EZY because we work together.
by Not_Ezy at March 25, 2005 8:14 PM
Cool. I remember that. As far as the gun thing, they don't kill people but you'd have to admit it makes it a helluva lot easier. In the movies they make it like slitting someone's throat is easy. But as the beheading videos from Iraq show, it's actually a pretty grueling process. It is up close and personal.
In Japan, no guns allowed except certain authorities. Very few murders there. Strictly cultural factors? In a culture that brought us kamakazi pilots and samurai warriers. No.
by anna at March 26, 2005 9:13 AM
And sad to say we have blood sport here too. About 20 miles from where Ezy and Not Ezy work, in Middleburg VA there are fox hunts. And steeplechase. We also have a few states that still allow cockfighting. And as much as I hate to admit it, I'd go watch and bet on a feisty-looking fowl.
by anna at March 26, 2005 9:21 AM
To be fair though, the Japanese believed they had a living God presiding over them so... Yeah, culture could explain it.
On guns, I really don't see the logic. I don't because there is none. If you enjoy hunting, do what hunters do in my country and go to a hunting club, hire the weapons needed, and hunt. When you're on your way home, hand back the weapon and go home, instead of taking it home to hang on rack with a wide selection of similar weapons.
Home Protection: If you’re worried about burglars, get an alarm with a rapid response backup, many a lock, and just generally beef up home security, enough to be able to call the cops, if the alarm hasn’t already set a black and white rolling for your address, while the evildoers are still trying to gain entry.
Home Protection Gung-Ho Style: Why not just have a drop lock, a chain on the door, and my gun on my bedside table? That way I can actually experience what it feels like to kill a bad man.
Hunting: The majority of weapons available in the gun stores were not designed for maximum effect against a running deer, but designed specifically to kill other human beings, many at a time, efficiently, and with little effort.
If the law were to be changed slightly, just slightly, to make room for some logic that would register in my ignorant grey matter, then there would be a handgun of a generic design made available for home protection. Similar to the standard issue weapon assigned to law enforcement, or guarding services, and army officers. It would make more sense than to have assault rifles and anti-tank equipment on shelves for Joe Public to pick up, and it may even stand up in a pro gun argument for a little while longer than, “I enjoy hunting with my M16A1 rifle with 30 round magazine and a 40mm M203 grenade launcher attached…” Or whatever.
“You want this one sir? It can fire 100 rounds in 15 seconds… Perfect for protecting your home.”
“Uh-riiight. Do you think I’m going to be burgled by a man clad in modern army body armour, or are you expecting an army of communists to kick my door in?”
Heh… I'm screaming into a void, and am being really negative toward the pro-gun argument. If I were an American born and raised in America though, chances are good that I would own a gun. But I don’t, and I wasn’t. I have no idea what its like to live in a country in which the man sitting a couple of tables away in a restaurant could have a gun in his pocket with which he could, on a whim, turn on me and every other punter, ending a lot of lives in a split second, and I really, really, don’t want to know how paranoid I would become with that thought in my mind, or how readily I’d want to purchase a gun of my own, just to quench that fear. So I had may as well shut the hell up, eh? Heh heh.
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at March 26, 2005 3:44 PM
Crim that is some powerful commentary and it's a cool testament to our international flavor here, but the the bottom line is that Americans do have the right to bear arms. Problem is, when they wrote those laws they didn't have those manner of guns.
by anna at March 26, 2005 10:15 PM
Me: Mr. DeLay, didn't you in fact give up on the sanctity of life, and pull the plug on your own father, who was injured and left no living will in 1988? Only 27 days after an accident which left him brain damaged, but not completely unresponsive, in some ways very similar to Terri Schiavo?
DeLay: Yes. But that's different. It was a family matter. The government didn't need to be involved. I have no further comment....
The absence of needle exchange programs doesn't kill people, abstinence only programs do. How's that for irony? But seriously, Anna makes a valid point, needle exchange programs result in more harm that the absence of needle exchange programs - not just for addicts, but for all of us. Yet the conservative viewpoint can't bring itself to address a problem that it thinks shouldn't exist. It's a fascinating dilemna: people shouldn't take drugs, thus it would be ridiculous to make sterile needles available. People shouldn't be having sex out of wedlock, thus it's pointless to teach about or make birth control available. Whereas the liberal crap point of view would be something like: people shouldn't do drugs, but there's a place to exchange needles to prevent and reduce the spread of infectious diseases. People shouldn't be having unprotected sex, but we know they will if we don't teach them not to, so let's educate them and make birth control available to those who decide to use it.
by chris at March 28, 2005 1:28 PM
We don't need no stinking guns. We just need to do some online hunting.
by MrBlank at March 28, 2005 3:34 PM
Just to be clear, what I said about needle exchange programs is that politician's opposition to them results in needless deaths.
Of course the fact is that trying to regulate drug use, prostitution, gambling etc is a fool's errand. Nobody cares what the government thinks. We just do as we please.
by anna at March 28, 2005 7:13 PM