Conservator Google Feed

Add to Google Reader or Homepage


RSS feedburner feed


Perhaps They Have Been Poking Smot?

Within minutes of the shootings in Tucson, Congressmen and Senators were making ridiculous statements, not unlike those that people will make when they are smoking pot.
Generally, the statements were either calls for limiting free speech or arresting armed people who were anywhere near important people. Some outcries called for the arming of Congressmen, so presumably we would have Congressmen arresting Congressmen, or Congressmen having themselves arrested.
It would probably be a good idea if all Congressmen were rounded up after every tragedy and locked in a room for 24 hours to shield themselves from the possibility of their own stupid remarks.
Rep Clybourn proposed, as everyone now knows, that individuals who are otherwise legally carrying guns should be arrested if they are within certain distance of a Congressman. Representative Peter King proposed that that distance should be 1000 feet.

As dumb as this idea is, it does present one good possibility.
It could be used to completely remedy Jan Brewer’s border problem. All she would have to do is fly a Congressman in a small plane over the entire Mexican border and the Federal government would be forced to arrest people. They would be forced to enforce a border watch that the Federal government should have been enforcing but has so far been reluctant to do so. (Don’t try to say that sentence if you are stoned, or if you are a Congressman.) The idea that there should be a law enabling law enforcement personnel to arrest any individuals within 1000 feet of a Congressman presumes, of course that Congressmen and women are more Central to our government than, say, judges? Or are more central to the functioning of our nation-at-large than CEO’s of small and large corporations? Please.

This presumption of self-importance is so shamelessly bloated. I will propose that we should have the same law in place protecting all CEO’s of Corporations and LLC’s, all CFO’s for that matter, and really, I think we need to protect equally, if not more, the chief electrician in charge of making sure electricity in the subway system of Chicago or the chief programmer in charge of the subway system of New York is equally protected, because, they are way more important than any Congressmen. At least, in the span of an entire fiscal year, they actually accomplish something.

Truly, my original idea of making Congressional Districts larger so we would have to feed less Congressmen, and reducing the number of Senators to one per state would go a long way to protecting them, because there would be less to protect. In fact, from a mathematical standpoint, the protection needed for all of the Congressmen and senators would be halved simply by reducing their numbers. The number of Congressmen in any sort of potential danger would be cut in half.

Where would we begin to reduce these numbers? We should absolutely begin with the states that can’t balance their budgets. How’s that for an incentive to be fiscally responsible?

Note that, everything that I have said above would certainly have been illegal to utter if all of the proposals to limit the first amendment, largely made by congressmen and senators on the Democrat side of the aisle, in the last two years alone had been made law. My pick for the most outrageous of the proposals have been those presented by elected officials, Representative Clybourn a Democrat from South Carolina and Senator Schumer a Democrat from New York.


XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>