Free democracy my ring



1. George Dubya doesn't want American gays to marry, even though the highest court in the state of Massachusetts has given the all clear for such weldings to proceed in that state from 17.5.04.
2. Janet's fricken nipple.

These two things are riling me the most of anything right at the moment, and they're quite connected. Both are about protection.

The first one goes, Gays shouldn't be encouraged so let's carefully shut them out of an institution that affords them certain important rights. To protect the "sanctity" of the institution, you see. An institution which allows people to become wed by driving their car into a drive-thru and having an Elvis impersonator do the "sacred" vows. Britney "Me against the marriage" Spears-style. Sacred? Hardly.

So you'd think that a country that invades another soverign state allegedly to afford its people freedom and democracy from their sexpot, I mean *despot* leader, would allow its own consenting citizens to marry each other if they wish. They're meant to like the state to take a back seat in the regulation of public life. People are meant, according to the popular neo-conservative ethos, to be able to get on with living their lives as they see fit with little to no governmental interference. Yes?

Well no actually. APPARENTLY this is only for SOME people. GOOD people. Others are dirty PERVERTS who are trying to RUIN a BEAUTIFUL INSTITUTION and the state must simply intervene* and STOP this from happening by changing the constitution of the entire country so that such PERVERTS shall never marry. Protect marriage, so it's not cheapened by the gays getting at it (it already IS cheapened)! And protect the gays from having relationships that can be recognised officially (so they don't get too big for their against-God's-teachings BOOTS)!

And Janet Jackson, well it's a bosom isn't it. I have seen many and don't even like them overly! And I'm not jumping up and down about it. People like boobs rather a lot. Or so I thought. They're certainly on display (apart from the nipple area - see below a few posts) all the TIME in anything you care to view. But the moment a woman might have displayed her own boob on the football entertainment, most probably on her own terms, then she is FILTHY and OBSCENE. The boob itself is also obscene. (Shouldn't just the nipple be obscene? Why is the whole boob suddenly in trouble when only the nipple is the apparently dreadful part? I'm sure I can't work this out.) Anyway I hear that now the Grammys and Oscars telecasts are getting delayed, due to this. So NO MORE BOSOMS may be seen. To protect people! From BOOBS.

If anyone wants to protect me, I really am quite fine about bosoms, and also the marriage of gays, though I probably would not buy into either. I WOULD, though, like to be protected from some other more pressing things, like people smoking cigarettes in the street and allowing the ash to fly back in my poor little face.

Where is MY constitutional amendment.

* I wonder though - is this attempt at intervention is a wonderfully public death spasm of a completely irrelevant shrub of a President who has only maintained power in the past by appeals to fear which are beginning to seem ugly and unhelpful...perhaps it is good that marriage of the gays is on the agenda so it can finally be shot down in flames and people can get on with their bloody LIVES.