The Prez gave a talk last night. Dude! He was down with immigration and border security. Many of the things he said sounded reasonable. From what I’ve heard (not just from the speech) the border guard is stretched thin. A stop gap of 6000 National guardsmen would come in handy. A rotation of 6k guardsmen is not an undue burden on a force 400k strong. The threat of smuggling across our borders is a real security threat.

Here’s my problem… while not exactly a red herring, I think the security argument raised by members of BOTH political parties is a little disingenuous. While a little lip service is paid to our loose border with Canada, I think it’s probably a given that a bulk of those 6-12k reinforcements are heading just north of the border (with Mexico). Are Apache helicopters, motion sensors, highway checkpoints (miles inside the border), cameras, and fences in place to stop terrorist smuggling across our loose border with Canada? Ah, not so much. They are on the border with Mexico for one reason… to stop immigration. It is said that we need more people on the border to prevent crime… but what proportion of the crime we’re preventing is the one we made illegal by making immigration for so many a crime? Sure, there are drugs, but Reagan declared war on drugs back in the 80’s… and that’s gone almost as well as Iraq (Rummy’s doin’ a heck of a job!). This is not to say that there might be legitimate reasons for curtailing illegal immigration, but I want to keep this entry relatively short. My belief is that the security argument is only there to throw a bone to the lingering fear of 9/11. But recall that the only 9/11 prosecution involved a terrorist that came into this country through Canada. So of course it makes perfect sense to respond by beefing up security in Texas and Arizona.

Politics. Regardless of prevailing facts, perception suggests the Mexican border is a problem. Can you picture a Vermonter sitting across the river with his shotgun, waiting on one of those frenchy-Quebecer bastards to come scurrying across the border? Part of the perception is rooted in reality… after all, why would a Canadian want to come here (other than to warm up)? And here’s my bone for you cynics out there… it may not hurt that beefing up security on the Mexican border tosses a few greenbacks to a few red-states.

This is the political genius of the Bush administration. Take two real issues: immigration and border security. One of them is highly controversial (immigration) and one of them is not (security). Put them together in a package the public will buy en masse, and the perceived/plausible issue balances out the controversial one. BOOM… hello better poll numbers. Now we can sell a move that some might otherwise perceive as a little racist (keeping out the Mexicans) by selling it (in part) as a security move. Just keep your eyes peeled for the odd guy walking across the border from Windsor, on your way to get some cheap prescription drugs and that high-flow toilet you always wanted. If Canada is Wal-Mart, what does that make Mexico… a downtown pawn shop?

It’s possible that the longer we treat it like this, the more likely it will stay that way. Is THAT in our long-term security interests? No, I’m not really advocating a militarization of the border with Canada. In large part, the only thing we have to fear from Canada is a quirky accent. As for Mexico, here’s a lesson from the middle east (and post WWI Germany before that)… resentment and poverty eventually led to extremism, brutality, and in the middle east’s case… a breeding ground for modern day terrorism. Yeah, a little more resentment is exactly what we want from Mexico right now. Wouldn’t it be ironic if our response to (what may be) a perceived security risk eventually contributed to a real or increased security risk?

**Wholely irresponsible side comment: did you know that in 2001 there was a larger population of Arabs (7,795) in Windsor, Canada, that Blacks (6,960)? (Insert mock, omninous ‘Ooooh’ here.)

I was surprised, but not in a good way, to hear that some conservatives might play the gay card again this election season. I am angry about this development on so many different levels, I don’t quite know where to begin, but I’m just cynical enough to fear it might work.

I’m angry because for most of us, it is a small issue. For myself and for the heterosexual masses out there, the issue has zero effect on our lives. For the conservatives out there foaming at the mouth with (self) righteous indignation… the issue has no practical effect on their lives either. It is an issue that has one practical effect… denying happiness, acceptance, and a degree financial security to a minority based on their personal preferences. I’m disgusted by such shallow callousness.

I’m angry because for some conservatives, it’s one more slice of thinly veiled hypocrisy. It seems that some are saying gay unions are the single biggest threat to the institution of marriage. Bullshit. Anyone old enough to know the definition of the word “adultery” can tell you that IT’S the single biggest threat to marriage. People get all hot and bothered over what they read in the Bible, but from what I hear you’ve got to look pretty hard to hear what it says on the issue of same sex, intimate relationships. Not being a Biblical scholar myself, I’ve got to rely on others here… but I’ve been led to believe the Bible brings up the issue of same sex relationships, like, half-a-dozen times. If this is true… well, I don’t know about you, but my Bible is a pretty big book. Not to mention that proponents seem to pretty much toss out the teachings of the entire New Testament (as I see it). And don’t even get me started about the Ten Commandments. If God really had sodomy on his mind he could have said, “thou shall not covet thy NEIGHBOR, or his wife….” (Emphasis added) The big G missed an opportunity BIG time there.

No, if those conservative nincompoops really wanted to get tough for marriage, they could start enforcing the anti-adultery laws that are already on the books. We could stop putzing around, talking about condoms and sex-ed, and engage in a little root cause analysis… and in that light, I say we ban coveting. My first act as an elected official (as if), would be to propose the banning gawking. There will be a two pronged approach to this ban. The legal concept of “animadverto per fortuna” will be defined as: staring by a married person (regardless of sex) at anther person (regardless of sex – whether same sex or not), without prior social engagement (i.e. conversation), marital engagement (getting hitched), or “good cause” (defined by some extra-ordinary attribute of the gawkee… i.e. injury, deformity, lack of fashion sense, poor hygiene, etc); or, any similar staring at a married person by another person (regardless of marital status), without prior social engagement, marital engagement, or “good cause.” The legal concept of “animadverto per propositum” will be defined as: staring by a married person at another person, during the course of social engagement, without prior marital engagement, at any part of the body below the clavicular notch of the sternum; or, any similar staring at a married person by another person (regardless of marital status), during the course of social engagement, without prior marital engagement, at any part of the body below the clavicular notch of the sternum. Engaging in either “animadverto per propositum” or “animadverto per fortuna” (subsequent to prosecution and adjudication) shall be punishable by public stoning. To get over the myriad of Constitutional hurdles, we’ll probably have to make this one an amendment too, but I think the ends will justify the means: truly protecting the sanctity of marriage. Just to show that I’m not a zealot… the stoning bit will be negotiable. This of course will only be part of a larger, “Contract with God for a moral America,” which will be the basis for my campaign.

There’s just one problem: there’s probably more adulterous/covetous conservatives in America than there are gay people. It’d be really hard for Congress to serve as a moral compass if they’re serving 2-5 in the klink for “alienation of marital affection.”

Seriously, I want to be clear that I’m NOT a better man than them conservative folk. I can covet with the best of them. Heck, I may even be better… there’s no limit to what I’ll covet: people, places, things; either live or represented in various media…but let’s call a spade a spade. Gay marriage is a risk to no one and nothing… except, maybe, someone’s sensibilities. Don’t give me a “drugs” analogy either, that’s just crap. No one was ever killed by a “gay driver” (don’t you start with me, you know what I mean), nor is homosexuality likely to drive someone to crime to support their addiction.

We have a terrible record of legislating so called “morality” in this country. I hope we won’t make the same mistake again. My stomach churns at the thought of a hypocritical bunch of conservatives running on non-issue that they have no real intention of legislating in the first place… again. Notice the issue comes up every time the current President’s coat-tails don’t look so inviting? I wonder why no one was worried about marriage when Dubya’s approval was higher than a coke addict on a three day binge, back in ’02. There’s nothing like fear to mobilize a demoralized base, is there?

**Author’s Note: the author acknowledges that he is not above the same type or level of self-righteousness that he criticizes others for in this entry. Having thusly vacated the moral high ground, the reader may choose to ignore the preceding entry, as per our normal schedule. Further, any errors in Latin grammar or usage that may be found in this entry are mine and mine alone. I have not consulted with an expert in Latin, nor have I had any training in Latin, prior to the conception, writing, or publication of this entry.