dear supreme court

(or at least 5 of you),

my goodness, you are taking us back decades. nay, centuries. i was already fretting about the decision on the so-called "partial birth abortion ban," because i knew that meant that, should i suffer the tragedy of suddenly finding out that a late-term fetus i might carry has a health problem that means it will not live outside the womb more than a week, i would be forced to carry that fetus to term and forced to watch it die slowly and painfully. i took that decision as direct hostility to the physical and mental health of women. no one makes the decision to have a late term abortion under happy or whimsical conditions. duh.

and now, with your decisions yesterday, you're really turning me into a late-eighteenth century philosopher, all concerned about the rights of individuals and self-determination, etc. "bong hits 4 jesus" cannot be "reasonably" interpreted as advocating drug use.* even if it could, can't people who see it like, you know, like, decide not to take that bong hit? if, however, those bong hits 4 jesus were advocated close to election time by a faith-based corporate entity, that's A-OK. lesson: corporations have more rights than individuals.

also? it really seems like you are kind of paving the way or maybe even driving on through that whole separation-of-church-and-state thing that those guys back in the day thought was important. i've always thought it was pretty creepy that the president thinks the majority of his constituents will be burning in a lake of fire sooner or later (and furthermore is looking forward to it), but for a little while that was just the stuff of the crackpot. now, instead of that loony lake of fire, most people are instead actually experiencing gradual disenfranchisement and hacking away at our hallowed individuality (which in many contexts i can be heard denouncing, but that's when i assume it's 2007). maybe this is what is meant when scientists say that time travel is possible?

shame on you for hating women and for reducing the rights of the little guy and for being slaves to your fantasy of morality. shame, shame, shame.


*imagine, and perhaps laugh at, along with me the scenario in which the banner actually is advocating drug use, i.e. the scenario presumably playing through the head of roberts and scalia as they made their judgments. a fifteen-year old sees the sign and thinks to himself, "well, i do love jesus! i guess i better figure out what this 'bong' is and hit it." and then he does his research, buys a bong, puts on his creed albums or whatever, looks up at the sky and says "this is for you, lord," and inhales deeply. this is the scenario that roberts, et al decided MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS.