The ACLU has filed a legal brief with the Georgia state Supreme Court challenging a statute that outlaws sexual intercourse between unmarried couples. Since the latest census records nearly 150,000 Georgians a living together sans the benefit of marital formality, the ACLU feels that this case could "finally [get] the state of Georgia out of our bedrooms."

I say, "Hear, hear!" I don't know about you, but having the entire state of Georgia in my bedroom is a little unnerving. Talk about stage fright. Geez.

On the other hand, The American Family Association is all burned up about it, stating that the case was a challenge to the institution of marriage more than a challenge to invasion of privacy. According to AFA attorney Bryan J. Brown, "This nation must quickly decide whether we have the government's best interest in preserving traditional marriage. " He continued that living together outside of marriage "is a social experiment with little history, but what little history we have shows it's doomed to failure."

Uh huh. ok.

Well, I'm certainly glad Mr. Brown and the AFA don't control the laws in the U.S. or we'd be putting unmarried couples in stocks, sewing scarlet "A"s on people's clothing, dresses wouldn't be allowed to show a woman's ankles, and homosexuals would be stoned to death. But at least the Pledge of Allegiance would go, "one nation, under God, not Allah, not Buddha, and not the Jewish God, but the Christian God, with as much justice and liberty as the AFA thinks the immoral masses deserve."

Mr. Brown can stick it. It's not up to him or the AFA to tell anyone how they can live their lives, right up to the mistakes we make and even whether or not they are mistakes. Living together is not a social experiment "allowed" by the government, it's a personal decision that the government has no business making on the behalf of the individual.

Someone at WorldCom recently got a hot case of honesty and confessed that they'd been cooking the books to hide BILLIONS in expenses in order to show a profit in their stockholders report. The Monkey Faced Frat Boy (Bush, for those new to these pages) grabs his political surfboard and attempts to ride the wave, declaring that Congress needs to do something about making corrupt corporations pay. Which is just so much whooey, since no bill to punish such accounting practices will ever be passed in an effective form.

And then the you-know-what hits the fan -- and sprays all over MFFB's face.

Seems Bush was on the board of directors for Harken Energy Company back in 1990 when he suddenly sold off 66% of his holdings. Two months later the stock fell on its face when it disclosed that it was carrying a large debt load. Bush pocketed $850,000 USD just in time. By the end of 1990 the stock was down to $1. The SEC requires that board members file a form 144, Intent to Sell, prior to selling shares and then a form 4, Report of Sale, after the actual sale. Bush filed the 144, but didn't file the form 4 for another 8 months.

Strange, huh? Funny, that.

But regardless of the state of the company, Bush violated a federal law by not reporting the sale by the 10th day of the month following the sale. A federal violation. First he said that the SEC must have lost it. Now he says he gave it to an attorney to file and the attorney dropped the ball. Hey George! Try "my dog ate it!" That always works!

Now let me get this straight. This guy is on the board of directors and he can't follow up on something as important as following a federal law? Hm. Clinton's White Water dealings, real or imagined, just aren't sounding so unique anymore, y'know?

Lately, perhaps it's just me, but I seem to be running across more and more articles about the connection between slavery and prison industrial programs. The idea is that prisoners in the U.S. are pressed into labor and do not benefit from that labor, therefore, by definition, they have been turned into slaves. There was even a letter to the editor of "Scientific American" in response to an unusually political article on slavery to that effect, and on top of that I've got some off-shore idiot spamming me regularly about the plight of the American prisoner forced into manufacturing goods without compensation.

Ok, let's back up for a minute. Who's being pressed into labor?

These guys, whether they're in prison for something as stupid as selling dollar spleefs (marijuana cigarettes for the over 50 crowd) or as hardcore as shooting up an elementary school, they have broken the law. When you break the law, you suffer the consequences. Part of the consequences consists of paying your debt to society, not just with your time, but with your resources. Usually your resource payment is in the form of monetary fines, but it can also take the form of work programs in which you produce goods that are then sold, the proceeds either going back into the prison budget or used to sponsor programs for victims of crimes.

And y'know what? I'm cool with that. I've mentioned in past articles that I am 100% for chain gangs, and those have the added distinction of humiliating the prisoner by putting them on display in a prison work gang. The prisoners aren't beaten if they don't do the work. In fact, if they do the work and don't cause problems with the prison staff, they often get time off of their sentence. That sounds like a form of compensation to me.

I refuse to apply the term "slavery" to industrial programs that use inprisoned criminals as their work force. If you don't want to make license plates, weave baskets, or paint crockery, keep your nose clean and stay out of trouble.

So to the moron that keeps sending me those stupid emails asking for donations to further the cause against prison work programs....

Well, use your imagination.

Hang on for a minute... (pause)

Synchronicity. You gotta love it. The cable guy just came by and upgraded my TV boxes to digital. After he left, I was flicking around and came across the movie "Canadian Bacon". In the 2 minutes I watched, there was a scene where Alan Alda, playing the President of the U.S.A., says to one of his advisors after being told that starting a war would get him an automatic 30 point rise in the polls, "I'm not going to start a war just to boost my ratings!" How noble. How dignified.

So Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" is being cancelled. That's not good. It was a new, explosive, cool, intellectual, controversial show. On the other hand, Mr. Maher implied that the U.S. was cowardly for it's military practices. His exact words were, "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." Ok, granted, it's not cowardly to blow yourself up for what you believe in. But calling us cowardly for using technology to make our point while minimizing casualties is specious at best. And stupid. And comparing people with mental retardation to pet dogs was stupid too. In fact, Mr. Maher has been too full of his show many times in the past, and at this point they either need to cancel the show or replace the host. You just can't make those kinds of comments and retain sponsors. Ask Sears and FedEx. They yanked backing for the show immediately.

See ya, Bill. Good show, but the host didn't think enough before talking. Better luck next time.

On the other hand, if the networks are looking for someone outspoken but thoughtful, opinionated but intelligent, and yes, darned good-lookin', well, I'm available...

Leslie Van Houten is the Manson family member who, in 1969 at the age of 19, stabbed Leno LaBianca between 14 and 16 times in the back. She also conspired in the death of Sharon Tate. Her death sentence was commuted to life in prison when the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty in 1978. Since California doesn't support life sentences without parole, she has been rejected by the parole board 13 times since then.

After the latest rejection, Judge Bob Krug told the parole board to report back to him in 60 days with evidence as to why Ms. Van Houten should not be paroled, especially since she's been the absolute definition of a model prisoner. He stated that, in essence, the repeated rejections amounted to "a sentence of life without parole, a sentence unauthorized by law."

Ok, let's review...

She stabbed a woman between 14 and 16 times. Do you know what that means? That means that the tearing of the flesh was so bad, trained professionals couldn't distinguish exactly how many wounds there were.

And Sharon Tate. Does that name ring a bell at all? Somewhere in the deepest, darkest place in your mind, it should. Her unborn baby was cut from her womb. Mrs. Tate and several guests at her home were butchered.

And one last important item: the law does not allow for life sentence without the possibility of parole. On the other hand, it does not guarantee parole either.

Taking all that into account, I can't think of one good reason to force the parole board to show good reason why a person shouldn't stay in prison indefinitely. If the parole board doesn't feel that the time served thus far fits the crime, then that's their legal decision, period. Judge Krug, in my personal opinion, needs to reconsider what he's doing. As it is, the damage is done. Even if the parole board shows evidence to support further incarceration, Krug's rebuke has opened the door for a suit by Van Houten to challenge the justice system.

And no matter how sorry she is, the door should never be reopened for this horrible person. At least not until a parole board, without benefit of coercion, decides that the door should be reopened.

The Supreme Court ruled last month that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional. They say it's cruel and unusual punishment.

This week, jurors in the case of Johnny Paul Penry vs Texas were told that they would have to make a decision on whether Penry was retarded before they could hand down sentence of death by injection.

Penry's lawyers say their client has the mind of a 7-year-old. A really, really dangerous 7-year-old.

First off, death by injection, from the prisoner's point of view, involves a pin prick to insert an I.V., and then going to sleep. Happens all the time at every hospital in the nation. That doesn't sound very cruel or unusual to me. Then the convict just simply doesn't wake up. Ditto.

Second, I don't care if he has the mind of an amoeba, if he's killing people then he needs to be stopped. Is execution necessary? In fact, insanity should not be an excuse -- what sane person kills someone unless it's in defense, self or otherwise? Yes, just because it removes the possibility of using one's mental state as an excuse. You kill someone, we kill you. Eye for an eye. The Death Penalty has no deterrent aspect as long as there are myriad options for avoiding it indefinitely.

You say God doesn't want that? Here's a thought: If you really believe in God, then we're not really destroying that person, are we? We're sending him to God that much quicker. And knowing that their end is pending may cause that person to have the change of heart necessary to get into Heaven with God's forgiveness. From that angle, we're doing the convict a favor!

One last note: I have three children, one of whom is eight. I don't think she'd kill someone even if given the means and the motive. In fact, I don't know many 7 or 8 year olds that would. This man does not, with all due respect to his attorneys, have the mind of a 7 year old. Period.