Monuments o' Stone

This is a little something I jotted down back in November o' 2006 when they dedicated the monument to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. up in Washington.

I sure am relieved to hear they's putting up a monument to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Washington D.C. today. 'Specially after hearing that President Jr. said "on this ground, a monument will rise that will preserve his legacy for ages." I'd been beginning to worry that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy's in danger o' disappearing on us, but now we's gonna get us a pile o' rocks up in the capital to preserve 'em, I guess they's nothing to fear 'bout on that front. Plus, I'm sure it's a load off o' the mind o' other folks, too, 'cause now they ain't gotta worry 'bout passing no more laws to ensure civil rights ner making sure the current ones're enforced. In fact, maybe they can even start getting rid o' some o' them laws. I mean, they's paying $65.5 million dollars fer this pile o' stones to keep his legacy under, why cain't we just get a little more mileage outta 'em 'n' use 'em to store his ideals 'n' dreams 'n' accomplishments as well? It's a memorial, after all. That's what you put up to honor the memory of a person er event, right? So now we's gonna have this here pile o' rocks to remember him by, why do we need to remember him with words 'n' deeds 'n' actions?

'N' just why're we putting up a memorial to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fer anyway? Don't get me wrong, now. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man who accomplished a lot o' good, not just fer any one group o' people, but fer all o' humanity. But, great as he was, he was not the Civil Rights movement solely unto himself. They was lots o' other folks who were in that fight with him, before him, 'n' since him. Why're folks so anxious to th'ow up monuments to this one man on account o' the work he did fer Civil Rights but you don't see too many people running 'round trying to scrape up a bunch o' money to th'ow together a pile o' rocks to memorialize Civil Rights entire? 'N' I mean all o' Civil Rights, not just the Civil Rights o' any partic'lar group 'cause they ain't just fer any partic'lar group. 'N' I don't think Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was fighting fer the Civil Rights of just one partic'lar group.

We could have us a great big pile o' stones with statues 'n' quotes 'n' pictures. Maybe something like a great big Stonehenge kinda contraption with each o' the outside stones dedicated to one o' the individual fighters er groups in the battle fer Civil Rights like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 'n' Mrs. Rosa Parks 'n' Mr. Cesar Chavez 'n' the ACLU 'n' freedom riders 'n' the United Farm Workers 'n' even the Supreme Court 'n' such's that. Then, inside o' that ring o' protecting stones, we could have a ring o' stones dedicated to the legislation passed to protect the Civil Rights o' individuals: stones to Brown v. Board of Education 'n'Roe v. Wade 'n' the Civil Rights Act o' 1964. Then, in the center, the largest part o' the memorial could be gardens 'n' fountains dedicated to the single largest 'n' most important group involved in the struggle fer Civil Rights: the vicitims. They could be things like reflecting pools 'n' rose gardens 'n' cherry groves dedicated to folks like Matthew Shepard 'n' Malcolm X.

Ask me, that's the kind o' memorial they should be putting up in Washington D.C. Then again, with the one they's putting up fer one man costing something like $65.5 million dollars so far, it might be a bit expensive trying to put up something to honor all the thousands who we owe rememb'rances to 'long them lines. Maybe that's why they decided to just do a memorial to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. alone. Which makes me kinda wonder what he would o' thought o' all this. Seems to me, if you's to ask Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. which he'd rather have, $65.5 million dollars spent on a pile o' rocks to preserve his legacy er $65.5 million dollars spent on education 'n' programs to keep his legacy alive 'n' moving forward, I get the feeling he might o' just preferred the latter. I never met the man, but, somehow, I get the feeling that, if I's to ask him, he'd say something 'long the lines o' "If you wish to build a memorial to me, build me no memorials of stone or steel, for they are cold and dead things and even stone and steel will crumble to dust in time. If you wish to build a memorial to me, build me a memorial of your words and your deeds and your actions to one another, for these are living, breathing things that will endure as long as you speak them and do them and pass them on to the generations to come.  If you wish to build a memorial to me, build me no memorial in the cities of man, for even the greatest cities can be destroyed and pass into the dust of time. If you wish to build a memorial to me, build me a memorial in your heart and in the hearts of all who cherish justice and truth and equality, for the hearts of honest and just men can never be destroyed and will last until the end of time."

They Don't Write Westerns Like They Used To

United States Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry

A gang o' ruthless outlaws is preying on innocent folk somewhere in the desert south o' town. The federal agents get a tip as to where their hideout is, so they saddle up 'n' go looking fer 'em. They come across the desperadoes one night 'n' a shoot-out ensues. Law 'n' order prevails in the end 'n' the bad guys are brought to justice.

Sounds like the plot o' one o' those ol' black 'n' white westerns you can still find playing on some late night cable channel, don't it. Well, this weren't the plot to no movie. This is something that actu'ly happened south o' here night 'fore last. In this case, the bad guys was a group o' five real life bandits that've been preying on illegal immigrants 'n' drug smugglers crossing into the United States from Mexico, 'n' the good guys was members o' the United States Border Patrol. Unfortunately, this being real life 'n' not some Hollywood make-believe story, the ending don't involve the good guys riding off into the sunset.

True, the good guys won 'n' four o' the five bandits was brought to justice. (They's still looking fer the fifth one.) But it ended in tragedy with the death o' Brian Terry, one o' the Border Patrol agents. At some point during the gun battle, agent Terry was shot in the back 'n' died from his wounds some hours later.

Firstly, I'd like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a courageous, upstanding, dedicated human being who went far above 'n' beyond the call o' duty. I say "above 'n' beyond the call o' duty" not just 'cause he made the ultimate sacrifice o' giving his life in the cause o' justice, but 'cause he went beyond what was required of him by the agency he served. To explain what I mean by that, first let me quote the mission statement o' the United States Customs 'n' Border Patrol.

"We are the guardians of our Nation's borders. We are America's frontline. We safeguard the American homeland at and beyond our borders. We protect the American public against terrorists and the instruments of terror. We steadfastly enforce the laws of the United States while fostering our Nation's economic security through lawful international trade and travel. We serve the American public with vigilance, integrity and professionalism."

So, 'cording to this, it was agent Terry's duty to "safeguard the American homeland", "protect the American public", 'n' "serve the American public." But what agent Terry done wasn't done just fer the Americans. What agent Terry done was done to protect innocent folks irregardless o' where they was born er what country they was citizens of.

Even more'n that, what he done was done to protect some not so innocent folks as well. In spite o' what you may've heard in various news stories, these bandits weren't rampaging through American towns massacring, raping, 'n' pillaging law-abiding American citizens. 'Member, these bandits was preying on "illegal" entrants 'n' drug smugglers. But that didn't stop agent Terry 'n' his fellow agents from going after these folks.

Now, there is a secondly to this, but that's another story fer another day. I don't want to take anything away from the respect 'n' heartfelt thanks that folks like agent Terry 'n' others deserve fer putting their lives on the line to protect all folks from evils such as this. So I'll leave the ranting 'til another day 'n' just end by saying right is right. 'N' if you want to know what right looks like, take another look at that picture up there.

Election Time, Again

Well, it's that time o' year again when we folks in the United States of America go out 'n' decide what we want to complain about fer the next one er more years. The day we try to figger out who the smallest liar is 'n' whether er not we want to agree to vote ourselves another tax we can gripe about having to pay. The day we have to make an extra trip, carve a little extra time out of our busy schedules, 'n' put up with long lines full o' folks we normally wouldn't want to be within fifty feet of, just so we can put some marks on a sheet o' paper 'n' hope that enough other people're smart enough to put the same marks down so that our marks will actually count fer something. It's election day.

I was sharpening my tongue up fer a big ol' diatribe 'bout the sorry bunch o' folks we got to choose from this year. I was coming up with 'n' reviewing some, hopefully, witty 'n' scathing remarks 'bout the propositions they's trying to fool us into getting passed, er voting down. I was ready to lament the poor state o' the Arizona constitution, which they seem determined to keep hacking up, tacking on to, 'n' just generally rewriting ever' year. But then I read something last night that made me rethink the whole thing.

It was an article by Peter M. on his blog 'bout New England Folklore. Mr. M. said that, back in the early years o' this country, even 'for it was a country, folks used to vote in the fall fer their local officials even though the officials didn't take office until the next May. The day they took office in May was called "Election Day" 'n' was celebrated like a holiday. He says that, by 'bout the mid 1700's, the celebrations included such things as parades, parties, athletic events, 'n' even special cakes. The best part 'bout it was, it was a celebration 'bout the simple fact o' being able to elect folks. Nowadays, it seems like the only celebrating folks do 'bout elections is to celebrate that their side won er the other side lost.

So I read that. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit more. 'N' then I thought 'bout all the time that has passed between then 'n' nowadays 'n' all the changes that have happened in this country 'n' the ways folks viewed the whole voting 'n' election processes during all those 250 to 300 years. Then I thought 'bout the way so many folks seem to treat voting these days.

I thought 'bout the stories I've read 'bout how they used to close down the bars 'n' taverns 'n' the pubs 'n' the buying o' liquor on election days 'n' how you couldn't buy a drink 'til after the polls'd closed 'cause going out to cast your vote was a serious, sober responsibility. Do they even still do that these days? I'd be willing to bet real money that I could walk down to the local grocery store 'n' buy a six pack er a fifth o' something er other 'n' wouldn't no one bat an eye. I bet I could walk into any bar in town at any time today 'n' watch folks getting drunker 'n' drunker as they watched the election news. I'd even be willing to bet that there'd be at least one person, already well past the "legal" limit, who'd suddenly stand up 'n' say, "Shoot! I ain't even voted yet," 'fore running out to the polls.

I thought 'bout the stories o' folks who would get dressed up in their Sunday best to go vote 'cause voting was so important 'n' serious as church. Now days it seems like folks just show up in whatever they happen to have on er whatever they can grab 'fore they head out. In the last Presidential election, there was even a few folks in line who hadn't even bothered to change out o' their bed clothes. (Although, I guess I should give 'em credit fer being so eager 'n' dedicated to vote in that one that they was willing to get up at all that early in the morning.)

 I thought 'bout all those folks back 'fore there were cars who had to walk er ride miles 'n' miles to get to where they was supposed to go to vote 'cause it was so important to 'em. So many of 'em today seem to treat it more like some kind o' chore er drudge than the right er privilege that it is. They seem to approach it like it's some sort of odious task, like having to clean the cat box er jury duty er something. The biggest thing these days seem to be all the folks signing up to early vote er vote by mail so they don't have to take that extra time out o' their day to go do it. Personally, I get a big shot o' pride walking up to that desk 'n' taking pen in hand to mark all those little circles. I stand a little taller when I walk out o' the building with my little "I Voted" sticker tacked onto my shirt. I ain't never seen it as a chore ner an imposition. I've always seen it as a solemn something I'm more'n proud 'n' happy 'n' honored to do.

'N' I thought 'bout the idea of a bunch o' dour, humorless Puritans kicking their heels up 'n' having celebrations 'cause the folks they got to pick was stepping into office, instead of a bunch o' folks someone else had lumped 'em with. Now days it seems like so many folks're so busy voting 'gainst something er someone they cain't take no joy in their decisions.  Maybe that's why we ain't having no parades ner parties ner even special cakes to celebrate the fact that the folks we get to pick're stepping into office. Maybe too many folks these days're feeling like they's stuck with a bunch o' folks someone else lumped 'em with 'cause they felt like they couldn't vote fer who they really wanted lest the "wrong" person wound up winning.

So I thought 'bout all this stuff 'n' I decided I was going to try 'n' learn a lesson from the way they viewed elections back in the olden days. From here on out, I'm going to try 'n' keep my sharp tongue in my pocket on election day. I'm going to try 'n' keep my civil tongue in my mouth on the days I get the privilege o' going to the polls 'n' jotting down my two cents' worth in the form o' little dots on a page. I'm going to try 'n' show the day the respect it rightfully deserves 'n', who knows, maybe next year I'll even make a special cake on the day. 'Sides, I got all the other days o' the year to take my sharp tongue out o' my pocket 'n' use it.

I'll Drink ('n' Drive) to That

Saw a story online 'bout a feller who lost an argument with a train the other day. The feller's name was Jason Michael Hair 'n' the altercation took place near Queen Creek, Arizona, which is a little southeast o' Phoenix. What happened was, he was speeding down the road, texting on his cell phone, 'n' broke right through the crossing arms and smacked into the side o' the train, which was already in the process o' crossing the road. One witness to the crash claimed that Hair had passed him, doing somewhere near 65 mph, so intent on his typing to whoever was on the other end o' the phone that he either didn't notice the train, er was unaware o' just how fast he was going 'n' couldn't stop in time. (Makes me wonder just what he was typing, too. "Hey! I'm going to try for one of those "Darwin Awards"!")

They said the crash was so bad that Hair had to be cut out o' the wreckage 'n' suffered a head injury. Now, you might be thinking, "Well, he got what he deserved for being so stupid, then," 'n' you might be right. The thing was, though, that his four-year-old boy was in the car with him. The son survived, too, but he also had to be cut out o' the wreckage 'n' was flown to a local hospital as a precaution. Whatever Hair may have deserved fer his stupidity, his boy sure didn't deserve to suffer fer it.

Anyways, this story got me to thinking 'bout the last time I was up fer jury duty. See, the case we was being considered to jury fer was a drunk driving case. (They didn't actu'ly say that, but when they start asking prospective jurors questions 'bout whether they've ever been convicted o' drunk driving er whether er not they er a loved one has ever been involved in an accident that was caused by a drunk driver, you kind o' get the indication that that's what the whole thing's 'bout.) More important, it was just after they'd started running news stories 'bout studies done on the dangers o' yapping on the phone er texting while you're driving.

So, once they'd picked their first dozen possible jurors 'n' sent the rest of us out in the hall while they questioned 'em a little more intensely, I sat there thinking 'bout those studies 'n' 'bout how they was some that claimed to show that yapping on the phone er texting while driving was least as dangerous, if not more so, than driving after a few drinks. Then I got to thinking 'bout how one o' these dangerous practices had been illegal fer decades while the other still didn't have no laws 'gainst it.

Well, that was the direction my thoughts was running in when it turned out that there was some o' the original twelve who'd been dismissed, so they come out to question some o' the rest of us more closely, me being one o' those they chose. They took me in 'n' sat me down in a chair 'n' started asking me 'bout the time I'd been in an accident 'caused by someone who had given all appearances o' having been three sheets in the wind at the time. (Never did learn what that feller's problem was 'cause he wound up pleading guilty to the accident 'fore it ever got to trial. But when the guy leaves the scene o' the accident 'n' then shows up fifteen minutes er so later, pushing his car in the opposite direction 'cause it ain't working so good no more, you got to wonder 'bout what kind o' state his mental faculties 'n' judgement abilities're in.) All those questions was fairly easy to answer, 'cause all I had to do was tell the truth.

Then the judge turns to me 'n' asked,"Is there any reason that you think you could not render a fair and impartial verdict in this case?" Well, I had to stop 'n' give that question some real consideration 'fore I answered it. I mean, here was a guy who was being tried fer doing something that was no more dangerous than what other folks was doing with no fear o' being hauled into court fer. So I told the judge that it just didn't sit right with me that this feller was facing the possibility o' legal repercussions fer doing something when there were studies that showed that something that was just as dangerous was considered perfectly fine 'n' legal.

To my surprise, the judge agreed with me 'bout how he also thought that yapping on the phone while driving should be just as illegal as driving while intoxicated. But, he said, as a judge, his concern had to be with the law, 'n' since the law 'lowed one o' those actions while outlawing the other one, he didn't get to choose which ones appeared in his court. So he changed his question a might 'n' asked if I could overlook my opinions on driving while yapping 'n' render a fair 'n' impartial verdict based strictly on the law as it stood at that moment.

I gave that a little more thought 'n' decided that, since I was a law-abiding citizen, it was my duty to see that the law was upheld 'n' render a verdict o' guilty if I felt that the prosecution had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the feller had in fact been legally drunk at the time o' his apprehension. So that's what I told the judge. He thanked me fer my time 'n' sent me out o' the room while they brought in the next person to question. (I wasn't picked to serve on that jury, by the way.)

Since then, I've given the topic a lot more thought. Mostly what I've thought about was this: Where do my duties as a law-abiding citizen really lie? Is it merely to see that the law, all laws, no matter whether I agree with 'em er not, are upheld? Don't I, as a citizen who loves his country 'n' should be concerned 'bout the rights of all my fellow citizens, also have a duty to fight against laws that are unjust 'n' discriminatory? If a law singles out one group o' folks fer punishment while 'lowing other groups o' folks to get away scott free fer doing something that is just as bad er dangerous, what is my duty then? Do I side with the law, er with the citizens who are being discriminated 'gainst?

Isn't the law supposed to treat all folks equally? Shouldn't the law treat the drunk driver just the same as it treats the person who's yapping er typing on his phone while driving? 'N' what about the person who's so busy putting on makeup, er trying to read a road map, er eating, er yelling at the kids, er changing the station on the radio? (We actually did have a case like that a few years back where a young boy hit 'n' killed a lady on the side o' the road 'cause he'd looked down to change the radio. I don't 'member the partic'lars, but I'm pretty sure he got off with a lot lighter sentence than he would have if he'd had a couple beers in him.) Aren't those distractions just as dangerous as being drunk er texting?

'N' what about a law that penalizes folks fer what they might do? That's what a lot o' these drunk driving (er "driving while intoxicated" er "driving under the influence" er whatever else they call 'em) laws're actu'ly punishing folks fer. I would be willing to bet real money that most folks who get convicted fer such offenses did so when they hadn't actu'ly 'caused any accident yet. They were hauled into court simply 'cause o' what they might do.

Seems to me we should have just one law that applies to ever'body: a "driving while distracted" law, if you will. It would apply equally to anyone who has been drinking, anyone who is yapping on a phone, typing on a phone, putting on makeup, trying to read a road map, eating, yelling at the kids, changing the station on the radio, er whatever else it is they might be doing that takes their attention away from their driving. I just don't see how I can continue supporting anything less.

So, if I ever get in another situation where a judge asks me if I can offer a fair 'n' impartial verdict based strictly on the law as it stood at that moment, I guess I would have to answer with I could only do so if the law, as it stood at that moment, was fairly 'n' equally applied to all folks who could fit in the broader scope o' the spirit o' that law 'n' what it was enacted to protect us against. I'm willing to bet I wouldn't get chosen fer that jury, neither.

(mis)Interpreting the State of the Union Address (Part VIII)

The State of the Union given by President Oprama Weds. Jan. 27, 2010
What they said	What I heard
That is the leadership that we are providing — engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We are working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries to feed themselves and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease — a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.	That's the kind o' leadership I'm providing: ensuring the security 'n' prosperity o' those who agree with me, 'n' endangering the security 'n' destroying the prosperity o' those who don't agree with me. We are working through the G-20 to take control o' the global economy so we can tell other countries how they should be doing things. We are working with Muslim communities 'round the world to try 'n' drag 'em into our version of enlightenment. We've finally caved in to the views o' the misguided 'n' gullible masses to fight global warming. We are helping developing countries so they'll quit taking our food so we can maybe start charging decent prices so more Americans can afford a decent meal 'n' continuing to try 'n' teach 'em how to keep it in their britches so they won't keep spreading AIDS. We are continuing to scare folks with the threat o' bioterrorism 'n' pandemics so the chemical 'n' drug companies can continue to make outrageous profits off their unnecessary products.
As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan, we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran, and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.	Just like we have fer over 60 years, we're doing this because it is America's destiny to rule the world. We also do it 'cause we're right, 'n' ever'body else needs to realize that. That's why we're helping folks in Haiti recover from their earthquake, so they'll think we're so wonderful they'll want to be like us. That's why we support girls wanting to go to school in Afghanistan, women marching 'gainst the gov'ment in Iran, folks who ain't corrupt enough to get a job in Guinea, so they'll all think we're so wonderful they'll want to be like us. 'Cause America must always stand on the side o' the way we define freedom 'n' human dignity.
Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it, that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.	Abroad, our greatest source o' strngth has always been American ideals. That holds true here. We find unity in diverse folks all acting 'n' thinking the same, drawing on the promise in our Constititution that all American citizens are created equal, long as you look kind o' the same as the majority o' other Americans, if you don't fight against the unconstitutional 'n' discrimanatory laws imposed upon you, that if you just do what you're told you will be treated like ever'one else. Course, you have to be a legal American citizen fer us to allow you to claim all those freedoms 'n' rights.
We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a civil rights division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws — so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system — to secure our borders, enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.	We must continually beat you over the head with this idea. My rule has a division that is once again persecuting folks who are even perceived o' civil rights violations 'n' employment discrimination, 'long as their actions follow our definition o' what constitutes civil rights violations 'n' employment discrimination. We have finally strengthened the laws 'gainst hate crimes. This year, I'm going to make Congress 'n' the military finally repeal the don't ask, don't tell law so that gays who love their country just as much as the next person can finally serve openly in the military. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws so women can finally make the same kind o' wages the fellers are making. 'N' we will continue to fight 'gainst the evil illegal aliens flooding our country. It don't matter that these folks are risking their very lives to try 'n' provide a better life fer their families. They ain't got no place in a society that encourages freedom 'n' prosperity fer all folks.
In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America — values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe, values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren’t Republican values or Democratic values they’re living by, business values or labor values. They are American values.	In the end, it is these selfish, self-centered, 'n' self-righteous ideals 'n' values that built America: values that 'lowed us to to forge a nation made up of immigrants that now excludes other immigrants who share the same dreams, hopes, 'n' desires that brought those earlier immigrants from ev'ry corner o' the globe. Ever' day, Americans give what is due to their families 'n' their bosses. Time 'n' again, they help out the folks they know 'n' pay their taxes so they won't get tho'wed in jail. They do their jobs, no matter how much they may hate 'em, 'n' are generous in spirit, if not in material goods. These ain't just the values o' Republicans er Democrats, business er labor. They are the values of America.
Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions — our corporations, our media and, yes, our government — still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people’s doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.	Unfortunately, most folks don't believe that our corporations, media, er gov'ment share these values. Each o' these groups have folks doing the important work o' trying to impose these values on others. But each time their selfish, self-centered, self-righteous actions are applied only to themselves, doubts grow. Each time lobbyists er politicians do something other than lifting this country up as a beacon to the rest o' the world that we won't let 'em claim fer their own, we lose faith. The more TV folks take what I say out o' context er show me doing the opposite o' what I say, our citizens turn away.
No wonder there’s so much cynicism out there.	No wonder folks don't believe us.
No wonder there’s so much disappointment.	No wonder folks don't like us.
I campaigned on the promise of change — change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change — or at least, that I can deliver it.	I promised change we can believe in. Right now, a lot o' folks ain't sure they wan't the kind o' change I'm offering.
But remember this — I never suggested that change would be easy or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.	Remember this, I just promised change. I never said I would actually deliver on that promise. Democracy in a nation o' 300 million folks ain't easy. You cain't please ever'one. That's just the way it works.
Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation.	Those of us in public office can ignore reality. We can focus on just getting re-elected the next time 'round, irregardless o' how much we damage the country doing it.
But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 200 years ago, we wouldn’t be here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard, to do what was needed even when success was uncertain, to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.	But I also know this: if folks had thought this way years 'n' years ago, I wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason I'm here now is 'cause generations of Americans were'nt afraid to do the right thing, not just fer themselves er their own children 'n' grandchildren, but fer their fellow human beings, irregardless o' race, nationality, color, socio-economic status, gender, age, er even whether er not they even knew those other folks.
Our administration has had some political setbacks this year and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going — what keeps me fighting — is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism — that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people — lives on.	I've had some political setbacks this year, I ain't going to deny it. But I wake up ever' day knowing it ain't nothing compared to the kinds o' setbacks folks all 'cross the country have had to face. That's what keeps me going: that spirit o' stuborness 'n' hope 'n' the fundamental decency 'n' fairness that is supposed to be at the core o' the American folks.
It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, “None of us,” he said, “are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail.”	Now I'd like to give an example o' that from some letters I've gotten. I ain't actually read none of 'em, but I've been told that they were sent to me.
It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, “We are strong. We are resilient. We are American.”
It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. And it lives on in all the Americans who’ve dropped everything to go some place they’ve never been and pull people they’ve never known from rubble, prompting chants of “USA! USA! USA!” when another life was saved.
The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.	That spirit o' fundamental fairness 'n' equality fer all folks may be on life support these days, but I believe it still lives.
We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don’t quit. I don’t quit. Let’s seize this moment — to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.	It ain't been an easy year. The Republicans have made a right hash out o' the last decade. But a new year has come. We's facing a new decade where I'm in control, not the Republicans. We ain't going to quit. I ain't going to quit. Get out o' my way 'n' let me do what I need to do to start anew, carry the dream forward, 'n' strengthen our union once more.
Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America.	Now I'll close with the traditional statement, so the Republicans will have one less thing to beat me over the head with 'n' because I really do love 'n' care 'bout America 'n' the folks who live here. God Bless You. 'N' God Bless the United States of America.

(mis)Interpreting the State of the Union Address (Part VII)

The State of the Union given by President Oprama Weds. Jan. 27, 2010
What they said	What I heard
I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there’s a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.	I'm also telling Congress to quit all the pork-barreling. They've alread done a little bit o' that. But it ain't nearly enough. Some o' ya'll already post your pork-barreling online where folks can see it. Tonight, I'm telling all ya'll to do it on a single web site 'fore you go voting on 'em so all America can see how you're wasting their money.
Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don’t also reform how we work with one another.	Course, none o' that'll work if we cain't all learn how to get along better.
Now, I am not naive. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over 200 years. They are the very essence of our democracy.	Now, I ain't stupid. In spite o' what I may have said when I was campaigning fer office, I know my being 'lected weren't going to result in sudden peace, harmony, 'n' love. I knew both sides refused to get along with each other. Sometimes we just think dif'rently from each other. Some o' this dif'rent thinking, over such things as how much gov'ment should be doing fer folks, where our priorities lie, 'n' national security, have been going on fer more'n 200 years. But that's what Democracy's all 'bout.
But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is election day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent — a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.	What gives folks conniptions is the way we all act like we're constantly running fer office. We cain't always be out to just try 'n' embarass the other feller: sort o' the worst I can make you look, the better I seem by comparison. None o' ya'll should be getting in the other feller's way just 'cause you can. You shouldn't be holding up the confirmation o' my nominees just 'cause you don't like me. Washington folks may think they can tell just any ol' whoppers 'bout each other they want. But it's just that kind o' foolishness that's stopping us from doing anything like work. 'N' it sure ain't winning you no friends 'mong American citizens.
So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together. This week, I’ll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. And I would like to begin monthly meetings with both the Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can’t wait.	So I ain't going to give up on trying to get ya'll to behave. I know it's another 'lection year, but ain't they all? Ya'll may have all caught campaign fever already, but we still got a job to do. I'll remind my fellow liberals that we're still number one, 'n' folks're still looking fer us to do something fer 'em. To the Republicans who say we still need their votes to get anything done 'round here, I say that means ya'll are on the hook too. Just saying "no" anytime we ask ya'll to try 'n' do something ain't what I call leadership. We were sent here to help Americans, not ourselves. So let's show 'em we actually can do what we're s'posed to be doing. This week I'm going to be giving the Republicans a good talking to. 'N' I'd like to give both sides a good dressing down ever' month. Bet ya'll are really looking forward to that.
Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who’s to blame for this, but I am not interested in relitigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and the world.	Throughout history, no issue has divided our country more than what constitutes our security 'n' the best way to achieve it. We seemed somewhat more unified 'bout all that after 9/11, but it ain't lasted. You can argue 'bout who to blame fer that, but we all know it was the Republicans, so that's all I got to say 'bout that. I know we all love what this country can do fer us, instead of us going out 'n' doing things fer ourselves. All of us want to see it defended. We just cain't agree on the best way to do that. So let's quit with the childish bullying each other. They ain't no choice between protection 'n' values. We can have both. Remember, withouth America, the whole world'ld fall apart.
That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008.	That's what I started doing last year. From day one, I've changed our focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. I've squandered more money on failed 'n' unnecessary homeland security measures 'n' claim we disrupted plots, real er imagined, that threatened American lives. We're making air travel even more frustrating fer reg'lar folks fer no good reason. Let's face it, the failed Christmas attack proved that, no matter how much we inconvenience folks, if someone is determined enough to try 'n' commit an act o' terrorism, they'll find a way. We've stopped admitting to torturing prisoners 'n' have strengthened our ties with other countries. Most important, at least fer my image, is that last year I personally killed more al-Qaida fighters 'n' senior leaders than Jr. did the year before. Yeah, I'm butch.
In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011 and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption and support the rights of all Afghans — men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.	I'm sending more troops to Afghanistan while claiming it's to help reduce our numbers o' troops there. If the Afghan gov'ment can do a better job o' running things in their country than what we're doing in ours, we'll give 'em a hearty pat on the back 'n' a big thumbs-up. There's other countries that're also increasing their troops in Afghanistan, 'n' they'll be having a get-together in London tomorrow to congratulate each other 'bout that. It ain't going to be an easy row to hoe, but I know I can get ever'body to agree with me eventually.
As we take the fight to al-Qaida, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.	As we move more troops into Afghanistan, we'll be leaving Iraq to fend fer itself. I said in my campaigning that I was going to hang 'em out to dry, 'n' that's just what I'm going to do. I'm pulling all our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of August. We'll still cheer the Iraqis on 'n' continue to tell 'em how we think they should be running their country 'n' what they's doing wrong. But make no mistake: I'm going to put an end to this thing, 'n' all our troops will be coming home. Ne'mind what I just said 'bout only combat troops leaving. Now I'm saying all troops. I just said combat troops the first time so we can leave some other kinds o' troops there if we need to without me making a liar out o' myself. 'N' once our troops do get home, we'll just turn 'em right back 'round 'n' pack 'em all off to Afghanistan. But they will come home first.
Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform — in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world — must know that they have our respect, our gratitude and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.	Tonight, all our folks in the military, whether they be in Iraq, Afghanistan, er anywhere else in the world, need to know they have our respect, gratitude, 'n' full support. (I knew that'd finally get you stony faced fellers from the Joint Chiefs o' Staff on your feet. Don't want to go looking bad in front o' your own folks, do you.) 'N' just as we need to give 'em what they have to have to fight, we need to give 'em what they have to have when they finally get home. That's why I ran us even deeper into debt fer the largest increase in veteran investments in decades. That's why we're finally going to get 'round to providing 'em with some decent healthcare fer a change. That's why I'm making both the Mrs. 'n' Mrs. Joe work on supporting military families.
Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people — the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April’s nuclear security summit, we will bring 44 nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.	'N' just 'cause we's already fighting two dif'rent wars, don't go thinking that's going to stop us from trying to keep scaring you 'bout the threat o' nuclear weapons. I'm just going to do the same things Kennedy 'n' Reagan done, even though they obv'ously didn't work, so you'll think I'm the same kind o' great leaders folks say they was. We're going to reduce our nuclear arsenal, while still being able to look tough enough that won't no one want to mess with us, by negotiating the farthest-reaching arms control treaty with Russia in almost two decades. Considering how little's been done 'bout that the past twenty years, I know it don't mean much, but it sure sounds impressive. 'N' in April we's going to have a nuclear security summit with 44 other nations. Our goal is going to be to secure all vulnerable nuclear material all 'round the world within four years so don't no terrorists get a hold of it. Course, they's going to be some countries with nuclear material that ain't going to be there. 'N', no matter how hard we try, if anyone wants to get their hands on nuclear materal bad enough, they'll find a way.
These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation and stronger sanctions — sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences.	That means we can gang up on those countries that disagree with us 'n' think they should be able to provide their citizens with cheap, clean nuclear energy. That's why North Korea is continuing to isolate themselves 'n' we are vigorously enforcing sanctions that only serve to hurt the common folks, since the leaders o' that country ain't suffering from 'em. 'N' if Iran don't toe the line, we's going to do the same to them.

(mis)Interpreting the State of the Union Address (Part VI)

The State of the Union given by President Oprama Weds. Jan. 27, 2010
What they said	What I heard
So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.	Let me start talking 'bout gov'ment spending by blaming the Republicans right up front. At the beginning o' Jr's. reign, we had an impressive sounding budget surpuls. When I took office last year, we had a one year deficit of an even more impressive sounding amount 'n' we was telling anyone who'd listen that is was just going to keep getting worse if you didn't elect us to fix things. Let's just get one thing straight right here. Problems o' this nature 'n' magnitude don't happen overnight, no matter how hard we try 'n' get folks to think otherwise. So the budget surpluses under ex-President Slick may have actually been because o' Reagonomics finally kicking in. 'N' the staggering deficits under former President Jr. may just've been ol' Slick's chickens finally coming home to roost. But we ain't going to admit to the possibility o' either o' those. We's gong to give credit to 'n' lay blame on the ones who was in office at the time these things finally came to fruition. What I will say, though, is that the recession took another impressive chunk out o' the budget. Just don't pay no attention to the fact that it goes against basic math that the amount I just mentioned is actually three times larger than the amount fer last year's deficit that I mentioned earlier. Anyway, that's the way things were when I finally got to the oval office.
Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.	I'd love to tell you that the first thing I did was to start bringing down the deficit. But I didn't. In fact, I added another chunk o' change to that rascal. But we'll blame the Republicans fer my extravagant spending habits, too.
I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.	I ain't gong to accept no blame fer it. But folks've been having a rough time 'n' have had to make some tough choices. We in the gov'ment should have to do the same. So tonight, I'm going to tell you some specific steps we can take to pay fer my spending spree last year. 'N' take note o' that. I said "specific" steps, not the broad kind o' generalizations folks're used to hearing from politicians.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.	Starting next year, I'm ready to freeze gov'ment spending fer three years. I ain't going to mess with spending to keep our country secure, ner Medicare, ner Medicaid, ner Social Security, neither. But ever'thing else is fair game. I'm going to do things the way folks should be doing 'em at home: pay fer what you actually need, not fer what you just want. 'N' don't go thinking I'm afraid to whup out my big ol' veto pen to get' er done, 'cause I will.
We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.	I'll continue going through the budget one line at a time to eliminate as many o' the Republicans' pet projects as I can. I've already identified a whole bunch fer next year. I'm also going to extend middle-class tax cuts. Again, I ain't going to do nothing to help lower-class families. I'm also going to use the deficit as an excuse to take away the tax cuts fer some o' the most hated groups in America: oil companies, investment fund managers, 'n' the rich. I ain't gong to impose no new taxes on those groups, even though it would make us a lot more money. Least, I won't impose none yet.
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.	Now, even afger we get my tab paid off, we still got to pay Jr's. bills. Even more important than that, Medicare, Medicaid, 'n' Social Security'll continue to cost us more 'n' more since we ain't going to try 'n' do nothing to lower healthcare costs. That's why I want to create yet another do-nothing commission that sounds good on paper but won't actually accomplish nothing. To make sure o' that, I'm going to put both Republicans 'n' Democrats on it to make sure it stays deadlocked on ev'ry issue. I'll also tell you that it's based on an idea by Republican Judd Gregg 'n' Democrat Kent Conrad to make it sound like I'm giving 'em credit, but really so we'll all no who to take it out on when it don't work out. Yesterday, the Senate refused to let me create this commission. So I'm going to go behind their back 'n' use my power of executive order to create it. 'N' when the Senate votes tomorrow ('n' what it is they's voting on I don't rightly recollect, but they's voting on something, I'm sure.) they better restore the pay-as-you-go laws that we had under Slick.
I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger. But understand — if we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing and jeopardize our recovery — all of which could have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.	I know they's a lot o' my fellow Democrats who ain't going to be happy 'bout not being able to continue their tax-'n'-spend ways. Well, they ain't got to start worrying just yet 'cause I ain't freezing nothing 'til next year. That'll give us plenty o' time to try 'n' figger some way to get out o' that promise. But know this: I'm going to keep talking like this is a real threat 'cause we got to do something to try 'n' fix things. The big carrot I'm offering is that I'll back off on this if we see some real changes. The big stick I'm threating with is that I might just carry through on it if we don't.
From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument — that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.	I 'spect a lot o' griping 'n' bad-mouthing from the other side. But they'd do that no matter what I say er do, so tough. I'm in charge now, 'n' we ain't going to keep doing things their way no more.
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense.	Instead o' doing the same ol' nothing we been doing fer years in Washington, let's try to do something that'll actually help reg'lar folks fer a change, since that's what we're supposed to be here fer. Let's try using a little common sense fer once.
To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust — deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly and to give our people the government they deserve.	It's time to face the fact that, even though folks keep voting fer us 'n' re-electing us year after year, they really don't like us all that much. So we should all get together 'n' work on getting folks to take out their anger 'n' frustration on the lobbyists.
That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why — for the first time in history — my administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.	I came to Washington to try 'n' give folks a more effective gov'ment, whether they deserve it er not. That's why I'm letting folks know who all comes through the front door o' the White House. That's also why I ain't letting 'em hire lobbyists fer policymaking jobs er seats on some boards 'n' commissions.
But we can’t stop there. It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress. And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.	But we cain't let 'em off that easy. We need to make 'em tell us who all they've been trying to bribe 'n' influence. We also need to limit the amount of a bribe they can offer to candidates, 'specially now that I've already been elected 'n' it won't affect any o' my campaigns no more. Last week the Supreme Court really screwed things up by letting foreign interests try 'n' buy folks fer office. That ain't right. Only Americans should be allowed to buy American politicians. I'm even going to urge Congress to pass a bill that helps show the Supreme Court the errors o' their ways.