Executive Session...or is it?

You know, it's interesting. When one hears "Executive Session" one thinks of all these cool executive types getting together to discuss, well, executive things. This would seem normal. But in our nation's capital this is not the case. Ho no. What we have there is the more formal rendering of the term and it is invoked. I refer to the events of yesterday when certain personages invoked rule 21 of the Senate in order to bog down proceedings with an untimely discussion of irrelevant material.

The Brits have a most wonderful word to describe this sort of malarky: tripe. I don't know what a tripe is exactly but it has that unharmonious ring to it that perfectly captures the sentiment put forward by "those on the other side of the aisle." They complain about the deficit, but won't cut taxes or spending; they militantly oppose the war in Iraq, but won't bring forth viable alternatives; they dismiss SCOTUS nominees as "radical" and "out of the mainstream," but fail to note that the "mainstream" elected a president last year who would nominate justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia.

That's another problem. They get all upset when it looks like the justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor won't swing just the way she did. They say that they are determined to uphold what our vaunted forefathers intended when they authored the Constitution. Well, make up your minds! Do you want a particular rendition of the Constitution that promotes your agenda or do you want an unbiased application of the law in the manner the Founding Fathers intended?

Not that I am in any way distraught over these matters. I merely wish to see our lawmakers, who make such a point of listening to the American people and holding the truth in such high esteem, be held accountable to their word. Now there's a radically conservative idea.