The old slippery slope - one phrase that is bantered about frequently when it comes to the US's 1st amendment - specifically, freedom of speech (along with the press).

When one thinks of this slippery slope, it is in direct response to a distastefully repugnant person, or group of persons who in speech, deed and communication (written or digital) have managed to give new depth to the meaning of the word insane.

We used to commit people who qualified as insane in this country - for their own protection as well as society at large. (Until it was determined that we were infringing on their civil rights and they would be much better off living homeless in the streets, or incarcerated in our prison system instead of that dreaded room with a padded cell).

Now we ponder their first amendment rights and worry that if, for some reason, we do not allow whomever to go unchallenged or not locked up in a safely padded cell, someone else will come along with an idea or speech or act in what someone, somewhere in this country considers to be in good taste, and that person will be denied the ability to express themselves.

I think we need to all read the "Federalist Papers" to have a better understanding of what the original framers of the Constitution clearly had in mind; sanity in government. If this were the case, recent remarks by certain high profile politico's as well as normal everyday citizens of the USA, would have been admonished, suppressed, arrested or locked up; and I hazard to guess that most normal American's would have not even blinked an eye.

Am I saying that everyone who exhibits poor taste should be locked away? Absolutely not. What I am suggesting is that we re-examine how far is far enough. There are reasons that American's are thought of as "less than perfect" the world over and it has nothing to do with George Bush, his father, Bill Clinton or his wife. It does have a great deal to do with the way our own past elected officials portray our nation and policies while speaking in countries which are openly hostile to the US (France, Germany, Russia, to name a few) and the way private citizens are allowed to run amok; totally unfettered by rules of common decency. If one were to actually read the Koran, take it to heart and follow the rules - it would become increasingly clear that speech or deeds, American’s consider allowable under the old slippery slope theory are cause for execution under the Koran. We understand what these practices are: they relate to our civil rights; and we should also understand that it is the duty of everyone following a certain religion to stop these practices, up to and including blowing themselves up at a Code Pink rally in order to reach their paradise (which incidentally includes 72 virgins)

I'm beginning to agree with certain Islamic groups; it is not that we wage warfare on foreign soil that is the problem for the most part - it is that we have no moral boundaries as a country.

A short list of organizations and individuals that should visit Tehran permanently:

The ACLU
President Jimmy Carter
Vice President Al Gore
Clinton, Take Your Pick
Michael Moore
Cindy Sheehan
Persons convicted of Child Rape
Persons convicted of Child Pornography
The Rev. Fred Phelps (I'm not sure that we should send him to Tehran; he is the one person on this short list they would agree with 100% and not use for their own purposes)
The UN

Would we, as a nation, not be better off if we at least displayed a bit of common sense and decency. Reading further into the letters of the most notable framers; the list of individuals above would have been either tried and hung for treason, burned at the stake or simply hung for the crimes committed. How's that for a slippery slope.