Bush’s protection for Americans

Apparently, condoms aren’t quite perfect because they don’t prevent everything.

The Bush administration deserves credit. Even though its abstinence-only sex policy ran its course when “Leave it to Beaver” dominated television and the Dodgers were still in Brooklyn, N.Y., the administration has forged ahead with it anyway. An effort last week even tried to discourage safe sex by requiring warning labels on condom wrappers. What’s next? Putting giant warning labels on the condoms themselves? That would give a whole new meaning to the phrase “You’ve been warned.”

Apparently, condoms are not quite perfect because they don’t prevent everything. Warning labels are optional, but now the Bush administration feels it is its duty to regulate and educate. While it’s at the business of education, why doesn’t the administration require that all condoms be shaped like U.S. states? Imagine the conversation: “How was the sex?” “Boring, but I learned Michigan is shaped like a glove.” It might be educational and safe but we pity the man with Rhode Island.

And seeing as the Bush administration has been favoring China in its policy lately, why don’t they require fortunes with each condom, like fortune cookies? Instead of fortunes forecasting how lucky people will be, they’d be forecasting to people who got lucky.

What man in the moment will take his time to find a magnifying glass to read the molecular print of the labels? At most, the labels will elicit a sarcastic and mule-faced “Oh really?” Perhaps no words will be on the label, and instead wrappers will have the grinning slick profile of Vice President Dick Cheney. That would be a downer. Requiring warning labels on condom wrappers is a bit ridiculous. Would it be equally ridiculous to put warnings labels on hot dogs because people have a tendency to choke on them? Perhaps warning labels should be put on cars; they kill a lot of people. Maybe presidents need warning labels.

But abstinence is a serious policy. It works. Unfortunately many abstinent people don’t want to be abstinent in the first place. And like this editorial, aren’t required warning labels a little absurd? Couldn’t the money for this condom-label charade be spent better elsewhere – tax rebates for Hummers, for instance?