Lawsuit Idea

In general, I think our society is too litigious. We sue over everything, from spilled coffee at a McDonald's drive-through, to (and I just heard about this one) towing companies who wear out someone's tires when the city tows an illegally parked vehicle. Still, in our lawsuit-happy culture, there may yet be one worthwhile lawsuit worth filing, and I'm positively shocked that all the local ambulance-chasers out there haven't yet thought of it.

You see, as readers of this blog already know, every once in a while I'm struck with a brilliant bit of insight from out of fucking nowhere. This recent brainstorm hit me when I was (of all things) hemming up my softball leggings. (Um, yeah.) I was simultaneously listening to Penn Jillette's Sunday School podcast (which I highly recommend), and he was talking about how certain politicians seem to get elected no matter what. This, as I've often pointed out, is a reflection of gerrymandering, which is a euphemism for vote-stealing on the part of the political party which happens to be in power at the time of the drawing up of voting districts.

Recent example: Republican Mark Sanford was recently elected back into public office in a congressional district of South Carolina which is drawn heavily conservative. In case you've forgotten (and polls say you have), Mark Sanford was the inconsiderate prick who told people that he was "hiking the Appalachian trail" when in fact he was off to Buenos Aires to have an affair with his Argentinian mistress. For this, he was drummed out as South Carolina's governor and forced to resign. Two years later, the voters of this particular congressional district decided they'd rather have a conservative hypocrite than a liberal with integrity, and voted him into office over Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of Stephen Colbert. In response, he thanked God as a deity not only  of second chances, "but of third, forth, fifth, sixth and seventh chances!" This apparently got a roar of approval from his supporters.

Welcome back, Plenary Indulgence. We've apparently missed you since the Middle Ages.

In a world where districts are drawn fairly, the moderate middle would have kicked this son-of-a-bitch out on his arrogant ass. Instead, gerrymandering has given this guy an ego that will make him believe he can get away with just about every damned thing, and he'll be quite correct. And all because political parties in power are allowed to engage in a conflict of interest when drawing up district maps. How backward!

And then I realized it: Conflict of interest! Isn't that already against the law? Indeed it is! For lawyers practicing law, anyway. It can result in a lawyer becoming disbarred, or a judge being forced to recuse himself from a case. Can politicians be forced to avoid conflict of interest? Well, the answer is, sometimes, and not all that often. But has anybody ever brought a lawsuit to that effect? Has there ever been a citizen bold enough to sue the (in this case) Republican Party over drawing up unfair districts on the grounds that it is a conflict of interest?

I don't think so. And that's why I'm kicking the idea out there. Could somebody please do that? I haven't the energy or the time for it, but somebody out there does! Citizens surely have a right to have their districts drawn fairly, and to have district borders which ensure that their votes are not stolen by border-dancing.

If a prison inmate can sue over not receiving crunchy peanut-butter because it goes against his totally-made-up religious rights, then surely, we who are not in jail can accomplish this one, noble lawsuit!


Eric

*

Bob the Tomato comes out: "I'm a fruit!"

Bob the Tomato, the talking produce-item best known as one of the primary characters on "Veggie Tales," officially came out of the closet on Monday as a fruit, rather than a vegetable.

"I know this will come as a great disappointment to my many young Christian fans," Bob said in an official press conference, "but I can no longer deny who I am.  I am a fruit, and I prefer being with other fruits."

The shocking statement comes amid a number of recent celebrity declarations as to their true orientation, including that of Jason Collins, the NBA center for the Washington Wizards, who openly came out as gay in the recently published May issue of Sports Illustrated.

The announcement came as no surprise to Dr. Zachariah Zucchini, an activist from the left side of the produce aisle. "Tomatoes are technically classified as a fruit," he told reporters at the Sun. "Bob simply cannot help the way that he is, because he was born that way. The same thing goes for pumpkins, gourds and cucumbers. They are fruit with the seeds inside."

But Bob's long-time collaborator and friend, Larry Cucumber, vehemently disagrees. "I don't know what [Dr. Zucchini] could be thinking, calling us fruits," he said. "I know in my heart that I'm a vegetable. And I've also known Bob my whole life. He's a vegetable, too. We grew up in the same vegetable garden, were placed in the same vegetable aisle at the same grocery store, and were sold as vegetables. I still have the receipt. It says, 'veg: $2.98'. Fruit was being sold at a different price. I hope he prayerfully re-considers his true nature."

Bob's declaration has fueled long-standing rumors of an extended studio affair between himself and Tom Grape, the son of the elderly, Yiddish-accented Pa Grape. Tom could not be reached for a statement.

Pastor Ted Haggard, who has struggled with his sexual orientation in recent years, immediately weighed in with a written statement: "I know that our Brother Bob must be going through some trying times, but I hope he understands that the Lord knows that he is truly a vegetable. I will pray that God relieves him of his temptation, just as I continually pray that he relieves him of mine."

"I don't care what they say, he's a vegetable!" said Creflo Cabbage, leader of Christians for the Culinary Arts, who was asked about the incident afterward at the 'Pulse of the Nation' event in Washington, D.C. "Does he taste sweet? No! Fruits taste sweet! It's as simple as that!"
When his wife quietly pointed out that Bob was a little bit sweet, Creflo was observed to harshly whisper, "Shut up!"

Fredrick Lettuce, leader of the "God Hates Fruits!" movement, is currently organizing a petition to get Bob the Tomato permanently banned from all Christian bookstores and Veggie Tales products.


Eric

*

The Real Boston Bombs

Once again, we have a bombing by Islamist militants in a major city. Once again, Americans vow that they will have justice.

And once again, nobody is blaming the root cause of the violence: Religion.

Don't get me wrong, there are real problems of poverty and bloodshed which give people good reason to be pissed, religion or not. But the Koran is unambiguously clear about what is to be done with infidels and  apostates. They are to be killed. Not tolerated or endured for the sake of religious freedom. No, KILLED. No ambiguity about the Arabic translation can alter that fact. This is why Muslims will bomb the West for disrupting political affairs in Iran or Afghanistan, but Hispanic Christians will not bomb the U.S. for even greater disruption in Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua or El Salvador. And this is truly puzzling, because in those nations, interference by the U.S. has resulted in much MORE poverty and bloodshed! But instead of bombing us, Latinos are desperate to come here to live a better life. Go figure!

Thank goodness for the canonization of the Book of John.

Here is the bottom line: Everybody wants to know how we can stop bombings. How do we make certain that such acts of terror never happen again? The answer is surprisingly simple, and it's the same answer for Islamist violence as it is for, let's say, pedophilia in the Catholic priesthood. How do we put a stop to it?

Simple. Muslims must LEAVE the Islamic religion every time another terrorist bomber scandalizes them yet again with another, embarrassing act of violence! I mean seriously, folks, if your fellow dinner guests keep shitting on your food, why do you continue to eat at that table?! Get up and WALK OUT! Is that so unreasonable? I mean, just imagine how bombings would instantly stop if bombers realized that each and every bomb resulted in only 5,000 people leaving the Islamic religion. Terrorism would be guaranteed to stop overnight!

The same thing applies to pedophile priests. The problem persists because there are too many parishioners and too few priests to go around, right? Well, here's the solution, if you're Catholic: LEAVE! I mean, shit, what a simple fix!

What's that? You say you don't want to leave? I'm not surprised. You people would rather shove rusted nails up your urethras than change anything about your religion or your politics. Well, if you insist, there is a common-sense compromise. Rather than leaving, simply go on a temporary leave of absence!

Really, I mean, why not? Just say to your priest or Immam, "Seeya later guys! I'm on religious vacation! I'll be back when you assholes allow women into the priesthood and fire every pedophile!" Or, "I'll return when there are no more Islamic bombings and I'm convinced that there will never be another one!"

It's really not disrespectful. You are being loyal to God, but disloyal to the bureaucracy of stumblebums who claim to be His representatives. And when someone asks what your religion is, just say, "I'm a suspended Catholic. My faith is on hold until the Church gets its act together." Or, "I'm technically a Muslim, but I'm on hiatus until all Islamic terrorism is stamped out." Those are respectable answers! They show that you are both loyal to your upbringing, and to justice! But if your answer is that you are Catholic in spite of its abuse of children, or that you are Muslim in spite of all the violence the "religion of peace" continually engages in, then you are sending a clear message that your religion can engage in all the shenanigans it can get away with, without any fear of reprisal.

Empty pews! Empty churches! Empty mosques! And most importantly, empty offering plates! These are the only things the clergy pays any attention to, and are the only things that will force them to amend themselves! And if you refuse to utilize these weapons, then you are allowing the guilty to get away, unpunished. Shame on you for your faithful tithes and attendance!

Visit the Lutherans for awhile, if you must go through the rituals. I mean, that's why Lutheranism was put there in the first place, right?

This is why I do not buy the argument that goes, "Most Muslims/Catholics are good people, it is only a few bad apples who do these terrible things." Yeah, well, if they're so goddamned good, why are they still in the fold? If you are part of a power-abusing religious sect, and you have not left, even temporarily, then you are complicit with the guilty within your creed! You are endorsing the bad behavior by refusing to implement the one thing which will hold them accountable: your absence!

Thus, all Muslims who remain Muslim in the wake of the Boston bombings are as guilty as the bombers themselves. You are the REAL Boston bombs! Either leave, or own your fucking guilt!

And who knows? You might take a break from your religion and find that you just might like how it feels over here on this side.


Eric

*

My Jackie Robinson Story

Jackie Robinson.  It's good that we have a day set aside to honor the man. It's even better that we have a new movie coming out about him. We are right to regard him as a hero. He broke down racial barriers and helped pave the way towards a better America. Half a century after his breakthrough into the major leagues, an African American is now President of the United States, and the era of racial equality is that much closer.

But it isn't here yet. Racism is still alive and kicking. Oh, I'm not referring to the racism exhibited by the sad, tattered remnants of the Ku Klux Klan, or the racist attitudes subconsciously, and obviously to all but themselves, adhered to by Tea Party activists (much to their frustrated confusion). No, I'm referring to the racist attitudes held by the African American Community, and how difficult it will be to get it to let them go.

You see, as blasphemous as it is for me to say this on the day set aside for the first great black baseball player, racism is now primarily a black phenomenon rather than a white one.  But, after all, blasphemy is what we do here at the Sacred Cow Wursthaus. There is a prevailing inner-city mentality which seems to say that the sins against one's forebears are somehow legitimate reason to receive a free ride today, and that the innocent children of the perpetrators of past crimes should be made to pay restitution. In other words, two wrongs make a right. Or, the fallacy of children being responsible for a parents' crime (a mistake upon which all of Christianity is based) somehow holds true.

For once, complaints made by the right-wing establishment are correct. Hiring a sub-standard worker or accepting a sub-standard college student application based upon skin color is racist. Period. Afrro-centric racism is just as evil as Euro-centric racism. (Or Asian or Hispanic-centered, for that matter.) And Afro-centric racism is arguably even more evil because it is committed by the children of those who suffered under racial oppression. How utterly bizarre it is that the descendants of those who suffered under the lash of the slave-driver in the cotton fields are so quick to take up the whip themselves!

How even more bizarre that more don't take advantage of receiving undue privilege! A young, black male could write his own ticket with a crappy resume simply by donning a business suit. Why in hell are black youth bothering to not even pull up their pants, much less themselves?

You see, Jackie Robinson didn't ask that the bar be lowered. He raised the bar, and set it higher for himself than for his white teammates. He didn't ask for affirmative action. He didn't NEED affirmative action. To prove the point that he was equal, he excelled. He didn't just hold his own, he dominated. And in so doing, he proved that skin color was poor criteria for rejecting a ball player who could take you to the World Series.

And that's the secret: If a person can prove that the team is better with him or her on their side, that person will be accepted onto the team. Period.

But what Jackie Robinson did led to the death of the negro leagues. With black players able to play Major League baseball, there was simply no more need. Why even have a "black" drinking fountain when everyone can drink from the "white" one? And that scares some people. Integration means the end of black culture, and that leads some to defend black culture against incursions, even if that form of discrimination holds black people in perpetual chains. This, my friends, is why a young black man will refuse to pull up his pants, even in a political era when simply donning a suit will get him hired on the spot, crappy resume notwithstanding. Also, privilege makes us blind. We will do anything not to see the truth when the truth means having to give up a privileged position. For an example, just look at the blatant hypocrisy of the CEO's who decry the evils of welfare while playing golf with a handicap. (Think about it: How is a handicap NOT golf-welfare?)

I get to say these things as a white man because none of my ancestors owned a black slave. My lineage is not tainted with past sins, so I can simply speak my mind guilt-free. But I can understand the pressure some might feel. We need to overcome this and recognize that there is no us/them anymore. There's just us.

Whatever happened to the Great American Melting Pot? Wasn't there this great idea that all races would meld together inside the borders of the U.S. to make one, great society of people? I suppose that was only meant for Europeans. Americans were meant to be a mix of German, Irish, Welsh or French, but not Haitian, Mexican, or West African. I say we revitalize the Melting Pot idea, and call it the "copper kettle." After all, when we're all done intermingling, intermarrying, and interbreeding, Americans will have a kind of copper-colored skin tone, beautiful to behold. Penn Jilette said it best: The best way to end racism is to fuck white people. And fuck black people. And fuck Asian people, Hispanic people, Jewish people... pretty soon there will be no racism because - no more races!

INTEGRATION. It's not a dirty word, damn it!

Not that I agree with the word "race" in the first place. The human race is the only race. It's beyond obvious that continental ancestry or skin tone does not constitute a separate species, much less an entirely separate race. Dog and rabbit. Now, there's a difference in races. A black human and a white human are no more different races than are a black cat and a white cat.

When racial equality arrives, it will not have much fanfare. No parades, no bands playing, no confetti. And the reason for this will be because it came upon us so gradually, so stealthfully, that we won't have noticed that it did so. Eventually, someone will make an observation that goes something like, "Hey, isn't that weird segregated era back in the early 21st century an oddity?" And somebody else will say, "Yeah, that was kind of strange. I wonder when exactly it happened that we got over it?"

Well, we will get over it after we integrate. And not just integrate, but integrated to the point where we no longer are even conscious of skin tone anymore.


Eric

*

SCOTUS And Gay Marriage

Call me old fashioned, but I believe that America is supposed to be the Land of the Free.

Maybe that's a rather conservative value to be held by someone as admittedly non-traditional as myself, but these United States were founded upon the idea that individuals may pursue happiness in their own way, without government intervention.

So you'll forgive me if I'm just plain sick and tired of same-sex marriage even being an issue anymore. Yes, I appreciate everyone on Facebook putting up pink pictures with equal-signs on them as a show of solidarity, but it shouldn't be necessary by now.

So you think it's against God's law?  Fine.  So then it's against the law - IN YOUR CHURCH. There's just plain nothing that necessitates that it be made the government's business, except some idiotic religious imperative which insists that those outside of said religion must conform to that creed's moral edicts. And if this isn't enough to make a sane person vomit, the aforementioned religion serves up an ipecac cocktail by dragging the government into it, as if what goes on in a person's private life is ever the government's damned business. You want to prevent gays from getting married? Here's how you do it Mr. or Mrs. Christian: You go out and  preach the gospel to the gay people. And when they've been brought to the Lord, they can repent. That's your job! How DARE you ask Uncle Sam to do your evangelizing for you!

Look, I know that our government loves assholes. That's no reason for it to get so jealous when certain assholes get fucked by someone other than the usual politician. Okay, maybe you happen to be someone who thinks that homosexuality is icky. Okay, fine. But then so are nose piercings. So are Speedos worn by fat people. So are those ridiculous pants which hang three feet down off the asses of inner city ghetto punks. But these gross and disgusting things are perfectly legal, and none of the government's business. And that's the way it should be.

Let me illustrate something about gay behavior, because there is a genetic component. Oh, not always, and not each time to the same degree, but most gay people are born, not made. I could go into detail here about what science says about homosexuality and genetics, but that would take too long. Just be informed that genes play a role in our sexual tastes, and that being the case, nearly all animals show occasional homosexual tendencies. Go look it up. A volume titled, "Biological Exuberance" is an excellent resource.

The puzzling thing comes with how homosexuality manifests itself with humans. A much larger percentage engages in this behavior in our species than in other animals. Why might that be? Part of the answer might lie in the occasional straight person who turns to homosexuality as a means of escaping the foibles of the other gender. More than one lesbian has told me that she prefers men, but can't stand male shit. But this is a minority within the gay community. The real answer comes from evolution.

If a person is born in a society where homosexuality is repressed, perhaps to the point where gays are killed on sight, a person born gay has a real dilemma. How do they survive in a world where they are outlawed? The answer is obvious: pretend to be straight! For centuries, this is exactly what took place. Gay men married and fathered children because that's what they were expected to do. Gay women didn't get a vote in the process. But that meant that the gay genetic code survived, multiplied and thrived! Today, the result is that this genetic tendency has reached a kind of critical mass, where there are too many to be kept silent any longer.

In other words, if the religious right wishes to condemn the homosexual rights movement, it has only itself to blame for creating that movement in the first place!

Oh, religion could have done the smart thing by not condemning homosexuality.  You see, gays do not breed naturally, meaning that gay people born with that tendency would have, in ages past, simply died childless. But that age has passed, and the Internet and medical science has made certain that gay people can propagate. In a world ridiculously overpopulated, having a percentage of people who don't breed naturally isn't such a bad thing.

But for the religious, it's too late. They went and took a huge dump right where they eat. Too bad. The debate is over. It's only the die-hards who will continue to fight over it. But rest assured...

...the day is soon coming when it will be the Christians who must stay inside the closet for fear of being ridiculed!


Eric

*

The 2nd Amendment

Well, I've been away from this blog during the eight or so weeks it's taken me to complete a machinist training program, and I'm glad to be back. Hello, people! I've missed you! And a few things have taken place over that stretch of time, not least of which is the slow strangulation of the outrage over the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.  New gun control legislation has gone from a near certainty to an almost certain impossibility, demonstrating the principle that if it wasn't headlined in the news yesterday, it won't get legislation passed today. Outrage, it seems, only lasts until the next episode of How I Met Your Mother goes on the air, and the empathy of the general public dries up almost as soon as the blood on the pavement does.

It also demonstrates the overwhelming power of gerrymandering - oh, excuse me, I meant to say vote stealing. Enough members of congress are more scared of what their illegitimately twisted districts will think than of what the people in their state think overall. Thus, something with overwhelming public support, such as the regulating of gun show sales, gets much less support than it deserves because the buckshot-redneck minority gets a disproportionately loud voice. Maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I really don't think the founding fathers of this great nation intended to give veto powers to the NASCAR crowd.  It's time the hicks took their thumbs off the scales.

Let me clarify what the 2nd amendment truly means, because as usual, most people miss the point. Yes, it's true, the 2nd amendment does protect a citizens' right to buy and own firearms. The intention at the time was to make sure states had well-regulated militias comprised of volunteer fighters, but that's both ancient history, and beside the point. The right to own guns is ours, period. That much is settled.

How-EVER! The second amendment also says nothing, nothing regarding the re-sale of said gun to another party. In other words, while the second amendment may protect your right to buy and own a firearm, it does not protect your right to turn around and sell that gun to someone else! So, if the government insists on all re-sales being brokered through it's own, little bureaucracy, can it do so?

The answer is, hell yeah! Not only is the government entirely within its bounds, but I argue it has an obligation to do so!

The NRA can claim many things about regulating re-sales at gun shows, but it cannot claim protection of 2nd amendment rights. The right to re-sale just plain not in there! It can claim that it's a bad idea on moral principle, or it can argue that regulating gun sales in an infringement on free trade, or it can argue any number of other angles - but it cannot argue 2nd amendment!

The regulation of gun re-sales is absolutely Constitutional!

So back off, NRA! Stand down, Sarah Palin! And Ted Nugent? Fuck off, will ya buddy? You're just a musician, after all!

So, you want to own a gun? Fine. You want to sell that gun? Go get a license!

Either that, or wait until your local municipality's next gun buyback program.


Eric

*

Okay, YOU Balance The Budget! (Part II)

Two years ago, I outlined what it's like to be the one to balance the nation's budget.  Back then, the government was threatening shutdown over increasing the debt ceiling.  It was overwhelmingly clear then that it was impossible to balance the national checkbook without cutting spending AND raising taxes both.  Now, with the sequester underway, and with various areas of government all feeling the pinch, it seems relevant for me to re-visit the idea.  Republicans have drawn a line in the sand regarding spending cuts rather than tax increases.  Is this even possible?  Or is the current situation similar to the one of two years ago?

Indeed, the situation is exactly the same.  Here are the projected numbers for 2013, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office:

2,902 billion in revenues (that's incoming taxes).
3,803 billion in outlays (that's government spending).
901 billion in deficit (that's the amount we're spending too much of and putting on the nation's credit card).

That means that balancing the budget would involve raising our current tax revenue by one-third of today's levels (31%), or else slashing about one-quarter (23.7%) of national spending.


2,293 billion is mandatory spending, while 1,510 billion is discretionary.  In other words, one would have to jettison two-thirds of our discretionary spending in order to balance the budget.


That's not as bad as two years ago, when balancing the budget meant dealing with a deficit which was half the nation's income, and nearly all discretionary spending.  The numbers are moving in the right direction.  Obama kept his promise of cutting the nation's deficit in half by the start of his second term (it just happened after the election was over, that's all).  But we're still in dire straits.

And it's still impossible to balance the budget without cutting spending and increasing revenues both!

The one number which is worse is the national debt.  It now stands projected at $17.5 trillion for 2013, up from $14.8 trillion in 2011.  The debt increase is leveling off, which is good, but is still increasing and that's bad.  Plus we're paying interest on all that, and that's even worse.  This, more than anything else, makes the need for increasing revenues of paramount importance.

What part of "no choice" do Republicans not understand?

Any lines in the sand which have been drawn over not increasing revenues are just that - lines in the sand; the transient, shifting, impermanent, wind-blown dust. Increasing revenue is not off the table, as Republicans will insist, but is rather welded to the table!  Any chin-boogie to the contrary is nothing but monkey-chatter.

Now here's where it really gets interesting: The entire 2012 presidential campaign was predicated on balancing the budget through closing loopholes in the tax code. Over and over again, Mitt Romney insisted that the budget could be balanced through tax reform, and this became the official Republican stance: closing loopholes did not constitute increasing taxes.

So why are they even bothering to fight over this now?  All Obama wants to do is close the tax loopholes that Mitt Romney wanted to close!

Ah, but the nation doesn't have a tax problem, say the so-called conservatives, it has a spending problem.  Bullshit! It has a spending AND a tax problem!

So, let's recap: Republicans are fighting over an issue they themselves campaigned in favor of in their attempt to unseat Barack Obama, one in which they have no choice but to capitulate upon, and they're willing to throw the entire nation under the sequestration bus in order to accomplish this.

Fucking really?

Peter Segal of NPR's news-quiz show, 'Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!' said it best: "Barack Obama set up the sequestration agreement on the premise that Congress would have to be crazy to allow it to happen.  Well, right there, you can see the flaw in the logic."

Indeed. Congress is bat-shit crazy!

Now, here's where my rant reaches a fever pitch: Why in frakkin' Hades did Newt Gingrich get to sit his smug fat-ass in front of David Gregory for twenty fucking minutes without having to confront ANY of this?!


Eric

*