Mon, 21 July 2008 If that title doesn't grab you, what does? Featuring:
As a kid, I loved reruns of the Carol Burnett show. In fact, I have in my posession autographs from Tim Conway and the late, great, Harvey Korman. I will even go as far to say, that I would put the Carol Burnett show right next to Saturday Night Live as one of the greatest sketch comedy shows of all time. This is a non-argument, and if you disagree with me, go over to YouTube, right now and you'll see what I'm talking about - absolute classic stuff. Now just so you know, Ms. Burnett is a hero of mine. But, there is a side of her that is not so funny, and in an effort of full disclosure - I should tell you about it. First, she sued the National Enquirer for libel in 1981, and in 2007, she sued the producers of Family Guy for copyright violations. So, we're not - gonna - do - anything - or say anything - or even look funny - that would cause Carol Burnett, to want to sue me. Nobody move, and nobody gets hurt. But I did want to use Carol Burnett as an example, satirically, without any intention of defaming her or having you, the listener, devalue her image or celebrity in anyway. Jeez, is that enough scared lawyer talk? Ok, here's the punchline - you know how at the end of all of her shows how she tugged her ear to let her grandmother know that everything was ok, well in today's society that would only be interpreted as one thing.....gang signs. From the Obama's fist bump to the NFL making an attempt to crack down on players making gang signs, every one has become absolutely paranoid about our non-verbal communication. Its fair to say that your ass may ultimately get your ass in trouble. There must be something in the water, there must be a cool breeze passing through the country because this past week, in Flint, Michigan and Paterson, New Jersey proposals have butted into the public sphere, or should I say they've cracked open into our consciousness, because under proposals in Flint and Paterson, there are attempts to make it illegal to have droopy drawers. In Flint, Interim Police Chief David Dicks has indicated that he plans on arresting individuals whose pants expose their underwear or butts. "Some people call it a fad," Dicks told the Detroit Free Press this week while patrolling the streets of Flint. "But I believe it's a national nuisance. It is indecent and thus it is indecent exposure, which has been on the books for years." With all that's going on those crime ridden cities, politicians and law enforcement folks are making it illegal for individuals to let their pants sag. In Flint, if you show a little tushie, you could be punished for up to 93-days in jail and/or up to $500 in fines. So apparently, every issue related to crime in Flint and Paterson have been completely resolved and they've now become the fasion police. There is absolutely no indication, study, paper, essay, evaluation, treatise, or investigation that would corroborate Chief Dicks assertion that raising the belt level of teenage trousers would lower the crime level in Flint,Michigan or any other city. There is no indication that droopy drawers have anything to do with gang membership or any other criminal intention. In a lot of these neighborhoods, and the kids aren't going to tell you about it, but these are hand-me-down jeans passed from older brother to younger brother or younger sister. I know, I worked there. This is not a legal issue. This is a taste issue. Of course, in some neighborhoods you'll see more crack than Amy Winehouse's medicine cabinet. I don't like it at all, either. But I do not feel that the police have any right to tell people how to dress. Look if the kid is running around intentionally naked and causing a disruption that's one thing - but I don't think that this is the case. I think these are kids that are letting their drawers sag to get attention - in no different a fashion as a mohawk would be in a different setting. Ultimately, the fact that this is suddenly only an inner-city problem and not a suburban problem says more about law enforcement in inner cities than it does about anything else. This is something that can be fixed very simply with a belt either applied liberally to the waistband or to the behind. At the end of the day, this is not an issue for the police but one of parenting. Maybe we can get corporate America to help out. I'm sure all of these inner city kids would be completely happy if Haines or Fruit of the Loom just came out with boxers that, well, looked like jeans. And I'm sure, that somewhere in a warehouse, there are boxes and boxes of Mork from Ork suspenders just laying around from the late seventies unsold, and all it takes is one Kanye or P.Diddy track - and those things are hotter than big ass rims on a Cadallac. Maybe its about fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of things that are absurd. But, I'm really not afraid of a kid with baggy pants mugging me - heck, what's he going to do afterward run? He'll be ass over feet within two steps. Shop-lifting? Are we really as ignorant to think that kids with baggy pants are going to be shop lifters? Well, if I ever owned a store, and a kid comes in and shoves one of my product down the front of his pants or down the back and tries to steal it....well, I don't really want that product back anyway. That's what insurance is for. There are laws that are going to be applied to poor African-American or caucasian teens. I want this law applied equally to all people in the community. I'm talking to you, Mr. Plumber-Butt. I can't tell you how many times my old landlord used to shoot the moon every time my sink stopped up. I just wanted to drop an ice-cube down that Grand Canyon. It was like a car-accident - I didn't want to look but that crevace was just enormous. Nasty, nasty memory. But on the either end of the spectrum, we wouldn't want to all be complete chauvinists, either - because I can't tell you how many young women let me see the dental floss that they're wearing for underwear, and as a married man, let me just say, that is so wrong. Young, available women showing off their butts like that. Just really, really wrong. Maybe Officer Dicks just has a thing for young male butts. Maybe he has a thing for young inner-city males rear ends. Maybe he's going for a promotion. Of course, it would strain the credibility of this very podcast if I were to say that if he were promoted he'd be Inspector Dicks, so lets just hope he gets demoted back down to Private Dicks. These kids have a 1st Amendment right toward self-expression. If they want to look like a bumbling idiot, they're allowed to. If they want to look like they have a dirty diaper, they're allowed to. If a girl thinks a boy looks more attractive because his chariot swings lower than the next guy, I say, Really? For better or worse, its about communication, and I don't want to go all Bill Cosby here, but these kids are communicating horribly - but I really believe for better or worse, they have a right to expose their BVD's as long as they watch their Ps and Qs - as much as I don't like it. Like I said, its a matter of taste and a matter of degree. As much as I personally don't want to see it - I don't know how this became a priority or how its enforced. I can't even imagine a trial involving this. What Judge in their right mind is going to want to listen to an officer talking about a kid's butt. But, heh, at the end of the day, when you're talking about putting a person in jail for a 93 days, there is ultimatly going to be a trial and even more of a waste of municipal resources. Maybe there is a bright-line test. Boxers and briefs ok, but at the end of the day - just say no to crack. Oh wow, Carol Burnett would be so disappointed in me that I just spent the last few minutes of your life talking about the social-political ramifications of butts. Actually, I'm kind of ashamed of myself, too. Just say no to crack. Horrible. Category: general -- posted at: 10:19 PM Comments[2] |
Thu, 17 July 2008 Check out this nice email that I got from the boys at Woodfish. 'Hey Todd, I told the 95.9 WRAT to plug your podcast. They are pushing our show for this Saturday and I had them use a quote from, you, “They are just a lot of fun, with a mix of sounds and enthusiasm that is just infectious.” Plus it’s a nice plug for your podcast. Now podcasting, is taking over FM.
Category: podcasts -- posted at: 10:28 AM Comments[0] |
Wed, 9 July 2008 According to reports on the net, our friends at Mevio have gotten another round of venture capital - this time in the amount of $15 million dollars. I don't know the first thing about venture capital, how it works, or what is expected in return - all I know is that is a lot of greenbacks. I'm sure we can expect some good stuff out of this. However, in my continuing effort to help out those wacky kids, here's how they should spend the cash:
Category: general -- posted at: 3:50 PM Comments[2] |
Sat, 5 July 2008  Slurring by the end of the show - that can't be a good thing. But I did play you some amazing music, including:Listen to the show here
I
am starting to get the reports in about the Supreme Court's ruling
today in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court struck down
the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible
with gun rights under the Second Amendment. Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right., the Supreme Court upheld that decision by a 5-4 margin.
Justice Scalia (who looks so much like Emeril Lagasse, that I half expect that he says "Bam!" every time he finishes a decision), writing for the majority, went with an interpretation of the Second Amendment from a historical perspective, saying that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
There is an old saying, "bad cases make bad law", and I think this is the situation here. Mr. Heller appears to have been a responsible gun user, and dear-lord-don't-let-my-progressive-friends-read-this, but from a strict textualist interpretation of the Constitution, Justice Scalia is perfectly right, as the law applies to Mr. Heller.
The problem is, however, in the application of this case to other cases. I am terrified that the ruling may create other bad cases. For example, what's to stop a legislature from presuming that all people in a crime ridden neighborhood are not keeping guns for self-defense, but to commit crimes? You know what they say – one bad apple ruins it for the whole bunch.
How is this going to affect machine guns or other heavy firearms? Because you know me, I believe that a good self-defense is a good offense. I think I should be able to keep a Spanish cannon on top of my house and shoot golden cannonballs at the mail man, because I’m convinced that that this frakker is bringing me some bad news.
But Justice Scalia says that I can only have a gun for self-defense in the home. So I guess that means when Aunt Mary comes at me with another helping of that corn and Land O’Lakes monstrosity because that thing is a killer.
But what’s great about this is that we can thank Justice Scalia – big time – remember all those Federal laws banning assault rifles and machine guns. Well, those puppies are done and done now – because baby, I’ve played Doom, and I’ve seen Dawn of the Dead, and you know I just think I’m gonna have to on over to my local Wal-Mart and get me a rail gun. Because when those level 2 Orcs break through my outer defenses I better possess a whole lot of fire power.
But remember, Justice Scalia says that you can only posess a gun in the house for self-defense. So remember, no cracking walnuts with your pea-shooter. No driving in the last nail with your Tommy-gun. Oh and if you intend to have a gun in your house to shoot yourself in the foot, or otherwise harm yourself – well, that’s against the law.
And I love this – did you know that convicted felons in this country lose the right to possess a fire arm. They can’t even have a gun for self-defense. Aren’t they the ones who need them the most?? Jeez, if you rob a bank or sell drugs, man you’re going to have some enemies!
Here’s what I think, and I know George would have approved, and I think Justice Scalia would approve, too. We need more guns. You move into a new house, there should be an AK-AK with a bow on the counter right next to a bowl of fruit. You get a promotion at work, “hey bob, here’s that gold silencer we promised you.”
We need guns for every man, woman and child. Think of the business opportunities. This would jump start the economy: the new iPopper – it plays Mp3s and shoots .33s. Talk about your Saturday Night Special! Victoria’s Secret could do a whole line of gun holsters. How hot is that?
But you know Scalia and the majority had even a problem with trigger locks, and I agree, because if some robber is coming after you who has time to get a key. Trust me the folks at Masterlock are fuming.
And think about the children. The poor wee children. Hell, between their Grand Theft Autos and Call of Duty’s our kids are already a crack shot. But we are cheating them – cheating them. You wouldn’t give your beautiful daughter a picture of a nutritious meal – no you’d want to give her the real thing, right? So stop depriving your kids, you bastard!
So at the end of the day, what does this all mean? It means that Mr. Heller was a nice little old man who didn’t feel that his tax dollars were going to good use in having the DC Police take care of his safety. Mr. Heller, a security guard, wasn’t so concerned about your and my security, but he wanted the option to blast a Jehovah’s Witness when they came to the door to sell him some Reese’s Pieces.
And 5 Justices of the Supreme Court either liked him or liked the ability to pretend they could get into Thomas Jefferson’s skull cap. I say good. You know who really benefits from this decision – the lawyers, the Judges, and of course the hospitals. Because now, every application for a gun is going to have to be viewed with ultra strict scrutiny that we’re going to need Tom Cruise’s Minority Report team to figure out where the gun’s gonna go before we even give it to people.
Why should the Supreme Court do anything to protect us? We didn’t vote for them. They don’t owe us anything. They liked Heller and Heller gets to keep his gun. Nuthin for nuthin, maybe Scalia made the other four an offer they couldn’t refuse. Or maybe, he’s in a fantasy world and thinks its Second Life and not the Second Amendment. Look, when other problems come up, screw it, we’ll deal with that on a case by case basis. Its good. Those Supreme Court guys and gals are going to have enough work to keep them busy for life. Already, there have been a ton of new lawsuits filed. In Atlanta today, there was a law suit filed attempting to over turn a law that bans guns in an airport terminal. You know George would have loved the idea of the words guns and terminal floating together. But what's better than an airport to have a gun when you're picking up mom and dad when they're finally back from their trip from the Yucatan. It certainly brings a whole new ring to the whole duty free thing. I'll take a case of Marlboro's and, wow, dear look at the discount - stick em up. Its all just so synchronous, and I think somewhere in heaven - George Carlin is smiling. Come to think of it, if George were here – he would have smacked me on the back of the head for saying that. Category: general -- posted at: 11:00 PM Comments[0] |
Tue, 1 July 2008 Category: general -- posted at: 10:45 PM Comments[0] |
