Amani Toomer an open letter

Dear Amani Toomer:

You have proven once again why a Michigan education is completely worthless. You're latest comments that Roger Goodell is "Gestapo-like", touched my last nerve regarding this ridiculous freaking labor dispute. I want so desperately to side with the players, but your ignorant, uninformed and offensive comment proves that there is no one to side with, and if the work stoppage continues through the season I won't give two wet farts about it.

I thought Michigan was a top school, a public ivy so to speak. Clearly they never taught you (not history) but basic literary coding. So you accuse Roger Goodell of being "Gestapo-like". Okay, let's explore that: The Gestapo hunted down and sent Jews to the gas chamber. I TOTALLY see that happening in the NFL. Goodell, the man tasked with making the brand "NFL" worth nine billion dollars, wants to protect that brand and punishes the athletes when they embarrass the brand by GASSING THEM. That is TOTALLY what happened to the Jews. Not. And this is what pisses me off about the comment.

NFL players are suffering an existence which is NOTHING like that of the Jews under Nazi occupation, you dumb fuck, Amani. Does Goodell come into players homes and replace the water line with mainline to Zyklon B? You over-privileged stupid shit. You got paid good money (a full ride to Michigan) and they couldn't put one once of good sense in your head to realize that athletes who willingly play a sport which compensates them at the MINIMUM of a salary that is more than ten times the average American's wages are not exploited. They play this game, and benefit from a NINE BILLION dollar pool of revenue. Your problem is that they don't get enough of the NINE BILLION dollar gravy-train And he has the unbelievable stones to compare himself to Jews gassed at camps throughout Europe.

Now, this is offensive for the simple use of the analogy, but...if he is drawing a comparison, what he is saying is that if the plight of the NFL player is like that of Jews hunted by the Gestapo, he is saying that the six million Jews who died were over-compensated brats who sought out trouble when they weren't playing because they had nothing better to do...that's essentially what NFL players are.

Amani... there is no simile I find that would make me want to hock a gigantic goober into someone's mouth...except this one (comparing someone/something to the Nazis). You dumb fuck. My feeling with an open letter is this, to tell certain people to shut the fuck up. And that's what you should do. Shut the fuck up. Jews were not over-privileged brats like the many NFL players are tending to demonstrate (see Adrian Peterson and slavery). You want me to stop watching the NFL, keep saying stupid fucking comments like yours, you dumb fuck.

Since Michigan didn't put an ounce of good sense into your head (I excuse Adrian Peterson because Oklahoma is a football factory and doesn't even pretend to turnout student-athletes), I will. The Jews were not over-privileged millionaires. Hitler did not authorize their extermination because they were damaging the Nazi brand. And it's not just the Nazi simile you made. If you compared him to the KGB- sorry. Goodell is not even close to an organization, which under Stalin, wiped out 30 million Russians/Ukrainians/Uzbecks/Poles/ etc. through execution and sending people to Siberian gulags. Last I checked, Amani, your mansion is no gulag.

So please, I beg you, shut the fuck up. You're embarrassing Michigan. Clearly you garnered nothing from your time there.

As for the lockout. I'm beyond caring now. The draft will come. Used to love that day. Now? Who cares? A new crop of two hundred and something dumb fucks who didn't learn a shart's worth of anything in school except, "Me hit, bad man" will get a bunch of money. After which they can say, "I'm like those people who wear the funny beanie hats, who were economically crushed before being loaded up like cattle into trains, and shipped off to camps to die of starvation or Zyklon B. Except, I'm a Christian and they aren't so I'll go to heaven at least. Praise Jebus." Way to go Amani, you dumb ass. STFU.

NRA to Arm Fetuses

The NRA is back in the news with their support and push for a bill making its rounds in the Texas statehouse allowing for concealed carry on college campuses. Despite the objections of nearly every person involved in the day-to-day work of people who work in higher education, this bill is being supported on the premise that it will save lives. The NRA and its members have long stipulated that had students been armed at Virginia Tech, less people would have died and the shooter would have been party to a "peer editing" of sorts.

Given this controversy, I reached out to a good friend who is a member of the NRA and well placed in their national leadership. He or she (the NRA does have a number of female members, I'm not making that up), wanted to defend the Texas bill, the NRA and upcoming plans for the security of America. He or she agreed to the interview on the condition that his or her real name would not be used. Thus, he or she chose the name Awlaki.

American Che (AC): Let's start with your pseudonym: Awlaki.

Awlaki: Yes, it's the Finnish god of vengeance.

AC: Why not something more American: Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin --

Awlaki: Let me stop you right there. There's two reasons I didn't use a name of a founding father. First, Ben Franklin is not a founding father. He was a vegetarian which quid pro quo means he's a gay.

AC: No he wasn't.

Awlaki: Yes he was.

AC: We'll table that issue. Why no founding father name?

Awlaki: When you're baptized into the NRA, they give you a new patriot name to work in tandem with your Christian name. So to use my baptismal NRA name would be blasphemy.

AC: Why not use a different founding father?

Awlaki: That would be a major transgression to use another name other than the one you were baptized with.

AC: Right...well, the one other thing, Awlaki is the American born terrorist currently hiding out in Yemen.

Awlaki: I don't think so.

AC: It is his name.

Awlaki: Yes, but remember, Awlaki is like John in Finland.

AC: No it's not.

Awlaki: Yes it is!

AC: According to whom?

Awlaki: The NRA. They said it, who in the hell are you to question it?

AC: Let's back off this for a bit, and return to why I'm interviewing you for our marvelous blog.

Awlaki: The Texas law. What's the problem?

AC: It seems counter intuitive to the point of education.

Awlaki: How so?

AC: Well, arming students, moreover, letting them keep concealed weapons in the classroom. Some students get upset, and people are impulsive.

Awlaki: Yes, but they go through a course, they go through training before they can get their license. In that training, we teach them impulse is bad when confronting a good guy, and good when confronting a bad guy.

AC: Who determines good and bad?

Awlaki: The person with the gun.

AC: How can they be so sure?

Awlaki: Usually, the good guy is wearing a white hat, the bad is wearing a black hat - this is commons sense. I don't know why I'm explaining it.

AC: Yet professors, administrators, and campus police are ardently against the potential law.

Awlaki: Frankly, there's really no reason to listen to professors. Their misinformed liberals of the academic elite, and part of the rebel alliance. Now take her away!

AC: You lost me on the last part.

Awlaki: Nevermind. As I understand it, professors are worried concealed carry might cause grade inflation.

AC: How so?

Awlaki: Would you give a kid a C, if you knew he might have a gun.

AC: A C is average. It's not a bad grade.

Awlaki: Sh'yeah right. These days, a C is the death knell. But back to my point, professors are worried that not knowing if a student is carrying will cause them to pass along a grade that the student will find satisfactory in order to avoid being shot. Which in turn might cause more professors to give higher grades and sic semper tyrannis, we have grade inflation.

AC: What do you suggest professors do to put aside this fear.

Awlaki: Grow a pair.

AC: Hm?

Awlaki: I'm kidding of course. They can get a gun too, which is a metaphorically acceptable way to grow a pair. Granted, we'd rather professors not be armed. Then they will literally make their education dangerous. In trial experiments on campuses around the country, we've found that if professors carry a concealed weapon, 100% of professors identified as Liberals executed students who didn't agree with them.

AC: Where's this study?

Awlaki: With the NRA. And they said it. But you're missing my point. We won't infringe upon the right of a professor to carry a gun.

AC: So if...

Awlaki: One draws, so does the other and they shoot it out as God intended, look it worked at the OK Corral! Again, I'm explaining stuff that's common knowledge. Ever wish you'd get your money back for your fancy degrees?

AC: So the professor's objections have nothing to do with safety concerns.

Awlaki: Not in the slightest. They don't want grades to get inflated.

AC: And passing this bill will do away with violence on campuses.

Awlaki: Absolutely. Now there might be a stray shooting here or there, but with an armed student body, the shooter will be peer edited as we like to say, (here Alwaki laughed for a solid minute), anyways, they'd be peer edited early on. Or they might not even act if they think, "Hmmm someone else might be armed."

AC: But if they're insane and have a death wish and rules of common logic are out the window, wouldn't they go about the attacks regardless?

Awlaki: Eh...you're treading on ground I'm not familiar with. Look, the NRA has one solid principle we believe in wholeheartedly.

AC: What's that?

Awlaki: There isn't a problem a gun can't solve.

AC: Poverty? Can a gun help with that?

Awlaki: Yup.

AC: How? Arm the homeless?

Awlaki: Really? Really?

AC: It's all I can think of...you could...oh, wait...you're not saying we should take'em out and shoot them?

Awlaki: I'm not saying. I'm just saying.

AC: That's pretty barbaric.

Awlaki: Then get a job.

AC: So a gun can solve any problem according to you.

Awlaki: Darn right. Look at that thing in Wisconsin.

AC: Now come on! You're saying shoot the protesters?

Awlaki: No! They have a right to be there, but not forever. Smelling, fucking hippies, get home and shower. But look, enough's enough. Government business needs to be done. If Generalisimo Walker had told the police to pull out a gun, the spineless hippies would run.

AC: Fine, whatever. Let's get back to the big point. You had a big NRA announcement.

Awlaki: Yes...you're sure no one's gonna know it's me.

AC: Not a soul.

Awlaki: 'Cause the guys in the NRA hate when a surprise is ruined.

AC: So why ruin it.

Awlaki: 'Cause I am bursting with pride. But seriously, no one can know. Last year, I let it slip that to our chapter president that his favorite dancer he gets private dances from at Touch of Class each Thursday was the one hiding in his cake.

AC: What'd he do?

Awlaki: He pistol whipped me.

(I pause for a minute, to see if Awlaki will be aware of the fact that if his chapter president reads this he will know exactly who I am interviewing. Instead, he pokes at his bellybutton. I continue with the interview)

AC: The announcement.

Awlaki: Once we get this whole, arm the students thing done, we're going to help the most helpless of Americans.

AC: The elderly who can't afford their heating bills.

Awlaki: God you're dense...I'm talking about the unborn. The fetuses...feati, whatever the uh...uh..uh...plural of fetus is.

AC: It's impossible.

Awlaki: Not really. We could look it up in a dictionary...oh, you're talking about arming the unborn. Again, I have to explain the common sense stuff. We've got the GOP by the short and curlies and the GOP has Planed Parenthood by the balls. Our GOP shine-boys, are gonna go to the Planned Parenthood folks and say, "Look, we're cutting all your funding." And their gonna be like, "Oh no please don't do that, Mr. Congressman. We need it to make sure we kill every unborn child, so we can impregnate unwed mothers again then we'll have fun and kill another child." And the GOP will say, "You can't do that, but if you want to join us in a good faith display of bipartisanship, you will agree to stop doing abortions." And they'll be like, "No way! We like dead babies!" And the GOP'll be like smacken'em in the face, and be like, "Bitch I wasn't finished. No more killing babies. Instead, when a mother comes in for an abortion, you're going to reach up there and pretend to do the abortion" (Awlaki makes a sound like a vacuum cleaner) And it'll sound like that. And the GOP guy we'll be like, "So when you're making it sound like that, you'll slide a little Derringer up that deadbeat mother's vajayjay. And as the mother is leaving the concentration camp...I mean Planned Parenthood the fetus will recite the line on the Derringer, 'You didn't want to bring me into this world, so I'm taking you out of it!' And Bam! Pulls the trigger. Dead sinner." And the Planned Parenthood babe will be like, "Yay, I'll do it! Now open it up and whip out your big gun."

(This is not an entendre. Awlaki by this point has literally jumped to his feet opened his jacket and whipped out an unbelievably large gun. He says it's a Desert Eagle. I'm beside myself at this point)

AC: Okay, two problems.

Awlaki: Nu-uh!

AC: How will a fetus know how to shoot a gun?

Awlaki: It's what makes us human. God gave us that gift all the way back to the Garden, how to shoot. In fact, people don't know this, but being expelled from the Garden is actually a metaphor for the fact that God didn't kick us out of the Garden; he just took our guns away for a few thousand years.

AC: Problemo numero dos. Don't you think the child will expire once the mother is dead?

Awlaki: Not if God doesn't want him --

AC: Or her.

Awlaki: Fine... her, not if God wants it to die. We're doing God's work, ipso facto, the child will live.

(Beat. I'd punch him, but he has a gun. Which I am totally aware affirms that the people with guns are the ones who have power.)

Awlaki: Pretty bad ass plan, huh?

AC: I think I need a white hat.

Oil spills, the GOP, and More Corporate Welfare

by Nick Star

A Gallup poll published last week reports that a mere fifty-nine percent of Americans believe that BP should pay for the entire cost of the oil spill, no matter the cost. Even a headline above the fold in Friday’s New York Times questioned the president’s demand for the oil company to clean up their own mess. My question is, who do the other forty-one percent think should pick up some or all of the tab?

Should taxpayers be picking up a portion? That seems to be the suggestion coming from the right. On Thursday, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX6) apologized to Tony Hayward for the White House’s “shakedown” of BP in requiring them to pay for the clean-up and damaging effects of the oil spill. Mr. Barton apologized for the apology later that day, but made clear that he still did not agree with the $20 billion escrow account set up to ensure that neither dividend payments nor bankruptcy would cheat gulf coast residents out of compensation. If the past two months of constantly increasing flow rate estimates and failed “kill” attempts have taught us anything, it should be that $20 billion will not come close to paying for the actual damages and clean-up efforts. The republicans seem to be mixing up their populist and pro-corporate talking point memos as Mr. Barton was not the only republican complaining about the “extortion” (Michele Bachmann, R-MN6). Rand Paul even broke from his nostalgia for the Jim Crow era to call the White House’s initial rhetoric calling for BP to clean up their own mess “un-American” on Good Morning America, before it was cool. John Boehner (R-OH8) followed suit counting the federal government as one of the two parties “responsible for the oil spill” who should take some “responsibility for what’s happening” in the gulf. The solution Louisiana legislature proposed was a day of prayer. No word on how long we are to wait to determine its efficacy.

Who, then, should share financial responsibility if charging BP for their own mess will rock the foundations of democracy, and according to Rush Limbaugh, is an attack on the constitution and will somehow fund ACORN. Of course we know who: the taxpayers. (Perhaps we can use the money we save by telling less privileged children to eat out of dumpsters for the summer, at Rush’s suggestion http://mediamatters.org/research/201006170053) Once again we arrive at the disconnect in the minds of conservatives between reality and the Ayn Rand fantasy world where they try to live. The federal government cannot contribute to the cleanup effort, pro bono, without using taxpayer money. How do you suppose the teabaggers will feel about more corporate welfare, GOP? Then again, we all know that no matter what President Obama, BP, or anyone else does, it will still all be Obama’s fault.

Sean Hannity Goes to Heaven-a play by Luke Krueger

(Stage is dark. Bright light slowly floods the stage, blinding the audience. A figure steps into the light so we see only his outline. The light fades to normal stage lights. The man is Sean Hannity. Attached to Hannity is the Statue of Liberty perched on his right shoulder, much like the cover to his book _Deliver Us from Evil_. To his left is St. Peter at a desk. The desk has a computer and is piled high with thick folders. St. Peter looks tired, worn, and resembles something of a young office temp)

PETER: Mr. Hannity. Have a seat. My name is--

HANNITY (moving to Peter): Oh, you need no introduction, sir. I'm a big fan. Big, big fan. (Shakes St. Peter's hand).

PETER: Right. Please, have a seat.

HANNITY (sitting): You look younger than I thought.

PETER: Perk of the job, makes up for the ungodly hours.

HANNITY: It's nice to have you here.

PETER: I don't follow.

HANNITY: This is my show right?

PETER: No. It's heaven.

HANNITY: That's what a lot of my viewers think of the show. I've got the E-mails to prove it. (laughs)

PETER: Uh-huh. Mr. Hann, um Hannity, right?

HANNITY: Call me Sean.

PETER (looking at a file): That's against protocol.

HANNITY: Sure, I understand. Can I call you Pete?

PETER (doesn't look up from the file): Absolutely not. (sets the file down) It says here you were a political talk show host.

HANNITY: I like to say soldier in the Army of God/freedom fighter.

PETER: Well, let's stick with talk show host. What exactly is that?

HANNITY: You never saw it?

PETER: No. (pats the stack of files) I've got enough to do.

HANNITY: Well basically, I engaged guests in political discourse to get to the heart of political issues that are important to the country.

PETER: And which country is this?

HANNITY: You don't know?

PETER: Frankly they're all kind of the same, and up here it makes little difference.

HANNITY: Oh, well, um, the United States of America.

PETER: Oh, yes, I know that one. We get a lot of people from there. Nice folks, but a little fat if you ask me. Um, what's that on your shoulder?

HANNITY: Lady Liberty.

PETER: A memento of your wife?

HANNITY: You don't know Lady Liberty?

PETER: The name sounds familiar. I think that was the stage name for a stripper I admitted not too long ago.

(Pause. Hannity is a little uncomfortable)

PETER: I'm not saying your wife is...

HANNITY: No, of course, I get what you mean. Now, I wanted to ask you --

PETER: Let me ask the questions. There are a number of folks I need to get to before lunch. So to start: What do you think your greatest accomplishments in life were?

HANNITY: My show.

PETER: I mean something that made for a better planet.

HANNITY: My show.

PETER: Besides that. Deeds. What did you do besides talk?

HANNITY: I did my darndest to make sure America was the Christian country it's always been; I made sure the second ammendment was protected, and I made sure hard working families kept the money they earned and that it didn't go to pork projects of the federal government.

PETER: God, guns, and gold?

HANNITY: Sure.

PETER: Sort of like Columbus.

HANNITY: Yeah! Just like that. By the way, I noticed on my way in that he wasn't with the fifteenth century crowd.

PETER: Yeah...how 'bout that.

HANNITY: He got his own suite?

PETER: Let's start with the glory of God part. How did you work for that?

HANNITY: I lead the defense when secularists declared war on Christmas. I fought to make sure kids could pray in school.

PETER: They can I thought.

HANNITY: Well, sure, but it's not mandated everyday.

PETER: What if someone's not Christian.

HANNITY: I was trying to prevent that. I was trying to make sure God was protected in our schools, in our courts, in our homes, across this great nation.

(beat)

PETER: Let me get this straight...you were defending God?

HANNITY: Someone has to.

PETER: Someone has to...stand up for...the Almighty?

HANNITY: The liberals won't.

PETER: Do you think, God is so weak that he needs to be defended like a little brother who's getting bullied on the playground?

HANNITY: No. It's just...I saw God disappearing from America.

PETER: Isn't America continent?

HANNITY: You know what I mean.

PETER: No I don't. I've got a Sunday tee time with God on the links every week. He's not disappearing.

HANNITY: What's his handicap?

PETER: I'm still not clear, why did you have to fight for God? Is he so weak?

HANNITY: The US is a land founded by God-fearing Christians --

PETER: No it wasn't.

HANNITY: Yes it was. And I was saving my country from falling out of favor of the Almighty. Don't you start telling me what God had intended for my country.

PETER: Didn't you read that one little part in the Bible, where Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world"?

HANNITY: That's Old Testament. It doesn't count.

PETER: It's in John.

HANNITY: Oh.

PETER: Hmm.

HANNITY: What?

PETER: It says here you titled a book, _Deliver Us from Evil_.

HANNITY: It was a best seller.

PETER: It's also level two blasphemy.

HANNITY: What!

PETER: You took a piece of the Lord's prayer as a title to sell books.

HANNITY: That's not blasphemy.

PETER: You want me to show you the regs? (beat) Let's just keep moving. The second amendment, as I read it here is about arming a well regulated militia.

HANNITY: It's a little more trickier than that.

PETER: Did you serve?

HANNITY: Huh?

PETER: Were you in the Army, or militia or whatever?

HANNITY: Oh, no.

PETER: Did your country have a draft?

HANNITY: Yes, we did.

PETER: How'd you not get drafted?

(short pause)

HANNITY: The funny thing about the second ammendment is that it goes beyond that narrow interpretation, and it guarentees all Americans can have a gun to protect them and their families.

PETER: And protect God?

HANNITY: Well, sure, they're protecting the safety and lives of their fellow citizens so they can lead a wholesome life in service to God. So in a way, sure, I was making sure that God was protected.

PETER: So you wanted everyone to have a gun?

HANNITY: Law abiding citizens, yes.

PETER: How do you know?

HANNITY: Know what?

PETER: That they'll always be law abiding citizens. I mean one day, couldn't someone just break the law and use the gun illegally?

HANNITY: Sure, but that's impossible to ever know and just --

PETER: The chance you have to take? Couldn't you just not let people have guns?

HANNITY: See that's the problem. Then only the criminals would have guns.

PETER: And the police.

HANNITY: Sure, but they can't be everywhere. What if someone and their family were killed.

PETER: They'd come here.

HANNITY: Is that right?

PETER: You saying Heaven isn't a good place to be?

HANNITY: No! That's...I'm not saying Heaven is a...a...a bad place but why should we hasten someone's return to the Father. Don't they have a right to life?

PETER: Oh God, you're one of them.

HANNITY: Well but do you get what I'm saying? About the guns?

PETER: No.

HANNITY: We need them so people can be safe.

PETER: Don't guns kill people?

HANNITY: Exactly, that's how they keep us safe.

PETER: Sounds like doublespeak.

HANNITY: Well, we'll agree to disagree.

PETER: No, we won't. That's not an option. It's doublespeak.

HANNITY: People need to hunt. How 'bout that?

PETER: Fine. Let's move on.

HANNITY: I just want you to know the important facts about this issue.

PETER: Why?

HANNITY: So you understand that my intention behind fighting for the second amendment was for the good.

PETER: Moving on. Pork projects. Explain.

HANNITY: I wanted people to keep the money they earned and not be taxed by an inefficient government that would spend it on silly wasteful programs.

PETER: Like war.

HANNITY: No war is necessary.

PETER: That's good.

HANNITY: What?

PETER: Well, you never served in the military so you have no ulterior purposes when war starts.

HANNITY: I can explain my lack of service --

PETER: It's okay. So if the people...wait, it says you were in favor of tax cuts for the wealthiest of your country.

HANNITY: They earned it. God's blessings fell upon them as demonstrated by their good fortune. They should keep it.

PETER: So the poor are being punished by God?

HANNITY: Yes, but they can work their way back into his favor and get rich.

PETER: You never heard, "A cammel has a better chance of getting through a needle's eye than a rich man does getting into heaven"?

HANNITY: I made it policy not to read Islamo-fascist material.

PETER: Jesus said it.

HANNITY: Look, they had a right to their money to do with it as they want. And rich people aren't all bad guys. They donate to charity. It's great for tax breaks.

PETER: So they got more tax breaks on top of the others by donating to charity?

HANNITY: Great system.

PETER: Seems disingenuous. (to himself) God, I wish for the days of render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's. (To Hannity) So what other wasteful programs did you fight against?

HANNITY: Socialized medicine.

PETER: What's that?

HANNITY: It's socialism.

PETER: And...?

HANNITY: It's bad.

PETER: Why?

HANNITY: Because it's socialism.

PETER: Why is socialized medicine bad?

HANNITY: Because it's socialist.

PETER: Can it kill people?

HANNITY: Sure. That's what socialism does. It's an incidious dogma that looks to wipe from the earth capitalism.

PETER: Capitalism is good?

HANNITY: Bestowed on us by God himself.

PETER: I don't recall the word capitalism in the Bible.

HANNITY: You look; it's in there.

PETER: So explain socialized medicine. I'm not familiar.

HANNITY: Basically, it would tax all the rich people in order to give every person healthcare. It's asinine.

PETER: How?

HANNITY: They want healthcare, they can get a job that gives them healthcare.

PETER: That's a bit of an oversimplification. I just processed a guy who died; worked eighty hours a week, at three jobs, and the companies he worked for wouldn't give him full time hours because then they'd have to pay for health insurance.

HANNITY: Of course, the companies have a bottom line and a responsibility to their stock holders to turn a profitt. That's capitalism.

PETER: It killed him.

HANNITY: Look, I'm not going to get into the economics; you obviously are unaware of how this all works, and I understand because you got bigger things to take care of. But this is the best system we have and people deserve to keep the money they make, and not be taxed to death.

PETER: Except for a war.

HANNITY: Right. We need those.

PETER (jotting down notes in the file): So let me get this right: Your entire life was spent making sure people had guns, which kill people, and also making sure people didn't have health insurance, which could have saved people.

HANNITY: Now, who's over simplifying.

PETER: Excuse me?

HANNITY: Look, I don't need to get dressed down by some office temp. There's no way you are St. Peter.

PETER: You see the name on the door? I'm the real deal, hoss.

HANNITY: Oh, I see! You're a John Kerry lover! Jesus, you Libs, just can't get it through your thick skulls about issues that are more complicated than you will ever know.

PETER: I know quite a bit.

HANNITY: You don't know about America.

PETER: Because we don't care about that here! Mr. Hannity, I'm sorry, but you don't make a strong case for entry. It seems like you spent your whole life making a name for yourself on God's coat tails, and making sure people were expedited to death.

HANNITY: Is this Heaven or Nancy Pelosi's girdle? I don't have to sit here and take this.

PETER: You're right you don't.

HANNITY: You liberal pinheads have destroyed everything. The US, Heaven, everything.

PETER: There's the door, Michael will escort you down.

(Hannity leaps across the table and grabs Peter by his shirt)

HANNITY: You listen to me. I'm Sean Hannity. That might not mean much to you but on Earth it sure as hell does. Now, I'm not going to sit here and let you tell me I'm a good or bad man. Who the hell do you think you are? You go out there, and you talk to anybody from America, who's died in the last twenty years, and I guarentee they will tell you to let me in to Heaven.

(Peter effortlessly removes Hannity's hands. He holds him by the wrists. Hannity is in pain)

PETER: The thing is, Heaven is not a democracy. We don't admit by vote, and frankly, if I go out there, and ask of you, no one remembers who you are because in Heaven your deeds on Earth are like bile here. We have no interest in it, and people soon forget the petty jibes and twaddle you kicked around on the idiot box for so long.

(Peter releases Hannity)

PETER: Now get out of my office.

HANNITY: Fine, I get it. The liberals took over.

PETER: Get out!

HANNITY: I will. This isn't Heaven. This doesn't represent the God I know.

PETER: Of course not, because you invented some non-existent God to sell books and get ratings.

HANNITY: Oh, piss off you liberal pile of horse crap. I'm gone.

(Starts to exit)

PETER (Pulling a post-it note from the file): Mr. Hannity. Leave the Statue. I've got a post it note here from up on high that says you dishonored they symbol.

HANNITY: Make me!

PETER: Do we really have to do this again?

(Peter starts chasing Hannity around the office, until Peter finally trips Hannity. With Hannity on the ground, Peter removes the statue from Hannity's shoulder and places it on the desk. Hannity gets up)

HANNITY: Fine, I didn't want it anyway. It's French. It was made by a guttless, coward Frenchman. You can have it.

(Hannity exits. From offstage we hear him shout)

HANNITY: Heaven's full of a bunch of liberal bastards!

PETER (sitting back down behind his desk. Shakes his head. Picks up a phone): Janice, who's next? / How many are there? / Forty? / Yeah, I know. That is a lot for one day / Let's just fast track them / No, I think He'll approve. They're babies, and their moms didn't have access to prenatal care. Just have the paperwork for me to sign when I get back from lunch.

(blackout)

The Tax Cut You Can't Afford

By Nick Star

In recent days I have seen a discouraging and confusing surge in the number of "fair tax" bumper stickers on the road. Yesterday one such sticker was on a Nissan Sentra around 20 years old. My initial thought was "you moron, you can't afford a 'fair tax!'" The real problem with the 'fair tax' is that it is completely regressive, leaving the poor paying higher rates, and the ultra-wealthy paying almost nothing. Unfortunately, the gentleman is merely another victim of the wealthy convincing the poor to pay the taxes of the upper 1% for them.

A review of the FreeTax.org material, however, should sound many alarms for any reader with a 3rd grade education. The first, and most obvious, is that your federal income tax would be replaced by a 23% sales tax, tacked onto your current local and state taxes. In most areas this would mean around 30% sales tax, and in many places, significantly higher. The tax would also be imposed on food sales, which many states forgo at the present time.

But that 23% tax hike replace all of your income taxes? Nope! It only replaces FICA. You are still responsible for your state income tax, local income tax, social security tax, and Medicare tax, not to mention your property taxes. And of course insurance premiums will still be deducted from your check, but more on that later. According to FairTax.org, this would be enough to meet around 70% of the federal income tax it would replace. Not to worry about the $900B deficit though, revenues will increase eventually! While 23% is obviously way too low to pay the bills for all of the roads, schools, military and everything else we use, we will use their absurdly low estimate just for sake of argument.

So your bills for groceries and other consumable items will have a 30% tax on them instead of paying your FICA tax, at least that's all you will pay more for right? Wrong again! If you have ever bought a car you noticed that you pay a sales tax on that new car too. This, too, would be subject to the tax. When you take that car to be repaired, those are also subject to the 30% tax. And if the repairs cost 23% more, and your car insurance pays for those repairs, your car insurance will have to go up by 23% as well, to compensate for the increased repair costs. The same would be true for your homeowners insurance.

Not to worry about your escrow, insurance, car, and grocery, bills going up, in addition to everything else you buy, the government will give you a tax credit in the amount of the estimated taxes paid by a family at poverty level (not including the indirect increases to your other bills of course). The current level for a family of four is $21,200 annually.

According to FairTax.org, every economic demographic under $500,000 salary will save money on their tax bills. Yet somehow, more tax revenue will be collected than under the current structure. The only way for this to be true is if those making over half a million a year will pay significantly higher taxes. I find this hard to believe considering that this is the group of people who actually have money to save for the golden years. What is the tax rate on money you make, then put into investments? Zero. And the money used to vacation in Europe? Zero. The money used to buy lavish mansions? Zero. Granted, their escrow payments will go up too, but those are a much smaller portion of their income that those making the national average salary of somewhere around $50,000. If you buy your private jet elsewhere, you would even be able to escape paying that 30% tax on that too.

Remember that the 23% rate cited by FairTax.org retains the current, nearly trillion dollar deficit left to us by the über-fiscally responsible previous republican administration. That is to be made up by the - wait for it - stimulus provided by this new tax! Allegedly, a 30% sales tax will cause your discretionary spending to increase! When your kid wants a new DVD, and you know that new $30 Blu-Ray will, in fact, cost you $40, and the $75 dinner at your local chain family restaurant will cost you $100, you will be more motivated to spend money! But if, for some weird reason people start spending less money, that 23% tax rate will have to increase just to compensate.

FairTax.org does cite some ways that this will spark economic growth, but most are not related to the tax code. One such change would be to repeal the tax on exports. No mention of how that money will be made up. Granted, that may increase domestic exports. This would be a great thing for a country that, due to laissez-faire economics and the free trade policy of the neo-conservative movement, has lost its once large manufacturing base that probably saved our butts in World War II. Another alleged positive impact of the new tax policy is that, because your mortgage payment is not taxable, every homeowner would effectually receive a tax write-off for their home payments, even those who do not currently itemize. This would generate new home sales and would provide another economic spark. What is seemingly ignored, however, is that this same effectual tax rebate would now also be given to renters, as rent is also not taxable. While it is my belief that rent should be deductible anyway, this new policy would remove the incentive to buy a home, not strengthen it. Using the same argument, cocaine and hookers would become tax deductible!

One of the most valuable things humans learn as they grow is skepticism. When the head cheerleader tells you to vote for her for class president because she will double the length of lunch periods and make first period optional, you know not to believe her. When a guy calls you at dinner time and tells you an initial investment of your life savings in an unknown start-up company will leave you a millionaire a year later, you know not to believe him. And when some multi-millionaire from Texas tells you he has a plan to cut everyone's taxes and still make more money, read his plan before you slap his advertisement on your 1989 jalopy!

Elegy for a Public Option

This was sent to Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) today. If history proves to me anything, it is that I will not receive a reply from my senator, but alas, I'll hope.

Sir:

I am quite disappointed by today's news that the Senate will not allow a public option in the upcoming health reform bill. There are many millions of Americans, like me, who work hard for no benefits and soon they will be unduly burdened by Sen. Baucus' bill.

Sen. Baucus' plan is little more than the status quo. Only now, people who cannot pay for healthcare, will be required by law to pay, lest they incur fines for not doing so. This logic baffles me. People who cannot pay must pay or be fined? Once they're fined, they will be lighter in the wallet and still required to buy health insurance.

The plan to offer tax breaks and vouchers is laughable too. As is, at my income level, I will not qualify for vouchers. A large majority of the uninsured will not qualify for vouchers. And while tax breaks sound nice, they will not pay dividends until after tax season. Were I to be required to buy insurance, the promise of a tax break will do little to keep my bank from charging an overdraft fee.

I feel like our Congress is out of touch with America. Our citizens, who are working hard, full-time, trying to build a family, and have no chance to get ahead. Public polls support a public option. But I suppose that means little. Like Kierkegaard wrote, "...one can speak to a whole nation in the name of the public and still the public will be less than a single real man however unimportant." In this case though the public is less than sixty individual Senators.

I am quite disillusioned with the Democratic Party since its wresting control of the Senate and House in 2006. It would be much more advisable to vote Republican. At least then I'd know they would promise to do nothing for me and keep that promise. As is, every bit of hope I believed in, especially in 2008, has been squandered.

Please, give me some solace to believe that this country is still great. In the last nine years the only messages I have received loud and clear are: We don't count votes (2000 election), we start illegal and unfounded wars, tax breaks go to people with enough money as is, and a large portion of our citizenry are not worthy of a healthy life (instead we play the odds from day to day).

Perhaps I should convert to the Church of Christ, Scientist. Prayer seems to be my only healthcare plan.

Please feel free to send this to your senator.

Constitution Day

By Nick Star

In honor of Constitution day having been this past Thursday, it seems appropriate to have a brief discussion about the great document. Now, typically I like to look forward and not complain too much about the things that are already done, but the right wing talking point spouted out so often lately is that President Obama is shredding the constitution, mostly because he wants to make sure all Americans have access to health care, regardless of financial stature (so un-American!). My question is, "Where were these people when Bush was in office?"

Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Presumably, "promoting the general welfare" would imply access to at least basic health care, as without it you will almost certainly die at a much younger age than you would had you had it, but hey, the pre-amble isn't even an legal document.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free speech zones, protesters arrested simply for wearing T-shirts that say "Bush Lied," and reporters called and threatened by the White house, the first amendment was clearly not one of W's favorite. This is in sharp contrast with today's protest zones just outside of events - armed teabagers displaying signs with thinly veiled threats of assassination, un-accosted. I don't want to hear any crap about Obama trying to repeal the first amendment (or for that matter, the second)

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To keep this post under 30 pages, we'll just ignore the whole "A well regulated militia" part. The NRA does, and the amendment really is quite lengthy. Although Bush campaigned on not allowing the assault rifle ban to expire, when the day came, the NRA convinced him with great ease that the founding fathers dreamed of a country full of felons and mentally unstable half-wits armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as having said that the most important reason for the second amendment is to protect oneself against the government, but the folks at the Jefferson Library address this on their website, and no such quote is known to be made by him. I, also, hardly think he intended a democratically elected president to provide the blood with which to water the tree of liberty. And frankly, anyone who does should scare the crap out of you.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

No complaints here, as one of the few amendments Bush left alone, I never was forced to house soldiers in either my dorm or apartment. Thank you Mr. President.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In all fairness, this amendment didn't apply. After all, it was written over 200 years ago! It was even older than FISA! Isn't there a statute of limitations on constitutional amendments? Sunset provision? Anything?

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendments V-VIII are the sole reasons that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was not on US soil. The cases of waterboarding, the use of dogs, force feeding foods banned by the detainees religion (and so on), are only allowed in the cases of people we are really, really afraid of. Didn't the framers add that caveat? No? They probably just forgot.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

No matter how much it wigs you out, the reason you hate gays is your religion. Banning gay marriage changes nothing in your life, but DOES disparage the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others, not to mention the fact that it revokes their freedom of religion. In fact, banning gay marriage would be implicit "establishment of religion." Any such amendment would be in breach of the first, and like it or not, not all religions condemn gay marriage.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If this is the amendment you think makes health care reform unconstitutional you should try reading it instead of listening to the Fox "News'" very own abridged version. If you cannot make it through the entire sentence of amendment X, then to be perfectly honest, you don't get to have an opinion. Seriously, I'm not even kidding about that.

Throughout history, it has been the liberals, by definition, who have provided rights to peoples. The slaves were freed by a liberal republican while the conservatives fought to maintain their right to own other human beings. The liberals gave women the right to vote while the conservatives fought for the right of men to be the sole "deciders." The liberals fought to allow blacks to go the same places as whites, while the conservatives fought for their right to never have to be near anyone who was a different color. Perhaps most importantly, when the liberals were fighting to break away from the United Kingdom, the conservatives fought for the right to continue to pay taxes to the King to make up for the tax cuts given to the East India Tea Company. Now the liberals are fighting for homosexuals to have the right to marry, while conservatives are fighting for the right to tell everyone else how to live and what they can do in their own bedrooms. The liberals are fighting for the right to have health care, even if you were born into a family that can't afford an extra $1000 per month, while the conservatives are fighting for their right to take advantage of the entire American public, and decide that poor or old people should die. After all, the God in which America trusts, only likes wealthy, straight (or at least closeted) white men, and the women they say are OK.