Mailing List

Hello.

If you'd like to be on a mailing list to be notified when this blog is updated, please send the request to dragonfoureyes@gmail.com

Thanks

Rev. Randal

Earmarking Taxes

A week ago yesterday, I sent the following letter to my representatives - two republican, one democrat. I have yet to hear back from any of them.

My name is Randal Schaffer, and i am a recent transfer to Missouri from Washington State, and i have a question.

With the recent spate of people screaming that they don't want to pay taxes to support "socialized medicine" (but apparently have no problem paying taxes to fund wars for oil) i was wondering if there would be a way to "earmark" our taxes.

By this, i mean to make a space on our tax forms to allocate a certain percentage of our taxes for different non-essential government programs. Health care, the wars, government grants such as art, education, etc. I realize that a certain percentage would have to be set aside for basic government operations... after all, if we were given a choice i think that NONE of us would opt to pay the salaries of IRS auditors. But aside from that, why can't we allocate our other taxes? I can't think of a surer way for you, as our representative to TRULY understand what your constituents do and do not support.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

One of my loved ones who serves as an excellent sounding board for me (he is a moderate conservative, as I am a moderate liberal) observed that they wouldn't necessarily know what we, as their constituency did and didn't support because the amount that we pay in taxes is confidential. So I explained that I was thinking more on a district-by-district or state-by-state level than on an individual basis. After all, if 60% of the taxes from a representative's district were earmarked for health care BY HIS CONSTIUENCY, wouldn't it be difficult for him to argue that the people in his district don't want health care?

Maybe that's why they haven't responded to me. This scheme could wind up being very, very bad for corporate donations from… say… insurance companies. Or if no one wanted to continue funding the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, well, there goes any donation from GE or Boeing or the other companies that make so many millions of dollars off of the death and destruction of war.

I've gotta tell you that I'm relatively sick of the "tea parties". The first thing that I think is that these people's knowledge of American history at large and the Boston Tea Party in specific is a little hazy. The second thing is to wonder, if these people are concerned about their taxes being levied with no return, where were they six years ago when Bush wanted to start dumping billions into removing a foreign leader who never attacked us?

But… to my brothers and sisters who support the tea parties as well as the rest of you, I offer an olive branch in the form of an idea that will bring about tax reform that is both TRUE and RADICAL. Write to your representatives and let them know that you want to direct them on how to spend your taxes. Heck, feel free to use the letter that I wrote if you want, I don't mind. Just sign your own name so that they know that it's coming from their constituent.

And no, it won't mean more work on your taxes, beyond simply checking a box. Well, and staying informed on the issues but no more than you would on ANYTHING that you spend your money on. And if you don't even want to do THAT much extra work, that's fine too. There would be a box to mark to allow the government to continue deciding how to spend your money. Or waste it. Or whatever.

But none of us want that.

Do we?

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Political Blindness

Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers.

Why do we have such a hard time seeing our politicians for who and what they are?

Before I start this, full disclosure… I AM going to focus on the two politicians who made up the republican presidential ticket last year, because they are the two who have recently come to my mind. And before any of you start whining that I'm as blind about Barack Obama as any republican is about McCain or Palin, I will remind you that in this blog I have taken President Obama to task for not keeping his campaign promises. One in particular, while I'm thinking about it, is his promise to close the tax loophole that allows American corporate entities to profit by outsourcing our jobs. Get on it, Obama. You've only got eight years.

Now then. Let's start with Mr. McCain. I was watching a documentary recently called Poliwood, which is about a group of "movie people"; actors, producers, writers and directors who traveled to the democratic and republican primaries last year. In one scene, a group of actors (led by Tim Daly) sat down with a group of who I will assume for the sake of argument were "REAL AMERICANS" and not set dressing planted there by the republican party. One of these women got very upset about (not quoting here, quotes only to indicate dialogue) "How dare these hollywood types get up and think that they speak for the American people? How could someone who makes millions of dollars per year and own eight houses think that they can represent the American people?" All the while wearing a pin bearing the name of John McCain… a man who makes millions of dollars per year… and owns eight houses… and who SHE apparently thinks can represent her. Tim Daly was very nice to her. Personally, as a REAL AMERICAN, I can't help but wonder if she was dropped on her head. RECENTLY. I would also remind this lady that every actor who has ever run for or been elected to a federal post (Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred What's-his-name from Law and Order, Gopher from the Love Boat) have all been elected by REPUBLICANS. Personally, I can't think of a single democrat who has served in the house, the senate or the white house that used to be an actor. Even Clint Eastwood, who served for a while as Mayor of Carmel, California is a libertarian, which is a republican who smokes pot. Personally, although I call myself independent, the libertarians have more of my heart than EITHER of the two major parties.

The other one that came to mind recently is Sarah Palin. At my day job, I was ringing a customer up, thought that I had finished with her, and then, as her cart was rolling past me, I noticed that "Going Rogue" had gotten folded up into the child seat. I have a really difficult time calling this "Sarah Palin's Book" since she admits that she didn't write it. Anyway, I got the book out, and the customer said "I wonder how she got there?" I said, joking of course, "Probably hiding from the media." The smile vanished from the customer's face as she said "That's not likely." I said "I was just making a joke about the fact that she claims that the media's stalking her, and then every time that they stop paying attention to her, she does something to get them to pay attention to her again so that she can claim that they're stalking her." The customer's reponse? "Oh, you must be a democrat." You guessed that, right? I said "Actually, ma'am, I'm an independent. Forty years ago, when such a strange creature existed, I would have been called a "liberal republican"." She didn't know how to respond to that. But her initial response amused me. Like the statement that I made is true for democrats and false for republicans. The truth is the truth, people. Learn it, live it. This is not my opinion, just as saying that McCain makes millions of dollars and owns eight houses is not my opinion. It is simply the WAY THAT THINGS ARE. If Sarah Palin didn't want press attention, she wouldn't have been Miss Palmer. Or run for governor. Or run for vice-president. Or resign her governorship after less than six months into her new term. Or been on SNL. Or written a book. Or gone on the talk-show circuit to hawk it. THE WOMAN IS A MEDIA WHORE. And just like any whore, she finds it easier to sleep at night when she can blame her troubles on the source of her income rather than herself.

See them for who they are, people.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Cheap Wordplay

Periodically, with my love of words, I like to write about words that have either changed meaning or lost their meaning in our society. For instance, some years ago, I wrote about the word “extreme”, which is so overused in our culture to mean absolutely nothing. Everything is “extreme”. Therefore, according to the rules of logic, nothing is.

The word that I would like to tackle today is “cheap”. A customer at my day job referred to some product or other that we were carrying as “cheap”, and I, as I always do, said “We use the term “inexpensive”, sir... we don't sell “cheap”.” Which is true. The customer got mad at me, unfortunately, but let's face it... cheap is a loaded word. If it EVER meant “inexpensive”, then it hasn't for as long as I can remember. I never heard my dad refer to anything of quality as “cheap”. The only time that I ever heard him use the word to my recollection, it was always followed by “piece of shit”. He wasn't a man to spend extra money on style, but he would for substance.

Which makes me think of another point. If you look at the price of a product on the shelf and think “Wow, that's really cheap”, you're probably right. Talk to the store clerks and, if you have to, the manager, and if they can't justify an amazingly low price to you, don't buy the product. Or, if you do, don't bitch when it turns out to be a cheap piece of... well... you know.

As a for instance... I moved recently. Because I basically put what I couldn't fit into my car but didn't want to part with (memorabilia, my dragon collection, stuff that my kids made when they were little) into storage, crammed what I could into my car and sold the rest, I'm pretty much starting over with stuff. One of the things that I had to buy when I got here was a microwave. (Well, let's face it. I didn't HAVE to buy one, but I sure wanted one.) So I set out, expecting to get something... yes... you know it... CHEAP for under $50. Some cheap POS that I could get my fifty bucks worth out of before it blew up. I came across a store that we didn't have up north called “Ultimate Electronics”, and thought well, if they're like Fry's, then they will have microwaves and decent prices.

First thing that I see when I walk through the door? Hotpoint microwaves for $19.95. I was reassured that they were Hotpoint, a brand that I'm familiar with and not “Lucky Dragon” or something. So I asked the clerk about the deal. He said that they were actually a model from two generations ago that someone at Hotpoint had discovered mouldering away in a warehouse somewhere, and offered to Ultimate at a killer deal just to clear up the space.

See how that works? Now, had it been a “Lucky Dragon” microwave (not a real brand, as far as I know) for $19.95, I would have been immediately suspicious. Then, had I asked the clerk why they were such a screamin deal and he said “Oh, I don't know. That's just the price that they sell at.” Then the first thought through my brain would be “cheap”. The second would be “Piece of shit”. The third would be “I'm not buying this.”

So, from this day forward, can we please leave “cheap” to mean only an inexpensive product of dubious quality, and not use it to describe a low price? Because, let's face it, when you HEAR the word “cheap”, what do you think? Junk, right? CHEAP PIECE OF SHIT, yeah?

Okay.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Flying the Flag

There are times when it's appropriate to fly the flag halfway down the flagpole. In the Army, Air Force, Marines and civilian world, this is called flying the flag at half-staff; in the navy it is half-mast. These times are times of national tragedy. An attack on our homeland, such as 9/11. The death of a statesman or nationally revered figure.

To my way of thinking, the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007 weren't a cause to fly the flag at half-staff, although many did.

Neither, in my opinion, are the shootings at Fort Hood. The army… maybe the entire military should fly their flags at half-staff… it is an institutional tragedy. The people who lost loved ones, or who were personally effected by the shootings should… it is a personal tragedy.

It is NOT a national tragedy, and should not be a national day of mourning. Should we start flying the flag at half-staff every time some nutjob goes berzerk and shoots a bunch of people? I rather think not.

So why then are so many flags flying at half-staff? I think that I know. I think that it is people who want their piece of the pity pie. It's like when a cop was shot in Washington state several years ago and more than 300 cars joined his funeral procession. Most of these people had never heard of this cop before he got shot. When a news reporter asked one of these people why they joined, she put a simpering look on her face and tone in her voice and said "I just felt like I should… it was so sad." Bullshit. You just wanted your piece of that pity pie. And you got to be ON TV! SCORE! Leave these people to their private mourning, would you please, you inconsiderate pricks?

On a related note, I'm not sure why we're surprised when a soldier kills someone. Isn't that what they're trained to do? Like John Rambo said in First Blood (the only one of the series worth watching), "They taught us how to kill and put a rifle in our hands. No one ever taught us how to stop."

We no longer train warriors… we now train soldiers. For instance, for the current engagement in Iraq, soldiers are being taught to run kids over with tanks using paper cut-outs. Why? Because you never know when a kid is carrying an IED. I read a heart-breaking letter from the sister of a soldier who had a nervous breakdown during this particular training. See that little old lady over there who looks like your gramma? KILL HER! SHE MIGHT BE CARRYING A BOMB! Don't think, just SHOOT!

No, I am not raving against our men and women in uniform here. Anyone who knows me or has read this blog knows that I come from a military family, and have four years of ROTC (medical stuff kept me out of the military myself). To me, this is just another indicator that we shouldn't be involved in this mess in Iraq. It is a dishonorable, pointless war.

And our national hysteria over terrorism has led us to question whether or not the soldier, a Muslim named Nidal Malik Hasan is actually a TERRORIST! Come on, people. A question like that is a very short walk from imprisoning American Muslims just like the hysteria following the Pearl Harbor attacks led us to unjustly imprison countless Japanese-Americans in WWII.

We can't let that happen again.

Peace.

Rev. Randal

Repulican Rape Hypocrisy

Thank you for your patience, readers, and I'm sorry that I've been gone for so long. I moved in October from Washington State to Missouri, and am finally settling in enough to feel comfortable.

Seantor Al Franken recently won his first victory in the Senate, but to me it is a victory that highlights both the trouble with partisanship in our system, and the hypocrisy
inherent in the current incarnation of the republican party.

Franken's bill, the first that he introduced in the Senate, would prevent the government from awarding contracts to companies that “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” This is largely based on a 2005 case of a woman working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad who was raped by several male co-workers. When she tried to report this, she was locked in a shipping container for 24 hours with no food, drink or bed and then told that, if she left Baghdad, she would be out of a job. When she tried to sue Halliburton for this, a stipulation in her contract was pointed out that stated that she couldn't… instead she had to resolve it through mediation. Franken's bill passed 68-30.

Why would 30 senators vote against such a common-sense seeming piece of legislation? I'll answer that with a simple statement… all thirty were republicans. There are, as near as I can tell, two possible reasons for this. One is that they voted against it simply because it was introduced by a high-profile democrat, which is bullshit. The other is that, if they voted for this, it would piss off their corporate overlords, which is BULLSHIT!

One senator gave, as his reasoning, that the government should not base granting of contracts on alleged malfeasance. You know, like how the republicans are trying to get Acorn's contract pulled because a fake hooker and her fake pimp got advice from an Acorn worker on how to fake-break the law. Oops.

Another said that the government shouldn't interfere in how a private company treats its employees. First off, the government interferes in how private companies treat their employees ALL THE TIME! Child labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, overtime laws, the five-day work week… you name it. When I was a cab driver, I had a stack of government-mandated laws that I had to follow, and not one of these laws interfered with my ability to make a living. Secondly, this is not a case of government interfering with how Halliburton treats its employees, it is simply a statement that, if they continue in this fashion, they won't be able to get any more government contracts.

In an attempt at balance here, I went out to find comments by republican apologists on this issue, and I'd like to address what I found here.

The primary argument was that perhaps the bill was loaded with pork or worded in such a way to achieve some other nefarious goal, like the vote in Seattle several years ago that purported to ban smoking within 25 feet of public doorways, but actually banned smoking inside any public building such as bars and restaurants. Sadly, I was unable to find the text of the bill online. If anyone else can, please post it in comments. All I can say is that, until the republicans quit blocking democratic attempts to limit or eliminate pork spending in laws, that is going to be a fact of our system. And I have yet to find anyone who can state with certainty that this is the case. Also, NO senators who voted against this bill gave this as their reason.

For the record, for those who wish to use this vote as the basis for THEIR future votes, here are the thirty senators who voted against this bill. Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS). I recognize several of these as the partisan republican "usual suspects", including Brownback, Cornyn, Ensign, Graham, Inhofe, McCain, Sessions and Wicker.

Peace.

Rev. Randal