After recently reading a John Grisham novel, I have been thinking
a lot about peremptory challenges; the right for an attorney to reject a
limited number of potential jurors without having to give a reason. This is in addition to the right to reject a
juror for cause (an obvious bias that might keep the juror from reaching a fair
verdict).
A peremptory challenge is a challenge based on just a hunch, and
it is used to eliminate the odd duck who just doesn't fit. I like this idea, and think that we could use
the same principle on a number of occasions, both political and social. Of course, this power would have to be used
wisely, so I volunteer my judgement.
You're welcome!
The Supreme Court.
Probably no single American agrees with the opinions of all of
the Supreme Court justices. Today, the country is so politically polarized,
that most of us believe that about half the court should be replaced
immediately. Obviously, this can't
happen. For most of the justices on the
court, I have to admit that on a regular basis, I am either surprised by how
they voted or astounded at the logical arguments they present to back up their
opinions. Except for the
two judges for whom I have accurately predicted how they would vote for over a
decade. Not once have they
surprised me in the least with either their written opinions or their legal
arguments. Frankly, they are as useless
as an Athletic Director, and since they always vote against each other, both
can be safely eliminated. I am, of
course, talking about Clarence "Don't Wake Me" Thomas and Ruth
"Buzzi" Ginsberg. From both
the right and the left, let's eliminate both of them and start over with two
new judges.
The House of Representatives. Obviously, we must challenge a congressman
from each party--But, what should be our selection criteria? God knows, the entire bunch
should be thrown out on the simple basis of common sense--these leeches
have turned what was supposed to be a short term opportunity to serve their
country into a lifelong sinecure for bloated plutocrats, with a lower turnover
rate than that of England's House of Lords.
No, there is only one fair way to exercise a peremptory challenge on two
Congressmen: Intelligence.
So many choices and only two challenges....
For the Republicans, it has to be Representative Louie Gohmert
from Texas. To be fair, Gohmert may be
more deranged that dumb, but to quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid
does." Gohmert seems obsessed with
issues that some of us weren't even aware of.
During a House debate on the military's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"
policy, Gohmert began raving about bestiality and necrophilia! And Gohmert has frequently warned his
constituents to be on the watch for "terror babies"--infants legally
born here to visiting Al Qaeda operatives who will take advantage of their
legal citizenship to attack America after they are grown up. I have read his speech about "voting for
a black man" several times and have absolutely no idea what he is talking
about. (Probably, neither does Gohmert.)
The Democrat choice must be Sheila Jackson Lee,
also from Texas. Congresswoman Lee
(despite having served on the House Subcommittee for Space and Aeronautics),
while touring JPL once asked if the Mars Rover could could take
pictures of the American flag left there by the astronauts. One of her ex-staffers once confided that he
was astounded she hadn't complained of cost overruns on the Death Star. Her stock in trade is to denounce something
as racist, which she has done to causes as diverse as Pepsi Cola and the names
of hurricanes. A once stalwart
defender of Enron, she has supported Iranian military exercises and sales of
F-16 parts to Hugo Chavez. The nation
(and both parties) would gain from the exit of these two representatives.
The Senate.
Continuing in the bipartisan spirit, let's drop a senator from each
party. It won't change the political
makeup of Washington, the balance of power will stay exactly the same, and we
can let each political party pick a replacement. Let's pick two senators who are both
ideologues, two senators whose primary purpose in life seems to consist of
endlessly repeating the inane talking points from his political party. These two men are actually a hazard to anyone
standing between them and a working television camera. I invoke the peremptory challenge to Senators
Chuck Schumer and Ted Cruz. It is way
past time for both of them to go home and shut the fuck up.
TV Commercials. What
are the opposite ends of the television commercial spectrum? Personally, it would be so satisfying to
simply eliminate all the commercials made by Cancer Center Peg and Mesothelioma
Doug. (They have an illicit love-child
who makes commercials for sufferers of Reptile Dysfunction.)
After some serious thought (any thinking done while drinking
scotch) and quiet contemplation (while watching Top Gear) I finally realized
what the opposite ends of the commercial spectrum would be. All we have to do is eliminate all
advertising for television reality shows that do not guarantee the fiery deaths
of at least half of the contestants. To
balance this, we ban any fund-raising commercials to provide care for
fly-covered children in Africa. I see no
reason to send any money overseas when there are needy, fly-covered History departments
in this country.
Fast Food vs. Fine Dining.
Here, the choices are extremely difficult. There are so many fast food places that
deserved to be destroyed. At Colonel
Sanders, the "Drive Thru Window" sign is clearly a plea for
justice. McDonald's claims to have
served billions, yet they are only on their second cow. But, if we can only eliminate one
single fast food restaurant, it has to be Taco Bell.
Periodically, Taco Bell announces a new menu entrée--usually
something along the lines of the Chimi-Grande-Taco-Rita. Evidently, they believe we are too stupid to
notice that every single item on the menu uses the same damn 5
ingredients: ground meat, cheese, tomato,
lettuce, and a tortilla. I said ground
meat, not ground beef, because it doesn't taste like beef and have you noticed
that none of us has seen that chihuahua lately?
Besides, as we say here in New Mexico, "La comida Mexicana
sin cerveza es como hacer el amor sin
besar." (For you pendejo
gringos, that means "Would you like imitation refried beans with
that?")
On the other end of the spectrum, it pains me to say we have to
eliminate Ruth's Chris Steak House. This
is a fantastic restaurant, but there is simply no choice. Not only does a steak there cost more than
either of my first two cars, but simply watching the television commercials
raises my cholesterol count to dangerous levels. If I ever decide to commit suicide, I will do
it by eating there for a week. I'll have
a heart attack and exhaust my children's inheritance simultaneously. In the unlikely event I live to eighty, I may
live in this restaurant. Between meals,
I'll smoke large fat cigars wrapped in bacon.
I admit that this is a work in progress. There are so many areas where a peremptory
challenge would be useful, but this needs more thought (I'm running out of
scotch.) Would the Humvee be an
acceptable choice for the elimination of the Chevy Volt? Some might point out that production of the
Humvee has already been halted, but I think this is still a fair choice as
production of the Chevy Volt has never really started.
I'll get back to you as list grows. (I'll get more scotch.)
Sorry, but for Republican Congressman, I have to eliminate our own "god, guns, crotchal (it is a perfectly crumulent word) issues and oil Steve Pierce. Useless as teats on a boar hog....
ReplyDeleteCongress is a target rich environment, so you have easy pickings. And what would be your balancing Democrat?
ReplyDeleteChuck Schumer, Demigogue
ReplyDelete