Friday, May 3, 2013

Why Not Cut to the Chase: Bill of Absurdities

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding rights both here and abroad.   More and more it seems that things which have only been mentioned in the realm of rights in recent decades tend to conflict with other rights.  The result is an increasing narrowing of the definitions of free speech and free press, and a few others.

Because the issues that come up are rarely cut and dried, confusion often ensues.  To solve this, I suggest introducing a Bill of Absurdities which enumerates those things which are not natural individual right, but rather conditions placed on others which serve to appease the various victims of the world and of life itself.

Here is an incomplete version of the Bill.  It's all we have so far.

All people and, in some cases, non-human persons have the right to never encounter a fear inducing situation

All people and, in some cases, non-human persons have the right to have their self esteem boosted and to never encounter the disapproval or dislike of others

No one shall ever have to endure an insult, or a compliment which could be interpreted as gender specific or somehow hurtful to others who did not receive a compliment

All people and, in some cases, non-human persons have the right to never be the recipient of a dirty look or stink eye (this will be expanded upon in a future bill to ban bullying and hostile sounding automobile horns)

All people and, in some cases, non-human persons have a right to stylish, new, comfortable clothes and shoes that fit well

All people and, in some cases, non-human persons have the right to proclaim themselves victims as long as they can cite one expert, author, or unsubstantiated fact or anecdote supporting such claim

All people and, in some cases, non-human persons have the right to seek and expect something for nothing in every facet of their lives

All people and, in some cases, non-human persons have the right to break shop windows and disrupt business areas, residential neighborhoods, and any other populated place, as well as the right to stop traffic if they think they have a good reason to be mad and that their cause is good

All people and, in some cases, non-human persons have the right to expect that they will never be harmed by objects of any kind; animate or inanimate. (this also covers things like falls)

All people and, in some cases, non-human persons have the right to any and all drugs, including alcohol, as the government sees fit

All these rights apply to all people and, in some cases, non-human persons but they may apply more to some people than others, depending upon unknown factors which will be determined by the official leaders at their discretion and leisure, however such determinations must not be considered permanently binding or be used as legal precedent, as all may change with different administrations, varying weather, and general societal mental health.  In short, the law applies equally to everyone, except for those who are more equal. Or less equal.  Whatever the case there is always to be a bit of equal there.

There are more, but this should give a good start.

Clarity is achieved because the Bill of Absurdities trumps the Bill of Rights whenever the two may conflict.  It lets people know what is likely to land them in trouble.  Maybe if this passes, fewer hours of media time will be wasted on celebrity and politician apologies.

It is confusion that undoubtedly leads a person to feel comfortable speaking his mind, only to later realize that by discussing, for example, hair do's he offended some group; the follicley challenged, in this case.  Next thing you know, the horrible person is making the rounds of the talk shows/news shows apologizing for being horrible.

It is so rare that I actually believe the apology that I can't remember the last time I did.  Most of the groups that insist on the apology do the best they can to grind it in and kind of control the person.  There is a real power dynamic, fed by the humiliation of the politically incorrect---those who violate the precepts and/or the letter of the proposed Bill of Absurdities.

Those people are figuratively placed in stocks in the public square so the fidgety public can pelt them with rotten vegetables.

The UN and some other fine money laundering outfits already have made efforts similar to the measures in this bill, but my proposal is more transparent and useful for those who seek guidance from the authorities for their behavior.

And it is a great tool for those who enjoy monitoring the discourse of fellow citizens/and/or non-citizens so they can report violations.   Once passed, they'll be able to enjoy that warm feeling that comes from seeing lives ruined and non-violent people put in prison, or executed.

I suggest a three strike rule.  Violate someone's enumerated Absurd Guarantees three times and you get dead.   Not sure how.  Probably stoning.  Again, this will reduce the volume of apologies in the media. Some people have gone on to say "Sorry" time and time again.  This way, you hear it no more than twice from the same individual because third violation is curtains.  And sentence should be carried out maybe a day or two after the infraction.  Again, such a policy would apply more equally in some cases than others, while there is always at least a grain of equal maintained throughout the process.

No need for trial.  Just being accused is enough.  It isn't the substance of the complaint but the gravity of the charge that is important.


About Me

My photo
Ballistic Mountain, CA, United States
Like spring on a summer's day


Blog Archive