Do No Harm

"Do no harm." It's the Hippocratic oath, taken by doctors upon their graduation from medical school. It should also be the goal of every law our government passes. It should be the mantra congressmen recite every time they enter the Capitol Building. Our government's job is to keep us safe... not to punish us.

Punishment is how totalitarian governments keep their people in line. The United States, since its inception, has believed punishment should only be reserved for those who harm others (even if administrations throughout our history have sometimes forgotten that.) That's why we call it justice.

But punishment is what banning gay marriage is all about. Plain and simple. You can't call it justice.

Gay marriage is not a thing that harms others. A law against gay marriage is not a law that protects people. It's a law that protects the moral beliefs of one subset of citizens, around 50% of Americans (most living outside major population centers) and thinning out by the day.

When a man marries a man, or a woman marries a woman, NOBODY IS HARMED. Nobody dies, no one suffers financial loss or bodily injury. Why make a law against it? Who is harmed?

-The Children! Oh, Think of the Children!!!!
-Themselves! Their immortal soul!
-God!
-Marriage!! Marriage is harmed!!!!

Let's take these one by one.

The Children! First of all, there's no law against single parents adopting children, there's no law against shitty parents, and there's no law against Octomom. Kids are screwed up everyday by heterosexual couples and other unorthodox unions. On the flip side, we see kids who turn out perfectly fine after being raised by single parents, unmarried parents, divorced parents, etc. Just because two people are of the same sex does not disqualify them from being good parents. No scientific study has ever shown same-sex parenting results in universal harm to children. In fact, the few examples we have are doing pretty well. To address another issue-- no kid has ever decided to become gay because they thought it was cool. People don't decide to become gay any more than they decide to breathe. It just happens. It's happened as long as there have been human beings. Somehow, our species lives on. If parents are truly horrific--abusive, neglectful--we already have laws to punish them.

Their Immortal Soul!!! Evangelicals are not evil people (most of them, anyway). As part of the evangelical belief system, it's a given that anyone who has not accepted Jesus will go to hell--eternal damnation alongside Hitler, Osama, and the guys who wrote the Macarena. Evangelicals don't want people to go to hell... because they CARE. So it is with love that they want to make gay people suffer. Because suffering a little in this mortal world will save them an eternity of suffering in the afterlife.

Well, that's sure nice of them... but not everyone has that belief system. In fact, Christianity itself is divided on the issue. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin... but is it a sin greater than any other? The Bible has a whole list of sins that people tend to do on a regular basis. Turning on the TV on the Sabbath is a sin. Yelling at your mom for nagging you is a sin. Not marrying your dead husband's brother is a sin. The list goes on. Christianity says that Jesus died on the cross so our sins may be forgiven. Judaism teaches that repentance can remove the severity of God's decree. I don't know what Muslim views are, but I'm pretty sure there's room to wiggle out of hell there too. Just because someone sins doesn't mean their soul is damned. A homosexual can do a great number of things to help the world and make it a better place-- surely the weight of a man's deeds can make up for a man's failings. That's what modern religion teaches us. In Ancient Greece, people used to be damned for the sins of their fathers!


God! Once again, not everybody believes in this guy (or, according to the movie Dogma, Alanis Morissette). And in America, we have separation of church and state, so the government should not be looking to protect God's feelings. All world religions believe God gave us free will-- the ability to rise, or the ability to fall. Why would he do that if he wanted us to force everybody to do his will? God gave us the ability to make our own moral choices because he wanted us to learn the wisdom of making those choices. If we proscribe morality--personal morality that doesn't affect the lives of other people--then we short circuit free will. We take away the meaning behind making a moral choice. If there is no choice, then what can we learn? We're not people, but walking reactions to stimuli. God only knows that we lived our lives afraid of punishment, not that we were wise enough to make the right choices.

Plus, he's a big guy. There are way worse things humanity does to hurt his feelings.

Marriage! Is a word, a concept. At the very most, an "institution." It is not a person. Gay people getting married does not harm people in heterosexual marriages. Heterosexuals have done enough damage on their own. Look at the divorce rates, episodes of Teen Mom on MTV, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. Are we really saying that the institution of marriage is under threat because MORE PEOPLE WANT TO GET MARRIED?? That's ridiculous. If anything, the fight for gay marriage has shown just how important a loving, official union.is. If a group of people are fighting this hard for the right to be married, then it must be something worth fighting for. Why exclude them? Because they don't look like you? Because they can't have kids? Does a sterile, interracial punk rock pierced-to-the-nines couple threaten other people's marriages? In the 1950s, a lot of people may have thought so. Only bigots and cranky old people do now.

Are you going to say, "Well, I guess I won't get married, because if the gays do, its not special anymore"? What are you, three years old? You wanted the toy truck when you were the only kid who had one, but now that Jimmy and Sarah and Maxwell got one--screw that, its not cool anymore? Are you going to say, "I'm going to get divorced because Sam and Dave are getting hitched"? Why? So you can be available for a little gay union of your own?

Will gay marriage open the door to polygamy? Incest? Beastiality? Well, only if you believe love between two consenting adults is the same as those things. Which it is not. Power imbalances, issues of consent, potential for abuse and coercion is just not as present in a union between two equals.

President Obama is right to support Gay Marriage. Now he's got to follow through. It's time for America to grow up and stop acting like children. We're at war overseas. The economy sucks. Cadbury Creme Eggs are smaller than ever. THERE ARE BIGGER PROBLEMS WE SHOULD BE DEALING WITH.

Do no harm. We follow that oath, and America stays alive. We break it, and the patient dies on the table.

Why The 99% Doesn't Like The Occupy Movement

Remember when it was called "Occupy Wall Street?"

Remember when the protests were near the offices of the investment banks and trading firms that helped bring on the financial crisis?

Remember when "Occupy Wall Street" framed the debate as, the 99% vs. the elites who abused their role in the financial system and gambled with the fiscal health of the United States?

Well, that's all in the past.

What is "Occupy" now? Well, just read the description of their "May Day" (emphasis mine):

"We are here to celebrate our power as people who have found unity of purpose. Today we assert our power as working people. We declare our solidarity with all people of the world. We affirm our rights to economic security, to meaningful work, to health care, to public services, to safe and healthy communities, to free, quality public education from pre-K to college, and to civil liberties..."

Wait, there's more!

" We seek an end to an era wherein a handful of political and economic elites govern in the name of democracy. We want an end to assaults on our human rights. We want an end to tax breaks for the rich. We want an end to the attacks on our right to organize. We want an end to the mass incarceration of people of color. We want an end to all wars and an end to the militarization of our foreign policy. We want an end to our current political system that is bought and paid for by 1%- ers. We want legalization, equal rights, civil rights, and a path to citizenship for immigrant working families. And we want citizenship to mean, as it should, that all people are to be treated justly and equally by their government."

 Phew! Anything else, occupyers? To the schedule of events!!!

"Guitar Workshop and Rehearsal with Tom Morello

Meditation Flash Mob followed by Kirtan

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two-Spirit, Trans and Gender Non-Conforming Contingent! 

Occupy the Rent Guidelines Board: A Tenants’ General Assembly"

 So... in short, Occupy is now about every single liberal cause and hippie movement of the last 60 years, with a grab bag of anarchist ideas and communist philosophies. Their goal is to not only end corporate malfeasance, but also to return to a simple way of farm living and learn guitar.

To accomplish these targeted, "unified" goals, which are absolutely all related to one another and all have the same urgency and context, the May Day organizers have planned to hit the 1% right where it hurts... right in the gut of the 99%.

Yes, that's right. In order to teach those "government elites," they're going to help shut down transportation and commerce for the day. In other words, make it really difficult for working people to get to work and do their jobs. This will hurt the 1%, because they'll be forced to either stay home in their mansions and play tennis in their indoor recreation areas, or they'll need to take their helicopters to work or risk being late for work at the companies they own. HOW WILL THE 1% SURVIVE!!?!?!

Surely, when the 1% see the streets they rarely ever travel on blocked by guitars and wannabe-Buddhists, they'll immediately surrender, handing Jimmy Ninetynineperecent the keys to the Capitol Building. "We so sorry, 99%," Mr. Moneybags will say. "Your rendition of Knocking on Heaven's Door while blocking traffic on 5th Avenue really spoke to my soul, and convinced me to take you completely seriously. I admired how organized and focused your movement is. The 526 things you said you wanted? Done."

And then the 99% will rejoice!! Who cares if their lives were made more difficult and annoying for a day!? Who cares if someone lost their job because the ladies boutique they worked for had slow business due to the Occupy protest blocking the street? Or an ambulance couldn't get through to save a life because Harry Hippieshoes was leading a parade of Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Israeli Mexican Immigrants For Legalization of Marijuana and Exotic Animal Ownership?

Okay. Enough with the sarcasm. But as one who identifies with many of the 828.3 causes the Occupy movement represents, I'm terribly frustrated. Because instead of fighting for something everyone can get their head around--the out-of-control corruption of our financial system by investment banks, risking our money to help themselves get richer--the movement is instead broadcasting a muddled message and carrying out actions that only seem designed to malign police officers and the working class. A YouTube video of a cop pepper-spraying protesters gets a lot of clicks, and makes people mad at cops, but does it really do anything to focus our attention towards the growing gap between rich and poor in America? No.

"Why is the general public so negative about the May Day protest?" an Occupyer asked the popular social news site Reddit--a site that helped drive the initial protests. The best answers could be summed up like this:

"When you inconvenience and annoy the common man, he does not rally to your side. He sees you as the enemy, not what you're fighting against."

That's why the Occupy movement will fail. They're occupied with too many things, and they're occupying the wrong places.
  

The Best Way To Set Up An Office Lottery Pool

Alas, I did not win the $656 million dollar jackpot. The best I did was win $4.

While no winner has been officially identified, The New York Post is reporting that a McDonald's employee in Maryland has claimed the winning ticket. Her story sounds a little sketchy, but if she is indeed the winner, the woman may have a fight on her hands if she wants to receive all her winnings.

This is because she was the buyer of the tickets for her coworkers' office pool. She and other McDonald's employees allegedly all put in $5 for a bunch of tickets. If any of the tickets won, then they would all split the money.

The woman claims the ticket that won was not part of the pool, but a separate ticket she bought herself.

The debate over all this makes me mad. Because it seems unfair that idiots can win so much money.

I was responsible for buying the tickets for my office pool. Yet, I will not be divvying up the $4 I won among the 13 others who contributed. The winning tickets I bought separately, for myself. And there's no way my coworkers can argue against that. Why? BECAUSE I SENT THEM ALL OUR POOL LOTTERY NUMBERS IN AN EMAIL BEFORE THE DRAWING.

If you do this, THERE'S NO DEBATE. No lawsuits after the fact. It would be impossible for you to know what the winning ticket would be beforehand (if you did, you certainly wouldn't need to go into an office pool). So when you send everybody the numbers pre-drawing, nobody has an argument if different numbers--the ones you purchased for yourself-- end up being the winner. There's a paper trail, undeniable. It's an unbeatable system.

An AP article today states, "Numerous group winners have been sued by people claiming to have pitched in for the ticket, creating messy fights over what money will be left once the attorneys are paid. And most state lotteries don't give much official guidance on how to avoid such problems."

The reason why the state lotteries don't give people guidance on office pools? BECAUSE ITS F-ING OBVIOUS!

It took me 2 seconds to snap the photo above and send it to my coworkers. For the drawing last Tuesday, I typed in the numbers, but it took too long, so this was easier. After the drawing, everybody knew that we lost. If I had won the jackpot with a different ticket, they would have no claim. The best lawyer in the world couldn't win a case against me. I have the emails to support my story. There's no way my winning ticket could have been the office pool's ticket, because I sent the numbers beforehand and couldn't have known which ones would win.

So consider this blog post a guide on how to run an office pool:

Step 1. Who's in? Write down the names and emails of everyone in the pool.

Step 2. Check off their name when you receive their payment. (My pool only put in $1 each, but I know some people put in a lot more.)

Step 3. After giving everyone a last chance to contribute, buy the tickets for the number of people who have paid up (including yourself). Put these tickets aside.

Step 4. Buy whatever tickets you want to buy for yourself. Keep them separate from the ones you bought for the office pool.

Step 5. Email the group (only those who have paid up for the pool) the numbers on the tickets you bought for them.

Step 6. Then wait for the drawing. Good luck!!

That's really not so hard, people.

If you use these guidelines for your office lottery pool, then simply send me part of the winnings as a thank you. You can afford it.

Jewish Fantasy Baseball 2012: The Promised Land, Finally?

The Sluggin' Semites are back for 2012, new, improved, more Jewish than ever!

The year 2011 was a rough one for the chosen team, my annual squad of Jewish major leaguers. While Ryan Braun won the MVP award, Ian Kinsler reached career highs in home runs and steals, and Sam Fuld entered the national consciousness with a stunning (and running) start to the season, injuries and ineffectiveness took their toll. Bear Jew Kevin Youkilis went down with back and hip injuries and a sports hernia. We lost Ike Davis to an ankle injury. Rookie Jason Kipnis blazed through 18 games, but strained his hamstring and didn't come back strong. Danny Valencia didn't produce like he did the year before. Ryan Zimmerman was out for extended periods with a torn abdominal and a strained hamstring and... well, the list goes on.

Despite all that, the 2011 Jew Crew finished in 6th place out of 12 teams, and earned a playoff berth for the first time. The team was aided by honorary Jews Derek Jeter, Mat Latos, Michael Pineda, Matt Garza and Yovanni Gallardo (I had to fill out my pitching staff somehow).

This year, I joined a CBS Fantasy Baseball league, "Omens of the Apocalypse." A solid draft landed me nearly everyone I wanted. The one player that didn't make it, however, leaves a gaping hole in my lineup I'm unsure how to fill:

C		Montero, Jesus (C) SEA	Well, Jesus was a Jew. Maybe not Jesus Montero. He keeps the seat warm for real Jew Ryan Lavarnway, Boston's rising minor leaguer.
1B		Berkman, Lance (1B,OF) STL	Not a Jew, but a longtime Homerin' Hebrews member, for his Jewish last name.
2B		Kinsler, Ian (2B) TEX	Love this nugget from Kinsler's wikipedia page: "Youkilis will always say something to me on the bases. 'Happy Passover,' he'll throw something at me."
3B		Youkilis, Kevin (3B) BOS	The clear Rebbe of this squad, Youk has been a staple since the early days of Jewish Fantasy Baseball. Can he have a comeback year?
SS		Lemmerman, Jake (SS) LAD	I wanted Derek Jeter. I missed him by 3 picks. Now I have Jake Lemmerman. Jake cuts the challah, but its doubtful he'll make the Dodgers' major league roster out of camp. He's blocked by Dee Gordon, whom I may pick up, simply to have some stats here. I never thought I'd pine for the days David Eckstein was SS-eligible.
OF		Braun, Ryan (OF) MIL	I never believed for a second that Ryan was doping. Good Jewish boys don't do that sort of stuff. His high testosterone levels were clearly due to him being a mensch.
OF		DeJesus, David (OF) CHC	See Montero, Jesus. Keeping the seat warm for outfield possibilities Ryan Kalish or Nate Schierholtz. Where's Gabe Kapler when you need him?
OF		Schafer, Jordan (OF) HOU	Is Schafer Jewish? Well, an unverified source says he is. I'll take their word until Sam Fuld regains a starting spot.
U		Zimmerman, Ryan (3B) WAS	A Jew in name only (JINO), but a longtime Jew crew member. If he stays healthy, can have a monster year.
Bench		Davis, Ike (1B) NYM	Ike, the Matzo Ball Met, is Jewish and getting better every year. Could take over the first base or utility slot of the Sluggin' Semites early on if he proves to be all the way back from injury.
Bench		Kipnis, Jason (2B) CLE	The Jewish Baseball News has disowned Kipnis, much like Tevya in Fiddler on the Roof tore his clothes when Chava married the Russian guy. But Jason's dad was Jewish, making him eligible to go on Birthright. So he's okay in my book.
Bench		Valencia, Danny (3B) MIN	Please, Minnesota. Move Danny to shortstop. I've got too many third basemen. But Danny is a Star of David on the rise.
Bench		Fuld, Sam (OF) TB	Fuld nearly returned humanity to the blissful peace of the Garden of Eden last year, before a rough second half brought everyone back to the real world. If he breaks out again, there's a spot for him in the Major League Jews lineup.

Pitchers
SP		Buchholz, Clay (SP) BOS	Not a Jew. But Buchholz sounds vaguely Jewish. Call his inclusion "Zimmermania."
SP		Scherzer, Max (SP) DET	Ditto. The strikeout JINO had looked spectacular in camp.
SP		Shields, James (SP) TB	Shields is an all-star pitcher. He's not Jewish, but he deserves a spot because of the antisemitism he's had to deal with.
SP		Strasburg, Stephen (SP) WAS	Despite the name, probably not a Jew, as this site divines. But I'm going to keep believing as long as the strikeouts keep coming.
SP		Zimmermann, Jordan (SP) WAS	The first thing that comes up when you Google, "Jordan Zimmermann" Jewish, is this blog, and I am definitely not a reliable source. May be another case of Zimmermania, but I'll allow it.
RP		Nathan, Joe (RP) TEX	The guy's name is Joe Nathan. He's got to be Jewish.According to the Oxford University Press, "[The name Nathan is] from the Biblical Hebrew personal name Natan ‘given’ (i.e. by God). As a modern surname it is most frequently Jewish. Also, I need saves.
RP		Putz, J.J. (RP) ARI	Such a putz. Arizona's closer, and necessary comic relief for the Kaddish Kids.
Bench		Wolf, Randy (SP) MIL	Wolf, a JINO, gets this spot by virtue of his guaranteed rotation spot for Milwaukee and decent strikeout rate. However, if Jason Marquis, real Jew, makes the Minnesota starting five, then I'll be forced to make a switch.

Can this team kick some "tuchis" this year and win a playoff game? Are they destined for more? We may need to juice these guys up with Jewish penicillin (and pray a Jewish shortstop drops from the sky), but I'm confident this biblical bunch can do our people proud.

Florida: A Fine Place To Get Shot And Killed

In Florida, a man shot and killed a teenager because he thought the kid looked suspicious. The boy was guilty of buying skittles and iced tea, and walking on the sidewalk in the gated community where his father lives.

The national media has picked up the story and run with it. "The guy was a racist," seems to be the prevailing opinion.

But the race of the boy (or the shooter, a hispanic man), is immaterial. The biggest issue is the law that let the shooter get away with murder.

In Florida, it's perfectly legal to shoot someone and kill them. You will not be charged with a crime. All you need to do is claim self-defense. And that's it. You're off, scot-free.

According to a state website explaining the law:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself? A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are: Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

The problem is... this is all pretty vague. "Serious bodily harm?" What is that?

The page cites an example of an altercation where Florida law wouldn't allow you to shoot someone dead:

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Now, Trayvon Martin didn't have a garden hose. He had a pack of skittles. Iced tea. The only weapon he had were his hands. The man who shot him outweighed him by several pounds and was much older.

We don't know for sure who physically attacked who first. What is clear is that George Zimmerman, the shooter, was following the boy with the intention of confronting him. If it hadn't been for Zimmerman's actions, no altercation would have taken place.

What we have then is a scenario quite different from the one imagined on Florida's government website. This is not two neighbors fighting with garden hoses. In this scenario, a man started a confrontation with a boy, and when the argument turned violent, that man whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the chest.

If this is allowed to happen, with no charges filed, no arrests made, then what precedent does it set?? If this is the way the police interpret Florida's self-defense law, then is anything preventing any of these scenarios:

1. Man decides he wants to kill somebody, anybody. Walks down the street, deliberately goads a stranger into a fight. Purposely loses the upper hand, whips out his pistol, fires. Stranger is dead.

2. Man decides he wants to kill his wife. He shoots her. Puts a kitchen knife in her hand. "It was her or me, officers," he says.

3. Man sees suspicious-looking youths loitering in front of his store. He calls them a derogatory cuss word, tells them to leave the sidewalk. The kids yell back. One youth approaches. The man whips out his pistol, shoots him, claiming he feared the boy had a gun.

In the first scenario, the guy is a deranged lunatic. But none of that matters, according to Florida's self-defense laws. There is no way to prove the man's intentions to kill. All the evidence we have is the encounter on the street. Witnesses who arrive late to the scene may never see what started to altercation. They only see a man being attacked. The killer walks.

In the second scenario, the guy is a calculated killer. But where is the evidence of his intentions? Maybe the wife confided in friends and relatives that she feared her husband. But if she didn't? All you have is a guy trying to protect himself from his knife-wielding wife. The killer walks.

In the third scenario, the guy is paranoid. He sees youths, possibly of a different race, and he assumes they're there to rob his store. He initiates the entire conflict with his paranoia and racism. But he was, after all, outnumbered, and its perfectly understandable that he thought he was going to be attacked. Does he walk?

My point is, the Florida law creates an enormous gray area, where the difference between murder and self-defense comes down to unknowable intentions and differing points-of-view. The law shouldn't be something that rests upon the nuances of a crime. It should rest on the facts. A sure sign that a law is no good is when it's seemingly applied at random.

Trayvon Martin is dead because of George Zimmerman. This is a fact. But the law that allows Zimmerman to remain free? That's based on nothing more than assumptions. What kind of legal system treats the facts of the case with contempt while giving priority to the paranoid feelings of a narcissistic neighborhood watch captain?

Well, the Florida legal system.

It's bad enough the state is known as a place where old people come to die. If shootings like this keep happening, it'll be known as a place where the young come to die as well.

UPDATE (3/20): Slate basically agrees with everything I wrote, in their article, which I read this morning. They provide a few real world examples beyond the Martin case.

UPDATE 2: The FBI and DOJ are now investigating the matter.