It’s Time For Common Sense Restrictions On Freedom Of Assembly
An Editorial By Harvey

 In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, I’ve seen a lot of people putting the blame on guns. “We need more gun control laws”, they say… “If we didn’t have so many guns in this country, this never would’ve happened”, they say… “Stupid Second Amendment! I’ll get you for this!” they say.

“it’s tragically obvious at this point that allowing people to assemble for the purpose of education has – without exception – ended in mass murder every time it’s been tried.”

 Slow down there, Sparky! The fact is, guns were already prohibited on the Virginia Tech campus. Having another anti-gun law would be as pointless as outlawing murder, and I don’t hear anybody calling for that.
The truth is that these anti-gun wackos are barking up the wrong constitutional doctrine. The problem lies with the First Amendment, not the Second.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with speeching and pressing and religioning and redressing. It’s that assembling thing that makes these killing sprees possible. When people get together in large groups, all they’re really doing is providing an irresistable target-rich environment, enticing psychopaths to start blasting away. It’s like wearing a short skirt and skimpy top while walking down a street – might as well hand out engraved invitations.
Oh, I know what you’re going to say. “We need the right of assembly. Groups of angry citizens mobbing together is one of the last lines of defense against a tyrannical government that oversteps it’s bounds”.
Feh.
Worked really good for the Chinese in Tiananmen Square, didn’t it? What are you going to do? Stop a tank by standing in front of it holding a couple shopping bags? That might’ve worked 200 years ago, but tanks were much smaller then.
The fact is, freedom of assembly is just an archaic holdover from a bygone era. In today’s modern age, people have NO REASON to physically get together in large groups. Technology has provided us with e-mail, and telephones, and blogs, and on-line shopping. Everything that used to require physical proximity can now be accomplished virtually. The problem is that our Consitution is just as archaic as the ridiculous “freedom” it enshrines. It needs to be updated to reflect modern realities.
However, Constitutional amendments are notoriously hard to pass (heck the last one took over 200 years), and the fact is, we don’t need to do away with public assembly COMPLETELY – be kinda hard to get laid that way – we just need to modify our outdated notions a bit, and live within a more reasonable framework of interpersonal gathering modalities. You know, pass a few prudent laws that sensibly restrict, rather than repeal.
For example, it’s tragically obvious at this point that allowing people to assemble for the purpose of education has – without exception – ended in mass murder every time it’s been tried. Why not have virtual classrooms? Each student and teacher securely locked away in their own homes, learning via some sort of Skype & Webcam arrangement? Can’t have a school shooting without a school, and no one’s ever been murdered in the safety of their own home. If only we as a nation had taken this logical and obvious approach earlier! How many lives would’ve been saved?
Of course, this is only a first step. The sad fact is that other forms of assembly would remain to be dealt with. Work places, malls, parks, orgies, Tupperware parties… all knowingly flaunting their tempting, shootable flesh, driving the disturbed among us mad with unquenchable desire… eventually something would have to be done about those, too. Maybe some judicious amendment-editing IS in order. Even a simple addition like “right of the people peaceably to assemble – one to a room” might be enough.
Anyway, thank you for reading, and please support this common sense approach to tragedy prevention.
Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as “Get Out of Here! This Is MY Room!” and “Should the Right To Assemble Include C++?”.

State of the Frank Report

This is the part of the blog where I write about my day for those interested.
Despite my injuries, I had important work to do. Aquaman and the monkey would have to wait for their deaths. I took the bag lunch of peanut butter and jelly and Doritos that SarahK prepared for me and headed for my car while checking the trees for movement. Aquaman was nearby watching me, but I paid him no heed.
The drive to Kennedy Space Center was uneventful, but I was in for quite a shock once I got there.
“We’re canceling the nuclear strike against the moon?!” I shouted in disbelief, temporarily losing my composure. “Has the administration decided it now hates America, freedom, and apple pie? As long as we’re being a bunch of compromising wussies, why don’t we just send all the terrorists fruit baskets?”
I had been working on this project for some time. I have been paid well for it, but this was also my baby. You can’t imagine how it feels to be told that their going to take away your baby and explode him in an island off of Puerto Rico.
“The President decided that, since this is a non-critical nuclear strike, we should run it by the Justice League,” the general there explained. “They voted to stop our strike if we launch it.”
I couldn’t believe it. “The same Justice League that voted against helping in the Iraq war because it was ‘too political’? Why in the world are we even still talking to them? We are nuking the moon for national security purposes — to show our power — how can we let some super losers get in the way?”
The general looked defeated. “I’m sorry, but the President has decided not to go against them.”
I sat down and thought for a moment. “What was the vote?”
“It was a split vote: three to four. Batman, the Green Lantern, and Martian Manhunter voted to support the strike while Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, and Aquaman voted against.”
Aquaman! I couldn’t believe they actually gave him a vote on their council. Then again, France gets a vote at the U.N. This was too much; first Aquaman was bothering me in my personal life, and now he was bothering me in my work — preventing America from asserting its power from nuking the moon. “If something happened to one of the voting members, how would that affect the vote?”
The general looked concerned. “What are you planning?”
“Never mind that; just answer the question.”
“They’d appoint a new voting member… most likely Black Canary.”
And she is a hawk (pardon the pun). It seemed this would be a problem that would solve itself when I took care of Aquaman. It also meant more focus would be on me when Aquaman is found dead. I’ll have to be extra careful in this operation.
The peanut butter and jelly sandwich and Doritos were yummy. I never get tired of that.

How Will Global Warming Affect You? Please Tell Us!

Ex-U.S. military officials testified at U.N. Security Council on Climate Change that global warming could mean more conflict and war in the world. Apparently we’ve decided to stop pretending this is a scientific issue and just let everyone get hysterical about the temperature possibly rising a degree or two. Thus, here are more groups testifying on the dangers of global warming:
MORE TESTIMONY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM JOBLESS, NON-CLIMATOLOGISTS
* According to former teamsters, global warming could cause an increase in naps and surliness among union workers.
* According to former police officers, global warming could cause more people to tan and thus have dark enough skin to require harassment by the man.

This is a globe. Try not to warm it.
  • According to former astronauts, global warming could mean an increase in budget for space flights since every one will want to hang out in the space station since its cool up there.
  • According to former firemen, global warming could mean shorter walks for firehouse dalmatian because of the threat of heat exhaustion. Not having his exercise, the dog will then chew on furniture. Furniture replacement will then increase their budget by 5%. Global warming could also cause more fires, but that’s okay because they have protective hats.
  • According to former ice cream truck drivers, global warming could mean a huge increase in ice cream. Man they sure wish they hadn’t had their trucks confiscated by the state for the multiple DUIs.
  • According to former ninjas, global warming could mean a decrease in foliage making it harder for them to ambush people from trees.
  • According to the guy who used to sell pickles on the side of the road, global warming could cause a 13% reduction in the cucumber crop. He also warns of the adverse health effect of global warming and how that can be prevented by drinking pickle juice.
  • According to former serial killers, global warming could mean more talking dogs urging people to kill.
  • According to former Canadian, global warming could have an effect on ice which is important to ice hockey (hence the name). This would mean a huge increase in Canadian suicides because what else would they have left to do?
  • According to former bloggers, global warming could mean less cats and thus a decrease in the quantity of Friday, cat-themed blogging. According to former blog-readers, that would be awesome!

From Now On, I Pay in Cash

I am quite astounded by the lengths to which one company will go to collect on an imagined bill of $38.95.
Back in July of 2005, I was in need of a new suit. Being that I rarely go out for the purpose of buying clothes (my wardrobe consists solely of shirts I’ve received as Christmas or birthday gifts), I went to Men’s Wearhouse and splurged a bit and purchased a couple suits and a number of dress shirts as well as a pair of deer-skin shoes. I got a discount if I used their credit, so I opened an account with them. Before any interest accrued, I paid off the bill in full.
All good so far. Well, for a little over a year, I made no more use of the credit I got from Men’s Wearhouse. Then, in August 2006, they sent me a check for $38.95. Having done nothing with my account for so long, it seemed it must have been some error. Still, it’s been many many years since I cared about a sum of money less than forty dollars, so I just let SarahK file it away.
A little while later I received a bill from Men’s Wearhouse for $38.95. I was a bit indignant about this. It doesn’t seem right to me that you can send me a check and then bill me for it. Now they were asking me to go cash the check and mail back a payment for the same amount; their error was going to cost me my time. It seems to me they should have just called and said that they sent me a check in error, and then I could tell them I never cashed it, and all would be good in the world. Just sending me a bill seemed rather impersonal and tactless.
I put the bill in my “to do” pile, but frankly, I’m rather lazy about this sort of thing because I hate having to take time out of my work day to crawl through some automated system until I can find my way to a live human being somewhere in South Asia… especially when all the effort is to explain to them that, no, I don’t owe you this measly bill.
So I forgot about it until I received the next bill with late charges. I finally went ahead and called them and talked to someone named “Phil” with an Indian accent. Ends up they already reported my delinquency on this non-existent sum to the credit agency, but it only took the customer service rep a minute at his computer to realize that this was their error. They credited someone else’s payment to my account and sent me a check for the excess before they realized the error. He said he would file this for investigation and it should all be taken care of and removed from my credit report in sixty days. That seemed like a long time, but I wasn’t planning on buying a house any time soon, and I’m lazy, so I let it go at the time.
Soon we started to get odd phone calls. SarahK usually screens, so what we got were recorded voice message telling us to call a number for a “great opportunity from GE Money.” It sounded like some phone scam, so we ignored it, but we got one about every day. SarahK finally answered one of the phone calls, and it was Men’s Wearhouse trying to collect on the $38.95… now inflated by numerous late fees. They wouldn’t talk to SarahK since the credit was in my name, though. One day I answered when I was home (I just answer the phone when it rings; I’m crazy like that) and I talked to someone named “Mary” with an Indian accent who then asked to transfer me to someone in their credit department. I said “Fine” because this seemed easy to explain. I then talked to someone who actually did sound American who asked me about my bill. Now I’m thinking they hired out a collection agency for this made up, tiny bill which makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. It ends up that GE Money is who does their credit, and it was Men’s Wearhouse who had been pestering us all this time.
Anyway, it took the woman I talked to under a minute to figure out that this was indeed their error, and she told me that, if it is under investigation, don’t worry about it. So I didn’t. Still, we continued to get phone calls. It is months later now. One day I was home and answered the phone again and ended up talking to one of Men’s Wearhouse’s collection people. Again, I explained how I don’t owe them anything and this has been a lot of harassment about nothing. He saw this was true, but he couldn’t do anything because apparently the people in Men’s Wearhouse collection and Men’s Wearhouse credit don’t talk to each other (bad blood or something). He gave me a number to call and I was indignant that once again this idiocy requires action on my part. They’ve been harassing me for months, and I have to call them to plead them to stop. Over a non-existent $38.95!
The phone calls stopped, so I forgot about this until I recently received a bill from Men’s Wearhouse, now up to $178.81 that they imagined I owe them. I finally called them again yesterday afternoon and politely asked the person in India (there’s never a reason to yell at the Indians because they’re miles away from all this) to let me talk to someone higher up so I can put an end to this. I explained the whole thing — again — and the woman in customer service — the American customer service — told me they never had this listed as being disputed. She was able to immediately take care of the late fees which made me wonder why I had so many months ago been told that this would take sixty days to fix. That was because apparently they still send communiques between India and the Americas by ship, so when someone in India marks something to be looked into, they have to wait sixty days for one of their sturdy ships to find a strong wind and fair weather and make the trip to El Paso, Texas. Unfortunately, the ship with the note to check my account must have been attacked by pirates somewhere in the Atlantic and thus the months of harassment. I thought there was quicker, more reliable communication between India and America (somehow I was able to talk to both their customer service centers by phone), but I guess that wasn’t in their budget… especially when they believed they were lacking $38.95.
Anyway, the late charges were taken away, and she told me this was being corrected with the credit agency, but I was still going to be listed as owing them $38.95 until they verified the check was never cashed. After all this annoyance, I felt they owed me much more than that sum… or at least should take my word for it that I owed them nothing. She was very adamant though; this was an exceptionally important $38.95, and while this was a huge headache for me, it was nothing compared to the agony Men’s Wearhouse is under thinking it’s $38.95 poorer. Thus, the charge would remain for the 72 hours it would take for them to verify that I had never cashed the check they inexplicably sent me.
Now, does all this make sense from a business perspective? How much money did they spend harassing me over this imagined bill? I’m thinking more than $38.95. That combined with the fact I’m going to cancel my credit with them and never do business with Men’s Wearhouse again has to make this quite a huge loss. And is $38.95 really a sum you want to beat a costumer to death over? Earlier, they had sent me $100 in gift certificates because of my previous purchase with them, but later they hounded me every day over less than forty bucks. It seems at some point human eyes should have seen this and noticed how ridiculous it is. Or, at least, when what had happened was brought to light, they should have been apologetic and tried to make up for this instead of clinging to their precious $38.95.
I still like the shoes, though.