Sweet Tea in Georgia

When I read the news that some of our state legislators actually wrote a bill that would require Georgia restaurants who serve unsweetened tea to also serve sweetened tea, or face a misdemeanor charge of a "highly aggravated nature," I had to check the calendar to see that it wasn't April Fool's Day. It wasn't.

Trouble is, of course, with the quality of legislative representation we now have in Georgia government, this might actually pass...and get signed into law.

Taxes Should Be Rare And Fair

During the Clinton Years, it would drive me up a wall to hear Congress discussing the idea of "targeted tax cuts." As a Republican, I don't believe in "targeted" anything (unless it's Iraq), whether a taxcut or a tax increase. I believe in across-the-board taxcuts and across-the-board tax increases when needed.

So, I'm not real thrilled with the Governor's "solution" to part of the revenue problem in next year's budget. Targeting the tobacco industry with a tax increase will not solve the revenue shortfall problem. And, quite frankly, using the excuse "Well, this tax raise will help prevent kids from smoking" is the definition of retarded logic.

You want to stop kids from smoking? Start arresting them for illegally smoking now and fine their asses. If they have the money to buy cigarettes, they have the money to pay in fines for breaking the law. Gee, what a concept. Enforce the laws now on the books...hmm...golly gee.

Here's a way to raise revenue from smokers: Arrest and fine people for throwing their nasty cigarette butts out on the street. Littering is a crime and costs us money to manage the trash.

Legislation Too Stupid For Me To Ignore

SB 5: Sponsored by Senators Harp of the 16th and Mullis of the 53rd

Bill Language: "A person commits the offense of distributing material depicting nudity or sexual conduct when he or she sends unsolicited by electronic mail or otherwise by electronic or computer media any material depicting nudity or sexual conduct to any person, residence, or place of employment unless there is displayed in a manner visible to the recipient before the material depicting nudity or sexual conduct becomes visible a statement identical or substantially similar to the following notice:

'The material contained herein depicts nudity or sexual conduct. If the viewing of such material could be offensive to the recipient, the recipient is advised to delete or otherwise destroy such material.'"

So, Messrs. Harp and Mullis (two senators, by the way, who can barely use a computer, much less open a file on them) wish to outlaw the unsolicited sending of any material which depicts "nudity or sexual conduct to any person" unless such material contains a warning. (Yeah, like the virus writer who developed the Anna Kournikova virus a few years back is going to follow this law.)

Anyway, let's pretend that Harp & Mullis are successful. Let's pretend that I sent out the following joke to a bunch of my friends after this law was enacted:

"Guess whose birthday it is?…Whose?…Monica Lewinsky's! She turned 28 this week…Wow! They grow up so fast. It seems like only yesterday she was crawling around the White House on her hands and knees."

Funny joke, right? Well, okay, only if you are a Republican. But, based on the Harp/Mullis law, I might be in serious trouble. The joke, by inference, depicts nudity and sexual conduct to a person, thus, it could be interpreted to be in violation of their law (the ghost of Charles Weltner will rise from the grave to prosecute me).

This type of law, by the way, is remarkably similar to the "sexual harassment" laws of the Clinton Era whereby one female in a big corporation would get offended at a joke e-mailed around the office, and sue the company for big bucks. Just what we need in this state. More patriarchal laws telling us how to communicate with each other. I'm so proud of Harp and Mullis I could just scream.

SB 74: Sponsored by Senators Brush of the 24th, Thomas of the 10th, Crotts of the 17th and Mullis of the 53rd

The language of the bill is too lengthy to fully quote here, but, this is the gist: "When accessing businesses that accommodate the public (like, restaurants, etc.), motorcyclist patrons cannot be discriminated against on the basis of how they look, smell, dress, or even if they have a tattoo that says 'Free Charles Manson' and they wear a Hell's Angel patch on the back of their jacket. If you, Mr. Business Owner, discriminates against the motorcyclist due (essentially) to "profiling" him/her in some way, you are in violation of this law."

The bill's primary sponsor, Senator Joey Brush, is a motorcycle enthusiast. Apparently, either Joey or his riding mates have experienced some discrimination when, after spending 5 hours on a bike, running into 500 mosquitoes, and picking-up all sorts of road grime, they swagger into a road food joint and they weren't served.

Now, of course, no one likes to be discriminated against, and I'm certain the motorcyclists somehow think they should be a protected class just because the business owners might be unnecessarily concerned with the prospect of having their joint trashed by folks who look like they are dressed for a gang fight. But, really now. For people who like to make sure everyone on the road hears their loud engines as they roar past, and the fact that they really like to ride the bike BECAUSE it makes them look "bad," Brush's legislation makes them just look like a big class of pussies. And, coupled with the legislation that spells-out what kind of discrimination is against the law for anyone judging a motorcyclist is a list of remedies that, honestly, makes the intended class MAJOR pussies:

(a) On application of any person, a court may enjoin a violation of this article.
(b) A person who is injured by a violation of this article may bring a cause of action for injunctive relief, for damages, or for both injunctive relief and damages. In an action for damages, the person may recover:
(1) Actual damages incurred by the person, if any; and
(2) Exemplary damages in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00.
(c) A person who brings an action under subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section and who prevails in the action is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

What, pray tell, will be the "damages" a rough and tough motorcycle enthusiast experiences after being turned away from not being able to ride his muffler-challenged hog on Callaway Gardens' property? What, pray tell, kind of damages will the leather enthusiast suffer as a result of being refused service at an IHOP? Up to $5000 worth?

For 6 years, I've seen these stupid bumper stickers that say "Look Twice, Save A Life. Motorcyclists are everywhere." Let me get this straight. According to the bumper sticker owner, I should consider the possibility that some speed demon in a crotch-rocket will come speeding around the curve after I've checked the road, and I should be the one looking out for him/her?

To hell with that. If you're traveling faster than the speed of sound and I miss you, it's YOUR fault, not mine. Motorcyclists can worry about saving their own life. I have enough to worry about. Never mind of course, that the people who want you to read those bumper stickers and act on them happen to be the identical folks who want to overturn the Georgia law requiring all motorcyclists wear a helmet when they ride.

Here's my idea for a bumper sticker that I hope to have on my car one day: "Darwin Was Right. Live and Let The Idiots Die Off On Their Own." Right next to that one will be this: "Not wearing a helmet? Try not to get your blood all over my paint job."