Reflections From a Murky Pond

Kraft Foods, Inc., in response to the continuing backlash caused by the online sexual deviance of ex-Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has decided to distance their subsidiary, Oscar Mayer’s brand from the New York pervert. They have quietly and unceremoniously dropped the word “wiener” from all their hotdog advertisements in favor of “sausage.”

Kraft hopes to keep their Oscar Mayer brand and its trademark jingle from being associated with the neo-adultery and ludicrous mendacity of the disgraced ex-Congressman.

Thanks to one sleazy, pathetic, adulterous politician, the word wiener has been stained to the point that we can’t associate with it anymore,” said Kraft spokesperson, Beau Lonie. “Now all you hear is ‘Weiner sucks’ or ‘that Weiner is disgusting,’ or other even more off-color jokes about it, and that’s not in line with Oscar Mayer products which are, and always have been, a children’s favorite.

We must think of those children and disassociate our brand from this sort of prurience.

Oscar Mayer and Kraft foods are just fortunate that ‘sausage’ scans the same as ‘wiener’ and will not require us to change our hot dog’s famous jingle, which has delighted Americans for 46 years, beyond this simple word substitution.

Rumor has it that the processed food giant is consulting with attorneys to see if they can sue Anthony Weiner for damages. This is based upon the fact that his surname is more correctly pronounced “Whiner” based upon its Germanic roots and spelling, yet he consistently chose to pronounce it as “Wiener.”

Rumor has it that Sabrett, Hebrew National, and Nathan’s, all closely linked with Weiner’s ex-constituency in Brooklyn and Queens, are also considering various brand saving and legal actions but are waiting upon advisement by the ADL before proceeding.

I have posted before about the ethics of reciprocity – the “Golden Rule” – as have others that I know online, which is not surprising since this Golden Rule seems fundamental to almost all ethical thought, philosophies, and religions.

The question arises though of whether we’ve all failed to fully grasp and internalize both sides of this ethical equation.

Have we focused too much upon the primary action and not enough upon the reciprocal reaction? Have we also failed to recognize that it functions much as an engine, a natural law that we’ve placed too many “higher order” considerations upon?

Any of the variations of, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” may serve well as admonishment or exhortation to right behavior by people, but we seem to fail to connect it with, “As you sow, so shall you reap,” which common sense tell us must be the reciprocating side of this ethical equation.

The greatest problem this schism causes is the cognitive dissonance it causes is in those cases where the primary action was a negative or harmful one.  This causes both internal conflict and hampers effective mitigation of the negative or harmful effects of the primary actor’s actions.

If the theory of Reciprocal Ethics is true than it must be true in all its parts or be claimed false. Therefor, natural law would require that negative actions lead to similarly negative responses as a normal course of events and to break this cycle requires conscious decision to engage in an unnatural course of response which might very well, due to its unnaturalness, be misunderstood as weakness, vulnerability or surrender of the point in contention by the original actor.

Some few in the course of history have understood this, though with mixed results.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

— Mahatma Gandhi (Disputed)

Gandhi, through his cult of personality and abetted by the nature and proclivities of the two cultures involved and the greater scope of world events, succeeded in breaking the natural laws of reciprocity and doing so in a manner that achieved his victory, India’s Independence from Britain.

Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.

— Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

MLK seemed to understand the basic equation of reciprocity but did not seem to understand that sense was not what was called for, since sense would lead people to follow the natural order of action and reciprocation. As can be seen by the largely unalleviated and unabated levels of racial angst and hatred among the Black population in America, despite the legal and pragmatic success of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King was largely unsuccessful in his prescription.

One has to accept the basic nature of the reciprocal engine that is the foundation of Reciprocal Ethics and fully understand the difficulties involved in convincing people to behave otherwise.

Many people over the decades have lamented and bemoaned the consistently poor performance of America’s court proceedings, both civil and tort. Questions are constantly asked as to why our nation’s court system seems unable to deliver consistent good, well-reasoned, and just verdicts.

I think much of the problem is the gross stupidity of those people, especially the lawyers, involved in the American courts.

In furtherance of my case I present into evidence the following excerpts from various court proceedings:

ATTORNEY:What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS:He said , ‘Where am I, Cathy?’
ATTORNEY:And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!

~*~

ATTORNEY:What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS:Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

~*~

ATTORNEY:Are you sexually active?
WITNESS:No, I just lie there.

~*~

ATTORNEY:This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS:Yes.
ATTORNEY:And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS:I forget…
ATTORNEY:You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?

~*~

ATTORNEY:Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS:We both do.
ATTORNEY:Voodoo?
WITNESS:We do.
ATTORNEY:You do?
WITNESS:Yes, voodoo.

~*~

ATTORNEY:Now doctor , isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep , he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS:Did you actually pass the bar exam?

~*~

ATTORNEY:The youngest son , the 20-year-old , how old is he?
WITNESS:He’s 20 , much like your IQ.

~*~

ATTORNEY:Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS:Are you shitting me?

~*~

ATTORNEY:So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS:Yes.
ATTORNEY:And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS:Getting laid.

~*~

ATTORNEY:She had three children , right?
WITNESS:Yes.
ATTORNEY:How many were boys?
WITNESS:None.
ATTORNEY:Were there any girls?
WITNESS:Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?

~*~

ATTORNEY:How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS:By death.
ATTORNEY:And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS:Take a guess.

~*~

ATTORNEY:Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS:He was about medium height and had a beard
ATTORNEY:Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS:Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male.

~*~

ATTORNEY:Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS:No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

~*~

ATTORNEY:Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS:All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.

~*~

ATTORNEY:ALL your responses MUST be oral , OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS:Oral…

~*~

ATTORNEY:Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS:The autopsy started around 8:30 PM
ATTORNEY:And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS:If not, he was by the time I finished.

~*~

ATTORNEY:Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS:Are you qualified to ask that question?

~*~

ATTORNEY:Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS:No.
ATTORNEY:Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS:No.
ATTORNEY:Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS:No.
ATTORNEY:So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS:No.
ATTORNEY:How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS:Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY:I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS:Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

Sadly, we as a nation will receive exactly the court system that we deserve. If, by our gross stupidity, we stock it with fools we will assuredly reap and rue the harvest of such. 😉

NOTE: While the quotes above are pure humor and no more than that, even the book they were purported to be from, Disorder In The American Courts being a hoax, they do all seem so plausible, don’t they?

Given the long-running popularity of court proceedings as day-time reality TV ala Judge Judy or The People’s Court, and the inanity, ignorance, and gross stupidity regularly shown upon those programs, I suppose this is to be expected.

President Obama has, in his ever-nuanced manner, weighed in on “Weinergate.” What would be surprising in anything other than an election year is that Obama didn’t come out in support of Rep. Anthony Weiner staying in office – though he was careful to mouth the right words about it being a decision that Rep. Weiner and his constituency must be the ones to make.

I can tell you that if it was me, I would resign. Because public service is exactly that, it’s a service to the public. And when you get to the point where, because of various personal distractions, you can’t serve as effectively as you need to at the time when people are worrying about jobs and their mortgages and paying the bills, then you should probably step back.

— President Barack Obama
NBC’s TODAY, Durham, NC, June 13, 2011

An interesting question, and one that Obama might actually be asking himself, is what should a politician do when he’s the distraction preventing effective service at the time when people are worrying about jobs and their mortgages and paying the bills?

Others in high office have asked themselves that hard question and answered it by placing their constituency before their self-interest. One wonders if Obama will do the same.

More than a few people are confused as to why Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9) would risk throwing away his career by “sexting” with a bunch of young women and girls. This understandable confusion can, however, be quite easily laid to rest…

Heh, Henh, Henh, Henh. He Texted His Weiner

Weiner’s pathetic and buttheaded behavior was and is nothing more than a simple case of form following dysfunction. 😛