For equality, we must redistribute eyeballs fairly, my friends

By David McElroy · June 30, 2011

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7035, the Federal Eyeball Inequality Act of 2020.

Our great nation was founded on the principles of liberty and equality. Without liberty, we can’t be equal. Without equality, we can’t have liberty. So when some Americans are treated unequally, it’s an assault on the liberty of each and every one of us. We have a sacred duty to those Founding Fathers who fought and bled for our freedom to bring equality to every American.

Some may say that we are free and we are equal, because we see freedom and we see equality everywhere. But do we? Sadly, not all of us see those things equally — because not all of us see equally well. It is to rectify this incredible injustice that I beg you to join me in using the full moral might of this government to bring equal sight to all. To do less than pass this legislation is to confess before all of us that you hate equality and that you hate liberty.

Most people in our great land have two functioning eyeballs, while some struggle to exist in a dreary and barren land devoid of color or light or hope. No, friends, it’s not Detroit that I speak of. It’s the land of blindness. While most Americans take their sight for granted, these poor souls struggle to live. Those with two eyes aren’t morally superior. They didn’t earn their eyeballs. No, it was just a cruel twist of fate that gave some people sight and others darkness. And we are here today to bring light and hope to those without sight and without hope. No American could oppose this effort except out of greed and selfishness for himself and hatred for those who aren’t as fortunate as he is.

The plan we have presented to you is a compromise. Many activists in the Blind Rights Movement have long advocated cutting out the eyeballs of every sighted person, but this compromise legislation not only prevents complete blindness on the part of every driver and pilot in the land, but it shows just how far our blind friends are willing to go to compromise.

So how will our great plan work? This legislation will create a new Federal Sight Management Agency (FSMA), which will have the full power to control who has eyes and who doesn’t. As Jesus said in the Bible, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” So Jesus was clearly teaching us that there should be no blind among us, but to be a one-eyed man is to be a king — something that any man should want. Our great new national plan will have the task of equally dividing the available eyeballs among all Americans. Yes, this will mean that some Americans will have to get by with only one eye for part of the time, but the FSMA will rotate the available eyes among the population every six months — to ensure that sight is shared and that partial blindness is shared by all.

If you can’t see that this program is all about liberty and equality, my friend, you are just as blind as the man with no sight at all. And if you feel that way, I’m very ashamed of your selfishness.

I do want to assure those who have asked that this bill includes a small provision that exempts members of Congress, their staffs and their families from this act. This small concession has been made in the name of national security, because we must always be vigilant in the protection of our citizens — and we need full sight to protect them.

My friends, some selfish people have tried to poison the discussion of this bill by discussing the issue of whether eyeballs are easily transplantable, but this is simply a diversion. We must trust the experts in the Blind Rights Movement and those of us here in Congress, not get bogged down in what eye surgeons might believe is possible or reasonable. Being fair and being equal is far more important than what might or might not be medically possible. Others have pointed to the deaths of thousands of people in 2015 when the Federal Kidney Redistribution Act was implemented, but to those selfish people, I say shame…. Shame on you. How dare you point to the past when sight and equality are shining as beacons calling us forward? Our good intentions are all that matter. The light of our moral goodness casts out the worries of the doubters who bring up unpleasant facts.

Bring the blessings of shared sacrifice to all, my friends. Make us all equal. Make us all free. Give Americans the vision they deserve. Make us all equal and make us all free by sharing the available eyeballs. Our Founding Fathers would be proud. Our blind children will be grateful — and never forget when you vote, we are once again doing this for the children. I urge you to join me in this moral crusade. Support this bill today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Note: This is a shameless ripoff of something my friend, Doug Douma, has already done. Doug came up with this idea months ago and the version you just read was my input on the direction I’d take with it. You can read his published version here.

Share on Social Networks

We are ruled by the dumbest and most incompetent people among us — and we have a system which allows stupid and irresponsible people to force the costs of their idiocy onto smarter and wiser people. Can we get away with that? Yes, for quite some time. But we eventually reach a point at which the dumbest of the dumb — who are habitual liars and mentally ill fools — lead us to the disasters and destruction that some of us have seen coming for years. We are approaching that point. And yet most of the idiots around us still wave their rhetorical banners of support for the evil people who are leading us to ruin — and all of them point their fingers at someone else, never noticing that their own enthusiastic support of evil is to blame. When things finally fall apart, blame yourself for your blindness to the evil, not whoever happens to be in power when it happens.

I’ve been making some changes to the site lately and there are more changes coming in the days ahead, so don’t be surprised if you some small differences. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather the addition of some features. Since they’re smarter than I am, I’ve put Oliver and Alex in charge of the technical work, which you can see in this action photo from the control room of our media complex. I recently added a series of landing pages for readers who randomly discover the site from an Internet search. I’ve also changed the YouTube link at the top of the page to go to the new YouTube channel for video essays that reflect things I’ve already published here. (Here’s a little bit about both of the YouTube channels I’m working on.) In addition, I’m trying to move away from using Instagram, so I’m experimenting with photo plug-ins that will eventually allow me to host the pictures — cats, dogs, sunsets, whatever — that I often take. So don’t be surprised to see more changes. Thanks for your patience. Let’s hope Alex and Oliver know what they’re doing.

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

Related Posts