Podcast #18: Referees, Rioting, and the Right to Die

6 November 30, 2014 by

finalIn this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors (emphasis on “drunk” for Christian), Jason puts down the whiskey and drinks beer to assuage the wrath of the Lutherans. Christian claims that referees only get in the way of good sportsmanship in much the same way that the police get in the way of polite looting. After acknowledging that nothing gets accomplished without a good riot, they answer listener voicemails which eventually lead them to whether or not a terminally ill patient should have the right to die on their own terms before God is done tormenting them with a brain tumor. Jason is then biebered by genre-less radio stations and Christian is biebered by the defiling of his favorite holiday.

Also, Jason falls asleep while Christian is talking.

Links

6 Comments (click here to leave a comment)

  1. We see a problem with the black community and the higher than average percentages for the US. However, this is not the case to hang this protest on; also, Jason, where are you getting the information about shot in the back? Everything I can find after the autopsy states that all shots were to his front (including a pathologist in S.F. who reviewed the autopsy for a newspaper).
    Institutional racism needs to be addressed, but as some leaders in the black community have stated, the issue needs to be tackled with a case where the facts are easier for all to agree upon (such as the Marissa Alexander case – Florida woman who fired warning shots being arrested despite the “stand your ground).
    Not to rehash the Brown issue, but something that takes 90 seconds from start to finish, may not be the best to go after.
    My wife has XM in her car, and when I drive I do have 80’s on 8, and just as you two, it is either hate, or love. Mostly it is a nostalgia issue, but I am ready with the roller switch to change to another channel, just in case.

  2. Well, as I tried to point out in the podcast, this specific case isn’t really that important. It simply draws attention to a larger problem that exists whether or not this case is valid. If there were no larger issue, people wouldn’t be so angry about this case.

  3. I understand that there is a larger problem, however when the proponents use a case that does not show the problem truly, it hampers the cause. Since there are so many to choose from, let’s use one that better illustrates the root cause (my example shows that there is a problem with the Justice System truly being color blind, since a non black could shoot and kill someone and use the SYG law to prevent conviction, but a black could not fire warning shots, that did not result in a death, and the SYG law was ruled as not applicable and was convicted).
    Michael Brown, got into an altercation with law enforcement, and was shot – sorry, but if I reached into a cop car and hit a cop, and I was shot, there more than likely would be no public outcry, people would say that I was wrong to get into a tussle with a cop, and grab for his gun.
    My point is that some people wonder why their cause does not advance, and many times it is due to the argument they use, and the method they advocate. This is just one of the cases, the other would be the “common sense” gun legislation that came around after Sandy Hook; as we spoke about during that time, if they had left the last half off, it would have passed easily, however as one of your other podcasts spoke about, several people were concerned with the wording that was ambiguous and could have legal ramifications, if a family member were using a gun of mine to hunt, or even if someone was house sitting for me.
    The older, and more mellow I get, I realize that there is a need to give and take, and reach a compromise.
    The authors of the law wanted a stricter rendering of gun control, and instead of going for what was really wanted, they reached further than they should have by using the occasion of the shooting. If they had stayed with what was essential – large capacity magazines, and closing the gun show loop holes, it could have very easily taken care of something that many people wanted. However, by going further and looking to bring more under control than was “mandated”, they allowed a chance to make a major change disappear. This is happening again, this time with a change in the system, and how there is a problem with the way LE and the justice system regards and treats minorities. By “hanging their hat” on this case, they will lose a chance to bring others around to realization, and the chance to change people’s perception. Everytime that a non suitable case is presented as cause for change, it effects the movement, as poorly as a false rape claim harms the movement of rape victims.
    The sad thing is that I read of people saying that they are upset (not from Ferguson citizens), that a town with such a large majority of blacks, is ruled by a white Mayor and has such a small percentage of black LE officers. Mayors are elected, the citizens could elect a black candidate, or a candidate who would place more blacks on the force; unfortunately, I have no idea of the choices that were available in Ferguson prior to this, as would most of the country. I will end with this point, if we want change in our laws, we need to look to change the law, not just go crazy about outcomes, and that requires that we become involved in our own communities, and that requires time that many are not willing to spend, heck, most of us do not take the time to vote!
    What I see on the local level, is that everyone wants to whine, bitch, and complain, but most do not want to be a part of the solution. Being on 3 local boards, and the time involved, what I hear most from others, is, sorry, I am just too busy, something is more important to them, no problem, but I guage my sympathy accordingly.

  5. Yes, he has to oppose me now, even though when I was on his team, and no different, I would have been a welcome comrade-in-arms.

Related Posts