Mail Carrier Drops Off More Than A Package On Customer's Lawn

There is no way to say this delicately: A U.S. postal worker has been suspended from his mail carrying job after defecating on the lawn of a resident on his route. This is where all the jokes about dropping off packages and such come into play.

Shoulda worked for UPS: what can brown do for you?

CNN (via KLTV)reports on the poo-happy mailman, who was spotted near a neighbor's garage, dropping trou, by Don Derfler in Oregon while he was home with his son last week.

"I thought he had a bunch of packages for us," he said, adding, "He started pulling his pants down and started defecating and at that point I grabbed my camera and started to take pictures."

The postal service has responded, saying the carrier has been suspended.

"We're taking this very seriously and I really want to apologize to our customers and to the public at large for the years I've worked for the postal service I've never heard of an incident like this and I hope I never do again," said a rep.

One neighbor understands that when you gotta go, you gotta go, but that using private property as an outhouse is not the way to handle the situation.

"Nature calls at inopportune times..sometimes but geez go back to your rig and find a gas station or someone who will let you use their bathroom."

Postal inspectors may have already cleaned up the evidence according to another neighbor, who confronted several men in suits.  I know if I was professionally cleaning up postal excrement, I'd be wearing my finest suit!

Happy Birthday, Universe!

Or, at least, happy birthday according to seventeenth century astronomer Johannes Kepler.

Make a wish!

Kepler, born Dec. 27, 1571, was a German mathematician, astronomer, and astrologer, and became a key figure in the 17th century scientific revolution.  Perhaps best known for his laws of planetary motion, Kepler's work laid the foundation for Isaac Newton's theory of universal gravitation.

While at the University of Tubingen, Kepler studied both the Ptolemaic system (geocentric) and the Copernican system (heliocentric) of planetary motion, becoming a Copernican.  As a student, Kepler defended heliocentrism from both a theoretical and theological perspective, maintaining that the Sun was the principal source of motive power in the universe.

That is one powerful beard!

Following his studies, Kepler became a professor of mathematics and astronomy at the University of Graz, in Austria, at the age of 23.  He later went on to work with Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, and although Tycho guarded his data closely, he was impressed by Kepler's theoretical ideas, and eventually allowed him more access to his data and his observatory.  When Tycho unexpectedly died the next year, Kepler inherited Tycho's extensive collection of astronomy data, as well as the post of imperial mathematician for Holy Roman emperor Rudolph II. 

While at this post, Kepler became exceedingly productive.  Kepler learned of the work of Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei, who had discovered mountains and craters on the moon as well as four moons of Jupiter with a telescope he had invented.  Kepler later corresponded with Galileo, obtaining a telescope of his own and improving upon the design.  Somewhere along the way, Kepler found the time to publish his three laws of planetary motion, as well as several scientific works and validation of Galileo's works.  Among his studies and calculations, Kepler came up with a calculation for the beginning of the universe: April 27, 4977 BC.

I honestly have no idea what was taken into consideration for this computation, but Kepler did not employ any calculating assistants (back then, you hired your calculators, rather than buying them from Texas Instruments), so for having to do the math all by himself, he didn't do too badly.  Granted, the universe really is something like 13.75 billion years old, but he's only off by 214,843,750%!

So sit right back, universe, and grab yourself a slice of cake.  You've got to have a birthday sometime, why not today?

When The Economy Gets Worse, People Shake Babies More

When the going gets tough, the weak get going on their babies. A new study finds a rise in "shaken baby syndrome" correlates with economic downturns. At one hospital, the number of babies that were hospitalized for what is known as "non-accidental head trauma" doubled during th recession.

After reviewing the hospital records, researchers found that 43 cases of non-accidental head trauma (NAHT) happened during the 31 months between December 2007 to June 2010. During the 72 months before the recession, there were 50 cases. While the number of cases was larger, the earlier period covered more than double the number of months.

There were also significantly more injuries during the recession, which lead to more deaths and severe brain injury. "We really weren't expecting to see such a big increase," one of the researchers told HealthDay. "It was pretty startling for all of us."

The study's results were along the lines of another similar survey of four urban children's hospitals in Pittsburgh.

No matter the cause or level of frustration, nothing justifies it being taken out on a baby. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has information on preventing child abuse.

How long do you think it will be before poor economies are outlawed, to prevent such child abuse?

How do you turn 5 cents into 17 cents?

Let Social Security do it!

The first Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes were collected beginning in January 1937.  However, under the 1935 Social Security Act, monthly benefits would not begin until 1942 (which was later amended to begin in 1940).  So, from 1937 until 1940, Social Security paid benefits in the form of a single lump-sum payment, which was to provide some "payback" to those who contributed to the program but would not participate long enough to be vested for monthly benefits.

This guy knew when to cash in!

According to ssa.gov, the earliest reported applicant for a lump-sum benefit was a retired Cleveland motorman named Ernest Ackerman, who retired one day after the Social Security program began.  During his one day of participation in the program, a nickel was withheld from Ackerman's pay for Social Security, and upon retiring, he received a lump-sum payment of seventeen cents.

It's the first of the month, so cash your checks and get up

As mentioned earlier, monthly Social Security benefit payments began in January 1940.  Who received the first monthly retirement check?  Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, a legal secretary who retired in November 1939.  Her first check was issued on January 31, 1940, when she was 65 years old.  She lived to the age of 100, dying in 1975.  For the three years she worked under the Social Security program, the accumulated FICA taxes on her salary totaled $24.75.  Her initial monthly check was $22.54, and she went on to collect a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

So now we have all of these politicians in Washington DC complaining about the deficit and the national debt, and how Social Security is a drain on the system, and that we need to fix it.  NONSENSE, I say!!  If anything, we need the government to start paying into the Social Security system!  If Ernest Ackerman can turn his 5 cents into 17 (that's a 340% increase!!), why can't the government do the same?  Better yet, if the feds pay into the system long enough to start collecting monthly benefits, maybe they can capitalize like Ida May Fuller, who saw her investment return at 92,480%!!!  What did that take, three years?

Here's an idea, Mr. President - if our national debt is $14 trillion, all we need to invest in Social Security over the next three years is $15,135,135,136.00, and then we can just sit back and watch the checks come in and take care of the debt!

That's just 36 easy monthly payments of $420,420,420!

But wait, that's not all!  If you call right now, The Billy Blog will throw in this tub of Oxi Clean at no extra charge!

Billy Mays, why did you have to die so soon?

. . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. . .

It seems that over a week has passed since the Ragin' Man in Cajun Land asked (and then provided his answer to) the question "what does the 2nd Amendment really say?" Please, take a minute, check it out, maybe let him know what you think.  And, for those of you who haven't been paying attention, the Second Amendment, in its entirety, states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, Ragin' Man, here's my two cents: I’m jealous that you covered this topic in detail before I have. This is one that has been on my back burner for awhile, because it is a topic dear to me, and most people have kneejerk reactions that either miss the point or just cater to whatever side they support.

I would disagree with you, however, on a few important points –

If anything, a simple understanding of the Bill of Rights holds it to be a guideline of protections afforded to the states and the people from the power of the federal government (which is why it ends with the “catchall” Tenth Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."), and the question that D.C. v. Heller was specifically pertaining to is whether in federal enclaves (in this case, the District of Columbia), does the (federal) government (the ban was passed by the Council of the District of Columbia, but as a federal district, is subject to the control of Congress) have the ability to restrict ownership of an entire class of firearm that is commonly used for traditionally lawful purposes? The answer is no. It’s definitely splitting hairs (but isn’t that really what the Supreme Court is for? If the answer was blatantly obvious, it wouldn’t have made it that far), but the federal government (under the guise of the DC Council) prohibiting personal firearm ownership is exactly what the Second Amendment exists to prevent.

Now, the extension of this decision to the state and/or local level may be a little more applicable toward your “free state”/”well regulated militia” argument. Two years after your boy Antonin Scalia affirmed Barack Obama’s right to keep a pistol in his nightstand in the White House, the question arose in McDonald v. Chicago, does Obama have the right to keep a pistol in his home in Chicago? While the original text of the Second Amendment regards the “well regulated militia” of the “free State,” does this mean that the state, then, would have the power to restrict or prohibit certain firearm ownership of an entire class of firearm that is commonly used for traditionally lawful purposes? Well, yes, that could be one way to look at it. So why does the court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago say otherwise? Did they forget to eat their Wheaties that day? No, the Fourteenth Amendment opens the way for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states as well as the federal government. For example, the First Amendment states that ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,“ but the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to prevent the state of Illinois from requiring its citizens to practice Scientology. Likewise, other rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, that are “fundamental” by being “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions,” are protected from state and local infringement, as well as federal infringement. I would argue that along with the freedom of speech and religion, the right and the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government, whether it is federal, state, or local, is one of the most basic and deeply rooted American traditions.

I think that it is important to understand the use of the term “well regulated” does not necessarily mean subject to the regulations of the state, but rather well trained, disciplined, and/or equipped. In fact, in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court indicated that “the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.” If anything, I would say that rather than telling me what weapons I can’t own, the Constitution says that the State should provide me with a weapon, and regularly train me in its use! Now that’s a welfare State I can respect! Also, in Federalist No. 29, author Alexander Hamilton expounds a bit on the use of the term “regulated” in regards to military preparedness and effectiveness, rather than simply meaning subject to regulation.

Before you think I overlooked one of your points, I did see your reference to the prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"), and while it does announce background and a purpose, it doesn't actually limit the scope of the operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed").

Additionally, every other time “right of the people” is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the phrase is understood to be referring to an absolute individual right, as opposed to a collective right (think of the people as opposed to the people of the militia). For example, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.” I think it is safe to assume that “the people” the Fourth Amendment refers to is everybody, not just a specific class of people, say non-Italians (we need to watch out for the mafia!) or non-Catholics (the papacy is a front for a criminal empire!). Likewise, the First Amendment protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” and no matter how abhorrent any particular group’s message might be, no one person or group is entitled to any more or any less than an absolute right to peaceable assembly. So, I would say that not only are the people of the militia protected in their right to keep and bear arms, all of the people are.

In fact, I think that the one true area that can be called into question is the term “Arms.” The people are secure in their right to keep and bear arms. Sweet. What exactly does this mean? That, to me, is the crux of the debate (or at least, should be the crux of the debate). If a well-regulated militia, being of vital importance to the security of a free state, is so important that the people are secure in their right to bear arms, and the militia exists as a sort of “emergency reserve” for the Army, doesn’t logic dictate that the people should have (and presumably be proficient with) the arms of the day? No, this doesn’t mean that Granny needs a grenade launcher, or that your auntie needs an atom bomb.  But don't you think that individual weapons carried by soldiers or officers would fall in that realm?

And last, you start off by saying that the right wing of the country has been moving to abolish the reading of the Second Amendment.  I imagine that it has to do with your view on the interpretation of what a "well regulated Militia" means.  Obviously, if I haven't dissuaded you from that interpretation, not only were you not listening to me hard enough, but I probably haven't also dissuaded you from your view of the right wing conspiracy to alter the reading of the Second Amendment.  So, since I know you detest hypocrisy to the very fiber of your being, I ask you this - don't you find it interesting with the traditional left wing/right wing divide that the left wing isn't trying to expand the protection of the right to bear arms?  After all, if the government says I can't wear blue on Tuesdays, I call the ACLU because it violates my freedom of expression.  If the government doesn't let me be Mormon, I call the ACLU because it violates my freedom of religion.  If the police search my house with no cause and find my stash of meth and haul me off to jail, I call the ACLU because it violates my right against unreasonable search and seizure.  Hell, I'm pretty sure that if General Martin Dempsey knocked on my door and told me he was gonna be staying with me for a while, I could probably get help from the ACLU because it violates my Third Amendment right against the quartering of soldiers.  (and yes, I know that the ACLU isn't the standard bearer for the left, but you get my point)  But when I, a law abiding citizen, am prohibited from purchasing or merely owning an entire class of firearm, and I call up the ACLU, what happens?  They give me the finger.  Why is that the one they take a pass on?

Applebee's served this baby a margarita in a sippy cup

Image courtesy of WJBK (myFox Detroit)

Last Friday at an Applebee's in Michigan, Taylor Dill-Reese ordered an apple juice for her 15-month-old son.

After a few swigs from his sippy cup, the boy started behaving oddly: "He was saying 'hi' and 'bye' to the walls," Dill-Reese said, "He eventually laid his head down on the table and we thought maybe he was just sleepy."

Dill-Reese tasted the drink and realized it contained an alcoholic margarita mix.

The toddler was rushed to the hospital where he registered a .10 blood alcohol level.

The mom says a manager apologized to the family but didn't know what else to do. Thankfully the child is okay after being checked out at the hospital. Applebee's issued a statement calling the incident "unacceptable" and promised to work with local authorities and even conduct their own investigation.

Promises to get to the bottom of things

This is just hilarious to me! My question is, which bartender has been covertly drinking margaritas out of children's cups? Looks like your bulletproof cover has been blown! Seriously, though, a kid blowing .10; that is just priceless. Go Applebee's!

Meet the newest contributor to The Billy Blog

 My name is Sheamus

OK, so he certainly hasn't written any posts yet, but he most certainly has been interfering with my efforts to do so, what with walking on my laptop (maybe he is trying to contribute!) and trying to bite my hands while I type.  He fits in nicely with his brothers,

Buster

and Peyton.

Here you can see their relative sizes.

Sheamus was a homeless bum when he came to us, and his cuteness definitely landed him a spot here.  I've read hypotheses that the cuteness of infant mammals helps to ensure that mothers will take care of their offspring, and I can see anecdotal evidence for that, but in this case, it got him a warm bed and some chow. 

Here's one of my favorite pictures:

Thanks for taking the time to meet the staff!