I’m so sick of fundamentalist politicians and internet trolls. And not just the religious ones — the Constitutional ones.
These people view the US Constitution as if it were written on stone, never changing, and can never be questioned.
Like religious fundamentalists, they believe there is only one interpretation of their holy book and — here’s the amazing part — that interpretation is always exactly in line with their own personal views!
Most of us who study the Constitution for a living are aware that the Founding Fathers, though great men, were not gods. We know that the Constitution was written by politicians, who made compromises and wrote the thing to be deliberately vague in parts because that was the only way they could get the damn thing passed. That’s how politics works.
The most obvious example may be “The Virginia Compromise.” (Look, it even has “compromise” in its name.) The smaller states wanted each state to have an equal vote so that they wouldn’t be ignored. The larger states wanted it to be based on population which would obviously benefit them. In the end, we got both — a Senate where each state gets the same representation no matter how small, and a House where the states with more people get more representation.
Then there are the first ten amendments themselves (the “Bill of Rights”). Many states refused to ratify the Constitution without these protections, and it’s a good thing they demanded them.
But the clearest example of compromise in the Constitution has to do with slavery. Most of the northern states had already abolished it and wanted the entire country to do the same, but the southern states refused. The south was worried that as soon as this Constitution was passed, the northern states would outlaw slavery completely. Without some provisions to prevent this, the south refused to agree to the Constitution. Rather than split the country within the first ten years of its existence, a series of compromises were worked out. (Sadly, postponing this only led to the bloodiest war in American history seventy years later.)
First, there’s Article I section 9 which specifically prohibited Congress from passing any law outlawing the importing of slaves before 1808 (twenty years from the Constitution’s signing). Why 1808? Was there something magical about that year? No, that was just the number that compromise produced. (And as soon as 1808 came about, Congress did exactly what the south was worried about and banished the importation of any more slaves.)
Second, there’s the ridiculous 3/5ths clause. The south demanded that when determining how many representatives they would get in the House, that slaves should be counted as “people” even when they were property in every other respect under the law. The north rightly pointed out how stupid this was, but the south insisted and there was another compromise made. We ended up with a provision that held that 3/5ths of every slave would count. No mention as to which 3/5th of the slave counted, though, but apparently it didn’t include the head since the views of the slaves mattered not.
Third, there’s the 2nd Amendment, which allowed the southern states to keep their state “militias” which were basically armed gangs whose only job it was to intimidate slaves and capture ones who escaped.
Within a few years of its passage, there were cases before the Supreme Court to determine the Constitution’s meaning and its application. The Founding Fathers themselves were still around and they could not agree! To think that there is some magical interpretation we can know today, hundreds of years later, is ridiculous.
So anyone who claims to “know” the intent of the Founding Fathers — as if they all agreed completely — is either lying to you or just too damned stupid to realize they’re spouting bullshit.
Yes, yes, “family activist” Josh Dugger, the hypocrite who said gays are immoral while he was molesting his sisters, was one of the names that appeared on the hacked list from the Ashley Madison web page — like we didn’t expect something like that was coming, anyway. It’s always the loudest self-righteous ones who turn out to be committing the same “sins” they rally against.
I had never heard of Ashley Madison until it was announced that there had been a major hacking. The site is where people can go for secret hookups so they could cheat on their spouses. Recently, someone posted a list of their members.
Forget the fact that Dugger was there. I’m sure other prominent names may soon show up. While I am always thrilled when hypocrites are exposed, I cannot endorse the method by which this happened.
The vast majority of people on that list are not celebrities. They aren’t people who publicly shamed others while doing the same thing. They aren’t people who deserve to be exposed.
Some of them may have been in relationships that had already fallen apart. Maybe they were separated from their spouses. Maybe they were in an open marriage and the spouse already knew about it. And maybe it’s none of our damned business what private people do in the privacy of their lives with other consenting adults so long as they aren’t physically hurting another or breaking the law.
So would I support the hacking if it was just Dugger being exposed? Interesting question. On one hand, when you voluntarily throw yourself out in public, you don’t have the right to demand “privacy” in the same way the average person does. And if you’re a lying scum, you deserve to be exposed. On the other hand, two wrongs don’t make a right, and the hacking crime means that a business that was legitimate (as much as you may not like it) has been attacked and ruined for that. People will certainly think twice before giving their information to them again. (If it helps you understand why this is bad, pretend it was Target or some place you regularly shop instead of a sex site — would you continue to shop there knowing your information could be stolen?)
Meanwhile, speaking of Dugger, how about that Jared from Subway guy, huh? Too bad he’s not friends with Republican candidate Mike Huckabee like Dugger is, because then God could forgive him and he’d walk away free.
Back when the Tea Party began, I was thrilled. It was around the same time as Occupy Wall Street began, and at their roots, both groups wanted the same thing: Stop letting the Big Banks and Big Business do anything they want! No bailouts for businesses that screwed over the average guy! Let’s give government back to the people!
Finally! Consensus! Something might actually get done!
We all know how well that worked out. The Tea Party got co-opted by every right-wing issue out there (gun rights, abortion, religious extremism), none of which had anything to do with the real issue for which the Tea Party was formed. And the Occupy Wall Street became this generation’s hippie fest, with drumming and tie-dye and demands that we stop eating animals.
It’s almost as if the rich bankers and corporations that actually run this country had planned it that way. Hmmm.
But the underlying anger hasn’t gone away, and it manifests itself now in the “Bernie Trump Factor.”
When you speak to supporters of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, they say a lot of the same things about how terrible it is that government can be bought by the highest bidder. Both discuss how they “can’t be bought”.
Supporters for both exclaim, “He tells the truth!” — because neither Trump nor Sanders take public opinion polls or surveys to decide what their position on the issues should be.
And this rebellion on both sides is a good thing. It is indeed time that something is done about our country’s descent into oligarchy.
Of course, that’s about all these two have in common — on every other issue, they’re polar opposites. But the Bernie Trump Factor is the reason you have people on the left and people on the right jumping for joy for the outsider, the guy no one expected to do well.
We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.
The marketplace should decide, except when it shouldn’t.
That seems to be the argument I get from the right (in the same way that “state’s rights should control except when they do things we disagree with”).
“Why should the signs in Lowe’s be in English and Spanish?” they yell. “Isn’t this America?” Well, yes, this is America, where the goal of business is to appeal to as many people as possible. Signs in Spanish help sell more goods. You know, capitalism at work and everything.
The latest ridiculous outrage is against Target, which suddenly said, “Hey! You know, if we don’t separate our kid’s toys by gender, we might sell a whole lot more.” Traditionalists on the right are now screaming about “political correctness” (which, by their definition, means “change I disagree with”) because the absolutely most horrible thing might happen with Target’s new policy: A girl that wants a boy toy won’t have to walk to a different aisle.
Overall, the more we break the stereotyping that goes along with raising kids, the better. Sure, more boys will still play with trucks and girls with dolls, but not always — and what’s wrong with boys playing with dolls (as the cartoon below says)? And why are “building toys” (such as legos) usually set aside just for boys? Last I checked, women drive cars, so why can’t girls play with toy cars?
Still, I don’t think Target’s point was to make a great social point or be politically correct. I think they were looking at the bottom line — what will make them more money? Selling toy cars to boys and girls just increases sales, no?
That damned free market!
And neither was Barack Obama.
Many of my liberal friends seem to be falling into two categories: Either Bernie Sanders is the savior we’ve all been waiting for, or he’s a fraud and real liberals should be supporting the Green Party candidate instead.*
The answer is between the two extremes.
Nobody is perfect. There’s plenty of stuff about Obama I disagreed with when he was running (and through his Presidency). But he was clearly the better choice of those who had the possibility of winning the election.
If you refuse to support the best candidate who can win because they are not pure enough, you’re going to end up disappointed a lot.
As I’ve said here many times, politics is the art of compromise. I’d rather compromise and get 50% of what I want than be stubborn and get 0%. If you don’t understand that, you will lose. Over and over again.
This is the main problem with the Tea Party extremists on the right — they cannot understand that reasonable people can differ with them, and as a result, our government gets very little done these days because they hold their breath until they turn blue instead of working to accomplish some of their goals. They may win the lower races, but they’re never going to win the Presidency.
The left’s version of the Tea Party is not much better. They demand purity, and thus throw their vote toward Ralph Nader or some other third party, which only helps those on the right win elections.
Some people are just blind followers. Their candidate (or religious leader or political viewpoint or favorite band or preferred sports team…) is perfect, and anyone who doesn’t see that is just plain wrong and must be insulted. It’s impossible to discuss the good and bad points with these people.
*Then there are my liberal friends who are supporting Hillary Clinton, but the attitude I get from them is more of a resigned “Well, I think she can win” vibe; I don’t sense a lot of enthusiasm there.
ventrellaquest.com 