23 October 2010

The one about the Constitution

Like fundamentalist christians who read the bible as literal, the very words of God committed to paper and ink, the new right has taken to reading the U.S. Constitution the same way.  They nitpick about this passage and that passage the same way they do about selections of the bible that prove troublesome to them.  They blame "the media" (their convenient whipping boy) for interpreting the Constitution differently than they do despite the long record of justices both conservative and liberal performing that almost thankless task.  And why have justices been interpreting the Constitution for us these last 220 years?  Because the Constitution says they have to.  How ironic.
The framers of the Constitution, if their personal papers are any indication of the thoughts that went into it, expected the Constitution to be changed as time went along.  Not a one of them seemed to think the document was a static organ of state handed down from Olympus or Heaven or wherever your favorite deities reside.  You don't really have to read their personal papers to learn that, though, since the principle of change is built into the Constitution itself.  It outlines how the document can be altered and amended.  If it weren't meant to be changed, then why would they include directions on how to change it?


The Constitution is not the bible for our government.  It's simply the agreed-upon source of law for the United States.  It was argued over and hammered into existence by men whose goal was to create a union of several states working together under a central coordinating government.  It was designed to maintain the autonomy of the states but also create the means for these states to cooperate in harmony for the good of the entire nation.  It has not always been successful, and those times of failure have required people of good intention to try to repair the deficiency.  I'm disheartened when I hear Tea Party loyalists insisting that this branch of government or that President "return" to the Constitution or "start following" the Constitution.  Then it dawns on me that these Tea Party folks don't know anything about the Constitution, its purpose, place, or history, like they slept through social studies classes and civics courses, if they actually studied it at all.


A return to the "original" Constitution would mean no Bill of Rights.  It would mean a black man would only legally count as three-fifths of a man.  Non-whites would be denied the vote.  Women would be unable to vote.  Involuntary servitude would be legal.   18- to 20-year olds would definitely be unable to vote, including our soldiers, even though they are risking their lives for our country.  Is that what the Tea Party devotees really want?  Personally, I don't think they know what they want.  Almost everyone in America is feeling left out and marginalized, but it isn't because of misreading the Constitution.  It's because the richest 10% of the nation is pulling the strings on us citizen puppets.  The middle class and poor are dancing to the tune of the plutocrats who rule our country from secret back rooms.


The uneducated and undereducated masses of Americans don't have the acumen or wherewithal to know everything that's happening in the upper reaches of Mount Olympus Wall Street.  They just know something is wrong.  They want to have a voice.  So they blame teachers not leading children in prayer at school.  They blame the courts for not siding with their religious doctrines.  They blame science for not teaching mythology as fact.  They blame condoms.  They blame gays.  They blame Canada.  They blame Mexico.  They blame Europe.  They blame whatever is different now than it was a hundred years ago as though life had been better in "the good ol' days."  The United States chose the path of individual liberty over social responsibility a long time ago.  American individuals wanted to be able to do whatever the hell they felt like and damned be anyone who got in the way.  There is a price to pay for this socially irresponsible free-for-all.  It means any Jack, Jill, or Johnny can start a tax-free business called a church and bilk the suckers who join out of their livelihoods.  It means a bank can charge whatever it wants in interest no matter how crushing the weight.  It means a railroad company can take your farm without paying a fair market price for it.  It means a city can take your house and land to sell to a private business enterprise.  It means a food chain can pour bleach on its ham and sell it as edible.  It means gas rises to three dollars a gallon while oil executives enjoy "unexpected windfalls" from gas sales.  It means corporations in America pay nothing in corporate taxes decade after decade because of the generous loopholes granted by Congress.   But more insidiously, it also means that our governing oligarchs will rake in billions of dollars of profit on the backs of the American working poor while Congressmen and Judges enjoy luxurious holidays abroad for greasing the wheels of law and justice in favor of the plutocracy.


No, it isn't the Constitution.  It's just us.  I hope America will continue to correct the mistakes of its past and move toward democratic social responsibility.  Like everything else on earth, America is evolving little by little, and it's scaring people.  Good.


Photos: 
obamaconspiracy.org                                                                                                                                                      
rubylane.com

08 October 2010

The one about plutocrats

I just saw Art Robinson, a kook running for Congress from Oregon on the Republican ticket, on Rachel Maddow's TV show.  If that guy is one of the sane Republicans, then there is no hope for them.  He just sat there yelling at the interviewer instead of talking about anything meaningful or responding to questions.  Of course, he's playing to the glee of his half-wit supporters, but still, he could at least be a gentleman and pretend to be interviewed.  I was so disgusted by that arrogance, I am glad I don't live in his state, or he'd be getting a stern letter from me.  A man who aspires to public office and can't be relied upon to stay civil and answer reasonable questions before an international audience is unfit for public office.  But that standard fell by the wayside a long time ago, I suppose.  The United States has always been a land of money-grubbing politicians fawning over the wealthy plutocrats at whose teats they suckle, but there were codes of honorable public behavior in days past.  You can be passionate without being rude.  You can extol the virtues of your beliefs without denying the same to others.  You can guide interviews toward your points without yelling at the interviewer.  The longer I live, the more disgusted I am with the rich, with big business, with Republicans, and with religion.  It all turns my stomach.