But what do I know? I'm just a twice clicken brown shirt teabaggin tjroll. Right? --PatP

Not now. There are dirty, swaying men at my door. They’re looking for Brian. I need to go deal with that. --Thor

If Joss Wedon was near me, I'd of kicked his ass. --PaulC

Sunday, January 30, 2011

The Founding Fathers

It seems everywhere in US politics today, people are bitching and moaning about “what the founding fathers intended.” Well, here it is. I’m going to break the story. I know precisely, with no ambiguity or uncertainty, what the founding fathers intended.

They intended the government to be able to change to meet the needs of the day. Essentially, they knew that the government they put together 250 years ago wouldn’t work forever. It was what they needed at the time, so it’s what they did. What they needed then is not the same as what we need now.

So let’s stop bickering about “what the founding fathers wanted.” They wanted to be free of England and to construct a political system that could evolve to fit the needs of an evolving nation. Well, that’s not what we need any more. America knows who she is now, and it’s time to move out of Uncle Sam’s place (Uncle Sam who, btw, went down to the tavern every night with Uncle Tom and got positively hammer-headed).

Exactly how old should a nation be before they have their first revolution (I don’t want to get into a debate about this, but the first one was technically a successful rebellion, not a revolution. A revolution is when you replace the government. We didn’t. We seceded from Great Britain, who’s government remains to this day)? Seriously. We’re 235 this year. Can we move out of the basement and find our own place now? It’s great that our parents laid down all these rules to make sure we would learn how to play nice with all the other kids, but I think we’re old enough to start making our own mistakes.

So please. For the love of God. Can we stop arguing about what our founders intended? Because (a) they wrote it in plain, simple English specifically to avoid mis-interpretation and (b) what they wanted was for us to have a government that would meet our needs, regardless of how the world around us changed.

Even with this great constitution, every page of which says “change this when it doesn’t make sense any more,” we still have a religious government (yay two-party system!), a political system that essentially has no left hand (srsly. When half your country thinks gays shouldn’t be allowed in the military, and the other half debates them instead of calling them retards and going on about the business of running a country, Rome only just fell three or four centuries ago), and what’s been threatening to turn into an unabashed police state for almost ten years. So maybe we do still need some guidance from somewhere. It’s just too bad that we think we’re the hottest shit in the bowl and won’t listen to what anybody else says. This whole manifest destiny thing was cool when we had a whole continent to discover, but now it’s just pathetic.


  1. We the people moved out of Mums basement long ago. We started with the Bill of Rights and first months rent. We grew up. Amendments, baby. Yea, we fjucked up along the way, and then fixed our fjuckups(13,14,15,19, and 21st amendments).

    So far, so good.

    You can always trust the Americans. In the end they will do the right thing, after they have eliminated all the other possibilities.

  2. Yeah. It's just that eliminating the other possibilities is an unnecessarily long and painful process, and in some cases, a process that England already went though. Few-party politics being a bad idea, for example.

    The problem with America is that we think we're better than everybody else, so we refuse to learn from anyone else's mistakes. We learn well enough from our own (usually), but not from anyone else's.

    Who could possibly know better how to deal with terrorist problems than Israel? Nobody, that's who. But do we even consider following their example and trying what they know works? No, because we're smarter than them and we can find a better way.

  3. That's funny because Winston Churchill was the one who said "You can always trust the Americans....". Thanks but I would rather not swap for a parliament type government.

    Nice to see you earn your racist badge. You do know that by advocating for Israeli style profiling you will be branded a racist, right? I earned mine long ago in my opposition to affirmative action. I display it proudly next to my homophobia ribbon that sits loud and proud atop my fascist overlord boot trophy that has a burn mark from dirty hippie incense.

  4. A couple things. First of all, profiling works. You can't argue with results. There's nothing inherently racist about profiling. It's purely scientific. If you order a cheeseburger from a Canadian, you know to ask for it without mayonnaise. That's profiling. If you're looking for a weed connection, you don't ask a policeman. That's profiling. If you're looking for Muslims, you grab the arab with a big beard before you grab the hispanic dude wearing a Yankees cap. That's profiling and it makes sense.

    If you want to buy beer, you don't go to the mall. Is it possible that you will find beer at the mall? Sure. Any store could be running some kind of special where you get a free case of Budweiser with the purchase of a pair of cheap sunglasses. But it's not very likely. If you want to buy beer, you go to the beer store, where you are most likely to find beer. Is it possible that you will come away from the beer store sans frosty lager? Absolutely. They could be closed, they might not have your brand, they might not serve your kind here. But when you want beer, you go to a beer store, because you're not an idiot and you know that's the place you're most likely to be able to buy beer.

    When did people in America stop believing that profiling is a good thing? IT saves time and money, and it puts good science to good use (and encourages further research in said science).

    Do I think it's okay to pull every dark-skinned big-bearded dude out of line and give him special attention? No. This is America: We need to treat everybody the same until there's reasonable suspicion of intent. But I do think it's okay to sit every passenger down in a little room all by himself and ask him a few questions to make sure he's not going to blow up the plane.

    And no, I don't mean have minimum wage emergency hires ask people if they're terrorists. I mean have trained interrogators take five minutes with every passenger and find out if they're a threat to security. It doesn't have to be messy; it doesn't have to be probing; it doesn't have to be embarassing. A good reader can tell pretty quickly if any given person is truly dangerous, regardless of what they ask them.

    That's what they do in Israel. It's profiling, but it's not racial profiling. It's psychological profiling. The police use it, the CIA uses it, the armed forces use it, and HR reps across the world use it. There's no reason we shouldn't do it in what has apparenly been classified a high-security area. It would totally eliminate the need to scan anyone's body or pat them down, and would be more effective. Of course you'd still have to send everyone's luggage and carryons through scanners, and you'd still do random searches of checked baggage.

    But you're right. As far as stupid, scared Americans are concerned, profiling = racism and what works for the rest of the world necessarily will not work in America, because we didn't think of it first.

    Second: we have a "Parliament-type government." We just don't call it that. The major difference between England's government and ours is that they have many parties with many different positions, while we have just the two. The problem with that is we get so involved in battling each other for advantage that the actual task of government is left undone.

    Third: Don't really know where you're going with Churchill. Why does it matter who said it?

  5. No sir,we have a "presidential-type" government. The President is a separate power and not beholding to parliament. Its a fundamental difference.


  6. If the president gets in legal trouble, there's a Congressional hearing. That makes him beholden to them. They decide his fate if he's a bad boy.

    The other major difference between our system and their's is that we don't have a "lower house." Yes, officially there's the Senate and the House, and the House is technically the "lower house," but I refuse to believe that it's any easier to get into the house than the senate, based on your status as an aristocrat or a regular guy.

    Lol at the comic, btw.

  7. We do not allow our "parliament" to call for new elections. We vote every four years, period. When the President actually breaks the law in a big way and gets caught at it, like Nixon and Clinton, we still keep up the four year cycle.

    Regular guy goes to congress is a movie starring Jimmy Stewart, who did not shoot Liberty Valance. Watch it. No, not Mr Smith. Its who we are. Farmers, professors, bankers, business men, boy scouts and lawyers. The inspired citizen with a cause. The son of a tavern owner. Actors, players, hustlers, millionaires and tax dodgers. Ex cons, perverts and drug addicts. Both fair and foul. Same as it ever was.

    Grok my jive, me hearties