Scott Adams wrote a few cartoons where his character Dogbert had a taser, and he used it on everybody who annoyed him. Sometimes I wish I lived in that world. That way the next time somebody quotes Benjamin Franklin out of context, I can zap him with the taser until smoke pours out his ears. Maybe then people will learn that they will never win a point by quoting somebody out of context. Ben Franklin was speaking of standing armies when he said, “he who would sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, will lose both and deserve neither.” Franklin was against standing armies while other delegates to the Constitutional Convention were very much in favor of them. Like all of Franklin’s other Constitutional ideas, it was ignored.
In the last few years I have seen that quote applied to such diverse matters as cameras at stop-lights, the enforcement of libel laws, September 11th conspiracies, breaking the media monopolies, health care, weapons of mass destruction, cell phones, and the income tax. Not once has anybody applied that quote to standing armies. It has become the all purpose response when there is no other argument. When shown proof that cameras at stop-lights reduce traffic fatalities, out comes the quote. When presented with an idea that journalistic standards and ethics be enforced again, there is always the quote. I have no idea what Franklin would say about national health, but I hardly think he would equate it with standing armies. Suggesting that September 11th conspiracists should take their medications becomes a threat to liberty. The quote has become an internet meme which has completely lost any meaning. It is another way of covering your ears and singing, “la la la, I can’t hear you.”
Nor has this become the sole example of quoting out of context. Recently Glenn Beck has been trotting out Thomas Paine in support of the tea baggers. Paine was part of a social movement called the Populists. He advocated a progressive tax on wealth, welfare, subsidized farm loans, and representative democracy. He even declared health to be a basic human right. It just goes to show you that any point can be won if the person being quoted is dead. Paine was an anti-federalist who strongly advocated for the original American Confederacy of 1780-1790. Upon his return to the United States in 1802, he lived in obscurity for seven years and his funeral was ignored. Once he was dead, he immediately became the darling of the nation. Great monuments were built in his honor, and Common Sense has been quoted out of context by public school teachers for over a century.
In a recent interview, former pro-wrestler turned politician, Jesse Ventura, criticized the Democrats and the Republicans for not working together. I will be the first to admit it when Ventura says something intelligent. It happens so rarely. Then Ventura had to ruin it by quoting the founding fathers out of context. He said that George Washington, John Adams and others warned us against the dangers of political parties. If I lived in Scott Adams’ world, I would zap Ventura with my taser until lightning came out of his nose. The founders liked the two party system just fine. It was the many political parties being formed in England they were scared of. Different factions were creating their own political parties and having them elected to Parliament. In order to get anything done, the different factions had to work together to create a compromise. This is the foundation of Parliamentary Democracy. The delegates, Ministers of Parliament, Congresspeople, whatever you want to call them, directly represent their constituents and get them the best deal possible. That was what our founding fathers were worried about. They wanted to make sure their people stayed on top.
The Constitution represents a naked power grab by a faction in government whom we now call the Federalists. Had the revolution not happened, George Washington would have been jailed by Britain for his shady land deals. Alexander Hamilton was very well connected to the American and British financial industry. He and his relative by marriage, Robert Morris, worked together on a bond scam that defrauded the Revolutionary enlisted soldiers of their back pay. Even the leader of the anti-federalist movement, Thomas Jefferson, was a wealthy landowner as well as a slave owner who held his own children as property. These were not people who particularly cared about the rights of other people. When Jefferson became president, he continued the Federalist system and liked it.
Our Federalist founders created a system which imitated the British court of the time. Our president has the exact same powers as the Constitutional Monarch. He is the head of the army, disperses funds, oversees the execution of the law, industry, diplomacy, etc, through his cabinet. Originally the Senate was appointed by the state governments. There are no term limits for the Supreme Court, and British common law gives any American judge the same power as a British duke. Alexander Hamilton created a taxation system where the wealthy were barely taxed and the poor and lower middle class maintained most of the tax burden. Washington selected his cabinet from industrialists and landowners. You did not find Patrick Henry or Herman Husband amongst his closest advisers. To this day the cabinet is selected from the wealthy to serve the interests of the wealthy, and the Supreme Court Justices are selected by their loyalty to the monied interests.
Due process in law has always been at the whim of our government. Four years after the Constitution was ratified, Washington’s Attorney General declared that the Constitution did not apply to anyone accused of rebelling against the United States. Suspects in the Whiskey Rebellion were arrested without warrant. They were paraded down Market Street in Philadelphia as traitors, and tossed into an unheated cell without food or light. This was a precedent John Yoo turned to in his torture memos. In a foreshadowing of Guantanamo, all twenty men were found not guilty, even though the judges gave instructions to enter a verdict of guilty. Over the years due process has also been denied to freed slaves, European immigrants, and anyone else without the funds to buy due process.
Those tea baggers, and anarchist libertarians who talk about freedom within the Constitution have no idea what they are talking about. The United States was never a representative democracy. Our president is chosen by the electoral college, so I don’t even know why we bother with the popular vote. It’s all show anyway. Our Congress and Senate are representatives of military industrial complex, just as our federalist founders wanted it. There has never been a time when the wealthy paid their share in taxes, and a poor man has rarely won against a rich man in court. That is how our legal system is set up. The Bill of Rights was a major concession won by the few populist delegates to the Constitutional Convention, but even the Bill of Rights is interpreted through the Supreme Court, which historically championed Jim Crow.
When Libertarians prattle on about a return to the Constitution, I wish I was Dogbert so I can tase them until they do the Monster Mash. The America they talk about never existed in the real world. Maybe if they walked through a wardrobe and traveled through Narnia, Aslan might direct them to it. We are living in the exact America the Federalists wanted. A return to the Constitution is only going to cement corporate control over this country. If we want to change the country, we need to look to the future. Trying to return to the past never works. The clock never ticks backwards, and trying to solve today’s problems with yesterday’s solutions only makes things worse. Look at what happened to Germany when they tried it.
Tea baggers across the country have this bumper sticker on their gas guzzling SUVs. It asks who is John Galt? Being literate, we know that John Galt is the mysterious stranger of Ayn Rand’s epic piece of capitalist drivel, Atlas Shrugged. Rand, a Soviet refugee, brought PTSD to new heights when she declared that anybody who did not smoke is a communist, and accused tobacco researchers of treason. Despite this obviously Stalinist line of reasoning, Rand continues to be the darling of the libertarian right. Just who is John Galt?
Rand gets really cute in the name she gives her character. His first name is the most common in the English speaking world. That represents his populist roots. His last name Galt, sounds like a Anglo-Saxon surname, but it is also the alias used by the God Odin when he walked amongst humans. Odin was in the habit of handing doomed swords out to unsuspecting vikings, and when asked, Odin would say he was Galt. At that point the viking would know that he was completely and totally screwed. If he followed the course of common sense, dropped the sword, and ran like hell, he would earn the wrath of Odin. If he kept the sword, he would be led to a particularly tragic and heroic doom. So Galt is God Almighty, but a particularly sadistic and untrustworthy God who has no use for free will.
Now, what captains of industry do we know who are in the habit of giving out cursed gifts? I can think of two right off the top of my head: Henry Ford and Prescott Bush. Their support of Hitler and the Third Reich resulted in death, devastation, destruction, and the systematic murder of 10 million human beings. It ended in the deaths of many Nazi leaders; most dramatically in Joseph Goebbel’s murder of his innocent daughters. I think it is safe to assume that John Galt is somebody who thinks he’s God Almighty, and does not shrink at murder as a means to an end. As a God, Odin was a great fan of war and destruction, we can say that John Galt is a warmonger.
To understand why John Galt is such a bloodthirsty bastard, we need to look at the Odin myth a little more closely. Why did Odin, reputably the wisest of the Gods, have this compulsion to create death, destruction, and misery amongst the mortal population? He was serving a higher purpose, and one that only he in his wisdom could truly understand. The other gods had a partial understanding of that purpose, and mere humans could receive glimpses of that purpose. Only Odin could see the whole purpose, and he gave up an eye to do it. Like Odin, John Galt is the one eyed man in the land of the blind. The world depends on his vision so that it can keep on turning. This is why the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as human beings. Captains of industry, CEOs, Chairmen of the board are all ubermench. It is only right that they have more power than us lesser mortals who are too humble to share in their great vision.
Next, you may ask, what is this great vision Galt cannot share with the rest of us mere mortals? Simply that there is a war coming up between the good guys and the bad guys. It will be the war to end all wars and humanity needs to be ready for it. Odin keep humanity in training by stirring up wars, and choosing the best of the slain to be his warriors when the final conflict happens. Our captains of industry, our John Galts, also see a great war coming, but instead of the Frost Giants, we’ll be fighting godless communists. No, that was two generations back. Instead of the Frost Giants, we’ll be fighting the drug cartels in South America. That really didn’t work out that well. This time, we will be fighting the Jihadists. True, they are a handful of extremists whom our forces chase around the Himalayas like it was a Keystone Kops movie, but they are the enemy that will destroy our way of life! We better get them before they get us.
Ultimately who is John Galt? He is a war mongering bastard who does not care how many people he has to have killed to achieve his goals. He is a captain of industry who knows better than the rest of us as to how we should run our lives. He is a man with such power that governments declares anybody who opposes him as the powers of darkness. John Galt is a man who kings and presidents listen to because in Galt’s mind he is always right. What historic figure fits this mold? There is only one, Joseph Stalin.
Stalin began as a peasant and worked himself up to the head of the Soviet Union through his own talents for murder and lack of ethics. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions, and used the needs of the state justification. Stalin was a strong man who commanded the resources of all of Mother Russia and a good chunk of Eastern Europe to boot. On top of everything else, the crazy bastard thought he was God. To this day, there are Russians who still support and apologize for Joe Stalin.
Ayn Rand took the Stalinist qualities that so scarred her as a child and deified them into her character of John Galt. Let’s bring things back to reality here. Who is John Galt? John Galt is a parasite who grew up in a privileged class and accepts these privileges as part of his due. You can also look at John Galt as Bill Cosby, a man who feels that he owes nobody anything because he paid his own way into the upper class. John Galt can be seen as National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who does not want the world to think that she got her job through affirmative action. After all, her grandfather paid blood to bring his family into the ruling class. George W. Bush is also John Galt. We all know that the draft was created for poor people, and not the son of the EXXON heir. John Galt is every politician in Washington who denies the majority of Americans jobs and health care.
John Galt is useless, because if John Galt was really all that talented, he could make it to the top in any economic system or society. This makes Galt just another one of Timmy Geithner’s Wall St. cronies, stealing money from honest tax payers. That’s who John Galt really is. Stop and remember, Stalin made it to the top by robbing banks.
I was very surprised to discover an article about Rand on Alternet today. (Okay, I admit it, my wife discovered it for me.) In this chilling article, we see that Rand was a serial killer groupie, and that her heroes was based on a sicko who strangled and dismembered a little girl. What does this say about the people who take her nonsense seriously. What’s worse, is that Alan Greenspan was one of her buddies.
We could always depend on John McCain to defend the free market. It did not matter what happened, John McCain believed in the Free Market as strongly as Jerry Falwell believed in Jesus. The Tech Bubble burst, and John McCain blamed it on government regulations. Nobody could deny reality better than John McCain. He was the living embodiment of Voltaire’s Dr. Pantagruel, who preached that we are in a perfect world even after the most horrible things that happened to him. Like Dr. Pantagruel, McCain lives in his own little fantasy world. Despite the reality, McCain could be depended on to preach the Free Market.
Today, John McCain has become the champion of strong market regulations. How the hell did that happen? McCain ignored our sick economy for years. He ignored the growing homeless crisis while pointing to the booming stock market. He ignored the reality that the U.S stock market is no longer an indicator of U.S economic health. How can the stock market reflect American economic health when American industry has been outsourced? Today the U.S stock market is more of an indicator of Chinese economic health. Now, all of a sudden, John McCain is pointing the finger of shame at the regulatory agencies for not doing their jobs.
How can the regulatory agencies do their jobs without the funding or the personnel needed to do the job? McCain was an active supporter of the deregulation that made the economic meltdown happen. How can the regulatory agencies do their jobs when McCain helped legalize corporate crime? Instead of going up before the American public and saying; “oops, I kinda’ screwed the pooch there, didn’t I?” McCain blamed the very regulatory agencies that he helped to emasculate. Talk about blaming the victim.
What caused this change of heart? Why has John McCain changed his tune and championed strong economic regulations? I think it has something to do with the fact that the European banks are going to want a return on their investments. Those banks are not propping up our sick and dying economy simply because they love us. They are propping it up because they don’t want to be pulled off the cliff after us. After all, these are not American loan officers. They are not going to give billions of dollars in loans to an indigent nation just for the commission. Europe has regulations against making bad loans. The European banks are going to want full value for every Euro they put in the U.S.
John McCain is not just being examined by the American public, he is also being examined by the European banks. They want to make sure that our next president will turn over a new leaf for the American economy. The European bankers want to know that the next president will restore the financial regulations that FDR instituted in the Thirties. They want to know that the regulatory agencies are fully funded and once again watching out for the American economy. Europe wants to be certain that American tax money will be used to invest in U.S industry and economic growth, and U.S based corporations pay their fair share. The Europeans will want U.S jobs pulled out of China and Mexico and returned to American soil where they belong.
We are in a unique situation to take back our government and our economy. Do we want national health? This is the time to demand it. Do we want an end to the ridiculous war on drugs? Go for it! Do we want to stop the Middle Eastern Wars and limit the president’s powers to start them? We will never have a better chance. Today is the day we take back our government.
The Neocons have utterly destroyed our economy. They are no longer in control. Somebody else is holding the other end of John McCain’s leash. That somebody has Obama’s leash in the other hand. I imagine that particular somebody speaking with a British accent. Now is the perfect time to pressure Congress for the social changes we need. Demand national health, demand the end of war and the end of nuclear weapons. Demand the pretty moon. Chances are we’ll get it.
The only thing I’m afraid of is that the American public will swallow another free market pipe dream. Then our grandchildren will be reliving this same nightmare.
This has been the burning question amongst Paris’s camp followers. Undoubtedly a hot president should have a vice-president almost as hot as she is. Vice-presidents are after all the ultimate political accessory. They have to be carefully chosen to display the president’s best qualities without overshadowing the chief executive. For instance when we look at George W. Bush, we can all be relieved that he is not Dick Cheney. We don’t want to go to that kind of extreme with Paris, but she needs a running mate we can all fantasize to when we can’t have Paris.
I have been very heavily criticized by my peers for suggesting Monica Lewinsnki and rightfully so. I mean really, Monica contrasts better with Paris than any other vice presidential hopeful.
However it has been pointed out to me that if anything were to happen to Paris, Monica would end up being the POTUS. So what would happen if Paris were to have a fashion disaster or a bad hair day and not be able to make it to a State of the Union Address? That would be very embarrassing for many of the Republican incumbents who had voted to impeach Clinton. Can you imagine them all avoiding each other’s eyes and blushing while Monica made her speech? No, Monica as V.P was not one of my brightest ideas and I withdraw it. Perhaps Monica’s talents could be better used as National Security Adviser.
So perhaps we should forget about Monica and look at Britney Spears instead. I don’t know about the rest of you gentlemen but I would certainly prefer to look at Britney instead of Monica. The problem with having Paris and Britney on the same ticket is that they are both blond and would eventually begin to compete with each other. So really, how can we expect to end the war in Iraq when we’re having cat fights in the White House Rose Garden? (Can you imagine seeing that on CNN?) So that leaves Britney out.
Besides Britney has had some major bad press due to her mental health issues. Historically the American public has refused to vote for a candidate who had been forcibly committed. So that automatically excludes Britney as a potential vice president, however this does not exclude Britney from a role in Paris’s cabinet. Considering that Britney has been promoted, packaged, and sold to the public like a can of peas ever since she was a mouskateer; Britney may better serve our nation as the Secretary of Commerce.
Next on our list would be Lindsey Lohan. Yes, she is younger than Britney and therefor does not share Britney’s years of experience in being a marketed commodity. Still her very youth may be turned to an advantage in attracting the Catholic Clergy Vote. Plus we might get a stronger turnout by the lesbians. Some people are nervous about Lindsay and her history of drug use, but I think those people are making mountains out of molehills. After all, right now we have a coke addict in the White House. An actress who had been through rehab may even be seen as a step up. Besides, Lindsay is a natural redhead and won’t have that blond competition thing going with the POTUS.
See? Lindsay’s lack of height beautifully displays Paris’s height and figure but platforms can compensate for the camera. Won’t they take some hot pictures for some really hot campaign posters? Yes indeed, I think that Lindsay is a definitely Vice Presidential material. However, if for any reason she turns down the position, I could not think of anybody who would be better qualified as head of the DEA.
What about straight women and gay men? A lot of people have asked me that. After all, haven’t heterosexual men dominated American politics long enough? Don’t women and gays have a right to vote for a better fantasy than Obama? I think that is a valid point and even though Lindsay remains my current favorite, I’m going to suggest some male running mates for Paris. Moby would be an obvious contender. With the liberals actively courting disaffected born again Christianoids, Moby would certainly be the perfect Vice presidential running mate to attract the Christianoid vote. As a matter of fact, short of employing armed thugs at the polls, I couldn’t think of any other way to get a Christianoid to vote for Paris. Besides, that cue-ball look of his sets off Paris’s blond tresses.
Look at that. He even dresses like a vice president. The only problem I can see is that his reputation for ethical behavior might alienate him from the Washington power elite, and the fact that he is a vegan may make the meat industry feel threatened. Paris should take that into consideration before asking him to join her ticket. Maybe Moby’s talent and notoriety could be better utilized as the head of the FDA.
So how about a Vice President that everybody could fantasize about? Like say, David Bowie. Straight men and lesbians could make believe that he was female. Straight females could safely make believe they were lesbians. Women love him, men dig him. He would be absolutely perfect. There are only two problems with Bowie. One is that he’s British and disqualified for the presidency and the other is that his make-up might clash with the president’s.
Still you have to admit David was a good idea while he lasted. So if David can’t be vice-president, maybe he can help Paris prove her foreign policy acumen by accepting the post of Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
That leaves Paris’s original choice for her running mate, Rihanna. Looking at the two of them side by side makes me think that maybe this entire blog was a waste of time. After all, Paris Hilton is the hot candidate and Paris sure as hell knows what hot is. Not only that but the way those ladies contrast each other will make Rhianna a slam-dunk for 2016. Rhianna may even take some male African American voters away from Obama. You think?
Without a shadow of a doubt, Rihanna should be Paris’s number one choice for vice president. Those two are just too photogenic together, there won’t be that blond competition thing going like there would be with Britney, and unlike Lindsay, Rhianna won’t get carded at diplomatic cocktail parties.
So vote for Britney and Rhianna, the only change that matters in Washington.
I am officially giving my full and unstinting support for Paris Whitney Hilton’s run for the presidency of the United States of America, and why the hell not? Who’s portrait would you rather see hanging on post office walls, (The walls, not the bulletin boards) Paris’s or John McCain’s. Well for any red blooded dirty old heterosexual man, the answer would be obvious. We want Paris. True, we will have to use a special head shot for Public Schools, but Paris’s picture would certainly inspire a more intense interest in politics for junior high school aged boys than say a picture of Barrack Obama. Place Paris in front of TV camera in a low cut clinging evening gown, revealing that she is not wearing foundation garments, and I’m sure that about 45% of American voters will entirely fail to notice that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is still going strong, that Homeland Security is still monitoring our phone calls, Gitmo is still waterboarding prisoners, and that we still don’t have a national health plan.
That’s all well and good, you say, but where does Paris stand on the issues? Well that’s a really dumb question. Paris will stand wherever the White House photographer tells her to stand. Duh! Well what are her opinions on the issues? Damn! You heterosexual women just have to take all the fun out of everything I guess. Okay, to find the answer to that totally inconsequential question we should hear what Paris has to say herself
See? Paris would be the perfect compromise candidate. I think her energy policy is absolutely hot! Only an heiress like Paris could afford to pay for the Public Relations agency and speech writers to come up with an energy policy like that. Just think what answers she could pay them to come up with for Iraq? Blackwater could murder every infant in Baghdad and Paris could have us yelling for more, and when U.S troops invade Iran; well let’s just say that nukes won’t be the only things that will be exploding.
There is just one thing that concerns me about Paris’s campaign and that is her choice of a running mate. I think Paris should choose Monica Lewinski. Monica has more in the way of political exposure and would attract disaffected Hillary supporters into becoming Paris’s camp followers. They could pass out cigars at campaign rallies without sending a message of support for the tobacco industry. Yes, I can just see the bumper stickers now. Paris and Monica: The Only Change That Matters in Washington.