Rant Du Jour

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

michaelchefoundingfathers

I don’t know what’s more annoying: Michael Che’s triumphantly smug face or this stupid anti-intellectual argument that I hear constantly. Oh, I know, it’s the dumb argument, hence this post.

Whether the Constitution needs to be amended is a discussion that reasonable people can have. Perhaps it’s true that conditions have changed so much since the late 18th century that it’s prudent to scale back or revise some of its provisions. The Founding Fathers would be the first to agree that a political order sometimes needs to be changed. They included an amendment process, after all.

But whether the Founders were old, white, and racist is entirely irrelevant. Mr. Che and the wise sages at Daily Kos would be on the side of confiscating guns even if the Founders were all abolitionists who broke with England to establish the United States of Oppression-Free Diversity. Furthermore, if we’re supposed to think that the 2nd Amendment is discredited because Washington, Jefferson, and Madison owned slaves, then by that logic the entire Bill of Rights is suspect. So which other Amendments should we dispense with, Mr. Che?

  • “I know the forefathers said you have a right to a government that doesn’t establish an official religion, but they also said you could own people.”
  • “I know the forefathers said you have a right to demand a warrant founded upon probable cause, but they also said you could own people.”
  • “I know the forefathers said you have a right to be free of double jeopardy, but they also said you could own people.”
  • “I know the forefathers said you have a right to due process, but they also said you could own people.”
  • “I know the forefathers said you have a right to a jury trial, but they also said you could own people.”
  • “I know the forefathers said you have a right to confront your accusers, but they also said you could own people.”
  • “I know the forefathers said you have a right to punishment that isn’t cruel or unusual, but they also said you could own people.”

C’mon, the Founders were a bunch of racist shitlords! Surely we can do better.

About Blowhard, Esq.

Amateur, dilettante, wannabe.
This entry was posted in Politics and Economics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Rant Du Jour

  1. Mary Scriver says:

    The reality is that a lot of people are owned by other people today. (Langeweische in Vanity Fair.)

    Like

  2. JV says:

    Maybe SNL should come with a trigger warning?

    Like

  3. He needs to work on his smirk.

    Like

  4. Fenster says:

    “I know the forefathers said you have a right to a government that doesn’t establish an official religion, but they also said you could own people.”

    Good point. I never thought of it that way.

    Like

  5. Do you mean a comic moment in a Saturday night skit show isn’t an exemplar of stellar logic? What kind of world has this become?!

    Like

    • Whether one finds the joke funny or not, it’s an argument that I see invoked in all sorts of contexts.

      Like

    • Not to mention that comedians have been lauded as truth tellers since the beginning of time. And I absolutely agree that’s one of their functions — saying what can’t be said. But if that’s the case, then they’re accountable for their jokes insofar as they can’t distance themselves from them when criticized.

      Jon Stewart did this all the time. He was hailed as “the last honest newsman” but when he was forced to defend his political views, he’d dismiss the criticism with a “Har har, I’m just a comedian.” Sorry, can’t have it both ways.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. agnostic says:

    Diversity is not compatible with a legal culture emphasizing civil rights — look at any modern nation that is ethnically diverse *and* even remotely stable, and they achieve that stability by a highly powerful state.

    Brazil might as well be a police state, but it’s needed with all the ferals running loose.

    Singapore is authoritarian in order to keep the Chinese and Muslims from killing each other in civil war.

    South Africa in the not-too-distant past enjoyed stability via apartheid, for obvious reasons.

    Once the population becomes diverse enough, one or more groups will try to assert their group’s dominance at the expense of others — that’s only natural. To contain that from exploding into ongoing, everyday civil war, the government will have to strip away many civil rights — and from all groups, even those less inclined to do wrong (otherwise their “unfair” treatment would trigger resentment and violence from some other group).

    Where in America do the police have a tendency to “go too far”? — it’s not rural New England, it’s Texas, California, Florida, and other overly-diverse places where a higher level of state force is sadly but truly needed just to secure basic law & order.

    Any civil libertarian who doesn’t support homogenizing the population is either clueless, dishonest, or traitorous.

    Like

  7. Zimriel says:

    Jefferson was right. ” … Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.”

    Like

  8. Will S. says:

    Anyone whose last name is ‘Che’ who doesn’t disown his/her own parents… I won’t bother taking seriously.

    Then again, not surprised he hints at violence against those he disagrees with; hence ‘going to another room and deciding what are we going to do about grandpa’, blah blah blah.

    Like

  9. JV says:

    Most of the comments here come off just as humorless and over-sensitive as those college students clambering for trigger warnings. Jeez. I agree, the logic of the joke isn’t that sound, but it’s still just a fucking joke.

    Like

  10. a.morphous says:

    Your very clever listing of other pieces of the constitution that are open to question because of the moral standing of their authors *entirely misses the point*, which I guess is not surprising.

    The point being, there is nothing sacrosanct about any of it, no part of it that is not open to question. This would be true even if the forefathers were saints according to today’s standards, of course.

    Like

    • No sir, you are the one who seems to have missed the point b/c I spent a whole paragraph acknowledging that “there is nothing sacrosanct about any of it, no part of it that is not open to question.” Perhaps in your eagerness to tell me how wrong I am you skipped over the part where I said:

      Whether the Constitution needs to be amended is a discussion that reasonable people can have. Perhaps it’s true that conditions have changed so much since the late 18th century that it’s prudent to scale back or revise some of its provisions. The Founding Fathers would be the first to agree that a political order sometimes needs to be changed. They included an amendment process, after all.

      I was attacking the underlying premise of the joke, i.e. that b/c the FFs were racist, then the Second Amendment is suspect. Well, if that’s true, then all the Amendments are suspect, even ones that liberals hold on to for dear life. This was the whole point of the joke, not merely that the Second Amendment is outdated and should be repealed.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s