Blog Archives

Reverse Reverse Discrimination

Nothing is stupider or more pathetic than white males bitching about unfairness in America. We’ve been giving ourselves special treatment since we hit that rock.

But thanks to America’s steady decline as a place of limitless opportunity, there’s a whole lot of us incensed that minorities and women are helped by programs that promote parity with the people who have traditionally enjoyed the rewards of this soon to be not-so-fecund land now that there’s increasingly less to go around.

Some of the more troglodytic among our kind called it “reverse discrimination” or “reverse racism” whenever a traditionally oppressed minority was given “special” privileges, like being given a protected spot at a prestigious college or enjoying first serve on a government contract as a minority owned business.

Worry no more, my white male compadres.

The Trump administration is here to fix this interminable, institutionalized discrimination against us.

Always implicit in the “take our country back” rhetoric was that we were clawing it from the uppity females and minorities who had taken our places in line as the real backbone of this country. Those are our shitty jobs with vanishing pensions, damn it. Those are our graduate degrees that aren’t good for much any more.

If PoliticusUSA’s angle on Donald Trump’s signing statement astride the stopgap budget is correct, the special treatment gravy train is over.

I know what you’re thinking. Donald Trump cannot spell the word “tap” on his phone, much less craft a response full of legalese to a budget that he neither read nor had a hand in writing. I’m as incredulous as you are. In toto, if you read the whole nauseating thing, it is the equivalent of I’m The President And nyah nyah nyah. Its thrust is nothing new; it’s just another hopscotch square towards the unitary executive gaining primacy over anything or anyone that seeks to limit its power. Elbridge Gerry called it: we are becoming a monarchy, with a corrupt aristocrat wearing the funny hat, or in Donald Trump’s case, the scotch-taped power tie.

But anyway, included is a sop to bitchy, insecure, aggrieved white males who don’t want to share their station with anyone. In it, somehow, the intent of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment has been turned against itself. For example, used to be a time when the Fourteenth tried to help the enslaved and marginalized become equal. Now we all know that the promise of the Fourteenth took almost a century to realize itself in jurisprudence with Brown. And even that was like a trip to the dentist for regional white men. But anyway, it had legal dynamite in it whose explosion is still being heard today, and thankfully so 99.9999% of the time. It ended with the clause “equal protection of the laws” and no one was to be denied.

But now white men are apparently on unequal footing with groups like women, blacks, and Indians:

“My Administration shall treat provisions that allocate benefits on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender (e.g., Division B, under the heading “Minority Business Development”; Division C, sections 8016, 8021, 8038, and 8042; Division H, under the headings “Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses,” “School Improvement Programs,” and “Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program Account”; Division K, under the heading “Native American Housing Block Grants”; and Division K, section 213) in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.”

Taken at face value, in Trump’s America the long march to a balance of opportunity has become lopsided again, and this time around white males are the ones that need protection from the oppressive minorities.

Further through the looking glass we go.

Over, under, sideways down.

When will it end?

When will it end?

 

 

Neil, You’re Missing Something

Far be it from me to delve into the technicalities of a particular piece of jurisprudence.

But as a lay person, I feel I can demur against the judicial reasoning that one part of the first amendment runs roughshod over another.

Antonin Scalia Neil Gorsuch seems to believe that the free exercise clause is of far more import than the establishment clause.

It should be common knowledge by now that the impetus behind the establishment clause was that the State stayed out of the religion business, favoring and endorsing none. Fifteen years after the constitution was authored, President Thomas Jefferson made it clear to the Danbury Baptists that while he respected religious liberty, no special consideration was to be granted to a particular faith as far as the United States government was concerned. That brief 1802 missive heralded the idea of church and state separation. And for the most part, the secularization of our government has prevailed, notwithstanding things like the changes to the pledge of allegiance, annoying non-inclusive invocations before legislative sessions and the god bullshit on our money because of our allergies to any form of economic distribution besides capitalism.

Well, the SCOTUS is about to make a turn for the worse, with Neil Gorsuch leading the way. A case is currently being debated that could expand the definition of “religious liberty” in the law’s eyes . It may now mean that government funding for religious institutions is acceptable because the first amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. Therefore, the withholding of government funds (tax revenue that the church does not contribute to, mind you) because of adherence to the concept of refusal to establish amounts to discrimination against them. The plaintiffs further cite the fourteenth amendment, which as you all know mandates equal treatment under the law. If a public school wants to improve one of their playgrounds with government grant money, they reason, then it’s only fair that a religious institution should be able to have access to those funds as well.

This is very tricky legal jiu-jitsu, blowing off the establishment clause entirely to  accommodate believers. It pits the constitution against itself. If this decision slides rightward, you’re going to start paying for improvements to churches.

It starts with something innocuous like surfacing playgrounds. God only knows how far this can go, because the ineluctable tendency in Christian circles is to push, push and push the envelope.

Scott Walker Is Political Flarp

I say this because he makes a lot of noise and impossible to hold onto if squeezed. One reporter squeezed him on immigration and he burbled out this nonsense:

KASIE HUNT: Do you think that birthright citizenship should be ended?

SCOTT WALKER: Well, like I said, Harry Reid said it’s not right for this country — I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward —

HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship?

WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country.

Yeah. Very clear. Clear that you don’t have a grasp on the issue. A few days later, Walker was squeezed again by a reporter on the topic and this fart sound came out of his face:

“I’m not taking a position on it one way or the other,” Walker said in an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood. Today, Walker said his stance had been misunderstood during a long campaign day involving numerous interviews marked by interruptions.

Walker once stood on the left side of the Republican debate, favoring a path to citizenship for immigrants who entered the country illegally. He has since explained that he changed his mind in response to additional information.

Flip. Flarp.

Are Republican voters going to let him get away with this? Does he really think he can punt on a major political issue and still run for president without any sense of shame or self? Come to think of it, what does this schmuck know at all?

You all deserve Donald Trump by fielding all these fucking losers.

How Not To Constitution

Donald Trump has the lizard person vote locked down. He’s tapped into the collective amygdala of conservative voters. It doesn’t matter how many gaffes he produces, or how many times he upsets the natural order of politics-people love the spectacle. I myself am going to wear a “Trump ’16” shirt so long as Donald rides high. It would be a dream come true if he is the nominee. I’m still in the tank for Clinton, but if Trump keeps up this charade of being a serious candidate and people dig it, maybe, just maybe I will pull the lever for Sanders. Because in the end, I don’t expect the voters to elect a narcissistic sociopath.

Perhaps that is giving Republicans and the citizenry at large too much credit.

But anyway, let me segue into this; on any given day, Donald Trump has no idea what he is talking about. He’s like the proverbial broken clock. He’s wrong all day, with few exceptions. This is not exclusive to Trump. Most, if not all of the GOP contenders are saying stupid shit that makes no sense. But here’s a good one. Donald Trump despises brown people so much that he’s ready to challenge the legality of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yes. You saw those words. Donald Trump wants to render parts of the Constitution unconstiutional. It’s like a Mobius strip of stupid.

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

The real estate magnate, however, claims that those born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants don’t have full citizens’ rights. “What happens is they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,” he told O’Reilly. Trump asserted, “Many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this,” and went on to say, “They are saying it is not going to hold up in court. It will have to be tested but they say it will not hold up in court.”

So since he can’t change the Constitution to stop illegal immigration, he has to abridge it. For a party that loves to wave that fucking document around, Republicans sure don’t like it much or understand its nature.

I’d vote for a turkey sandwich before I elected this maniac.

%d bloggers like this: