corporationsarepeople
corps 'r' people
"Corporations are people, my friend."-Mitt Romney, asshole RepublicanObservations on partisan politics, equality, and the merging of government & corporate power.
28782 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
hadecolie
eraser meat
getstickbuggedlol
get stick bugged lol
tofuapathy
:D
sky-mall
just fuck me up
pimpkage
Extreme Climax of Epicness
Text
“Once I observed the map depicting ‘hostile,’ ‘permissive,’ and ‘uncertain’ states and locations, I was rather appalled that the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority, ‘cling to their guns and religion,’ and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution.”
—
Louie Gohmert, the dumbest man in Congress, May 5, 2015
I’m going to let his statement stand on its own– you can click the link for background on the Jade Helm exercise that right-wing nuts honestly believe is going to be an Obama martial-law takeover of Texas. But I want to highlight one pet peeve of mine, and that’s the over-use of the word “sanctity.”
“Sanctity” is normally defined as the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.
It has developed other meanings over time, and can now be used to mean something of the utmost and highest importance, but when used by politicians they always seem to be from the far right, religious fundamentalist end of the spectrum. It also serves as a signal word, one that implies something about the rigidity (or self-aggrandizement) of the person using it.
The word has had a bit of a resurgence in the past few decades, and is most often used in political discussions in the phrase “the sanctity of marriage.“ In that case it always means that no gay people are allowed. It’s also highly inappropriate, because our government has no business or authority in the sanctity of anything. If there is a role for government to play in marriage, it’s only an administrative one, giving powers of attorney, visitation, inheritance, etc. The couple’s religion is the only thing that can “sanctify” what they do or don’t do. For that reason alone, I find the whole opposition to same-sex marriage, and any Constitutional Amendments to that effect, absolutely ludicrous.
That brings us around to the sanctity of the US Constitution.
Obviously, or at least hopefully, it’s not seen as a sacred text, but one of high importance. However, there are Constitutional Fundamentalists, and so it’s worth taking a hard look at whoever describes it in this way.
“Fundamentalism” is another word that has seen a boom over the past few decades, much more so than “sanctity.” While it, too, has a primary religious reference, it also means an unyielding adherence to a set of basic principles. The aspect of fundamentalism that dictionaries fail to capture, however, lies in the fact that fundamentalists, in their adherence to absolute dogma, must absorb contradictions in ways that suit their preferences. Those preferences, whether from a fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, Hindu or something else, is often sexist, sometimes racist, and always highly authoritarian.
As a result, fundamentalists of all stripes tend to use their rigor to enforce a hierarchy that places them at the top of a paranoid and fragile world. Their adherence to a belief in a perfect text means that they must not only cling to unworkable notions, but that they must consciously or subconsciously choose to ignore any different interpretation of that text: theirs must always be the “true” way.
In this regard, Constitutional Originalists, believing in the divinely-inspired word of the Founders–or at least their own interpretation of that word, contradiction and nuance be damned–are not different from religious fundamentalists. They are willing to throw out precedent without hesitation, to suit their own view of how society should be ordered, and an unchanging text gives them the framework in which to do so.
In each case, it is a philosophy that stems from fear of societal change, or at least a belief that such change will unavoidably be negative. Authoritarianism, by way of a guiding document, is seen as a counter to that change.
Many scholars, including Thurgood Marshall, have lectured on the idea of the “Living Constitution,” or the idea that it must be interpreted in light of the cultural and moral climate of the time. For years that was fairly uncontroversial, but conservative jurists such as Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork have argued strongly against such a reading, and the idea of “activist judges” grew out of their critique.
Yet what we find today is that the Constitutional Fundamentalists, or Originalists, have their own bias, and their own activism. Like other fundamentalists, they never find answers within the text with which they disagree.
Their opinions and arguments, however, are cloaked in their own ideas of a “true” interpretation, and–much like with religious fundamentalism–their apparently subconscious twisting of the text is visible to everyone but themselves.
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
Contrary to far-right fantasies like QAnon, this campaign by the elites was no conspiracy. It took place right out in the open, starting with politicians like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and running right through the present day. “The Davos elite aren’t eating our children,” Naomi Klein writes in her new book, “but they are eating our children’s futures, and that is plenty bad.”
To hide their undeserved gains, some of the wealthy downplay the helping hands they have received, whether from family (Donald Trump’s referring to $60.7 million as “a small loan from my father”) or the government (Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk’s criticizing government subsidies even though his companies have received billions from the government).
Mostly, though, they and their political servants (in the U.S., that means especially, but not exclusively, the Republican Party) stoke fights on battlefields small and large. Gurner blames young people’s monetary struggles on avocado toast and overpriced coffee. Major Republican donors like Rebekah Mercer donate millions to conservative media outlets and candidates who stoke fears of culture wars, drag queens and people of color — and who, when they get into office, prioritize tax cuts slanted toward the wealthy.
And some are more brazen. Klein quotes the mid-20th century Belgian leftist Abram Leon’s observation about the Nazis’ use of antisemitic conspiracy theories: “Big business endeavored to divert and control the anti-capitalist hatred of the masses for its exclusive profit.” If that sounds like an extreme comparison, remember that of all the organizations and people who have criticized Musk’s ownership of X (formerly Twitter), he is blaming the collapse in the company’s value on the Anti-Defamation League.
111 notes
·
View notes
Text
HAPPENING NOW: texas state troopers are menacing a pro palestine protest on ut austin's campus. AN ENCAMPMENT HASNT EVEN BEEN ESTABLISHED YET
edit: last i heard at least 15 protesters, and a member of the press, have been arrested. although i wouldn't be surprised if that number is much higher now. you can donate to the bail support at: venmo @psc_atx you can also call 512-854-9889 to demand all arrested comrades are released, ut austin's palestine solidarity committee posted a call script on instagram that you can follow.
9K notes
·
View notes
Text
“The least you can expect when you have to go through the security line at the airport is that you don’t suffer the indignity of somebody pushing you out of the way to let the rich person pass you,” Josh Newman, the Democratic lawmaker who authored the bill, told POLITICO.
His Republican colleague, Janet Nguyen, expressed a similar reason for backing the bill.
- - -
Good. These sorts of pay to play systems undermine services for everyone else.
By allowing the wealthy (who hold by far the most power & influence) to simply bypass the problems confronted by regular people, lawmakers and agencies end up seeing very little pressure to address legitimate problems.
If airport lines take too long, for example, the solution should not be to let the people with the most privilege simply skip the lines. The solution must be to provide a faster screening process for everyone.
The same goes for other so-called solutions like highway express lanes. By only allowing the most powerful people to avoid the problem, solutions that help the majority—like mass transit or better planning—are consistently pushed to the side.
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Draft-dodging con artist using fake Marines is so on-brand for Trump/MAGA. #StolenValor
Putin's puppet shitting on US military as Russians put bounties on US troops, and Trump did fcuking nothing, using fake Marines.
Entire Right Wing loves the dishonesty.
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
Former Attorney General Bill Barr on Wednesday denounced former President Trump’s exhortation for Congress to kill the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as “crazy and reckless” and warned there will be “blood on people’s hands” if the intelligence community’s surveillance authority expires and there’s a terrorist attack on the United States.
Barr, who served in Trump’s Cabinet in 2019 and 2020, noted that Trump at one time supported the expanded surveillance powers authorized under Section 702 of FISA and warned that political “posturing” against extending that authority would be dangerous to national security.
“I think it’s crazy and reckless to not move forward with FISA. It’s our principal tool protecting us from terrorist attacks. We’re living through a time where those threats have never been higher, so it’s blinding us, it’s blinding our allies,” Barr told The Hill in an interview.
“I think President Trump’s opposition seems to have stemmed from personal pique rather than any logic and reason. The provision that he objects to has nothing to do with the provision that’s on the floor,” he said, referring to the legislation that would reauthorize Section 702 of FISA, which stalled in the House on Wednesday after 19 Republicans voted to defeat a rule to move it forward not long after Trump said it should be killed.
214 notes
·
View notes
Text
Women either have the right to control their own bodies or they don’t. While legislators have searched for middle ground on this, there really isn’t any, at least not any that can pass a constitutional test.
This is one reason I think anti-choice activists are now fighting against IVF or exceptions for rape & incest. First, it’s logically consistent—if it was indeed murder then circumstances of the pregnancy wouldn’t change that. Second, it’s constitutionally consistent, for essentially the same reasons. The state simply can’t show a compelling interest for denying a right only when most convenient.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Of course he’s a republican. Of course he is.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
This article is awfully quick to say the practice is legal. While the practice hasn’t been prosecuted against a presidential candidate before, it definitely doesn’t appear to be legal, especially if Trump’s businesses turn out to be overcharging donors.
Looks more like a classic example of a kickback.
8 notes
·
View notes