Friday, August 09, 2002

Ya know I wanted to write something that sounded really professional and went thru point by point why the whole "It's not what the forefathers had intended" argument is bullshit, but I haven't had the patience or the time to research it properly. Not to mention I've been working on a new blog for WZRD and getting pissed after reading articles like this, Income Redistribution GOP Style. Forgive me - so I'll give a very informal post.

Next time you hear that "It's not what the forefathers had intended" argument, remind that person of the following -

The forefathers intended for only (1)White (2)Male (3)Landowners to vote. - Some people make excuses for the whole white/male thing, being that those were the values of that era, but thats what they intended. And while most people think of the white/male thing, no one remembers the land owner criteria for voting. That leaves less than 25% of the current population in this country eligeble.

And while we are discussing race, let us not forget the 3/5 rule, where slaves were counted as 3/5 of a human, and yet had no vote. That's what the forefathers intended at the time anyway.

The forefathers didn't completely trust the populace at large - this is why we have the beloved electoral college vote system, and why we have our doughboy cheerleader president instead of the guy that won the popular vote. Actually conservatives everywhere are probably pretty happy about this.

I'm not here to bash the forefathers, just to highlight that they had faults and were less than perfect, and whatever their intensions were. And no one fully knows exactly what each forefather had intended for this nation, even if you are conducting seances in your basement on the weekend to help guide you in your public policy decision making. Here's a reminder of where our forefathers had more wisdom than much of the current crop of lawmakers, especially the ones that lean to the right:

I have a hard time believing our forefather would have supported the actions taken by the likes of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan in their actions to overthrow democratically elected leaders in countries like Guatamala, Chile, Iran etc. The forefather were very much in favor of sovreignty and self determination, at least on paper. Yet very few of those who love the INWOFHI argument feel there is any conflict between our highly questionable (if not flat out wrong) actions we led, helped, or funded in South America and that our forefathers were proponents of democracy for all.

My favorite hypocrisy is about hemp. Washington, Jefferson and B. Franklin all smoked marijuana - if you asked me they would not have intended it to be illegal. I can't imagine they would be in favor of the drug war which soaks billions of tax dollars in an effort to fight a naturally occuring weed with slight mind altering properties, and incarcerate people who buy sell and use it. Hell, if that were the case back then our First and Third Presidents would have gone to jail!

Anyway, came across this blog of interest, called liberal desert. This guy in his most recent post makes the point that it is impossible to be in favor of vouchers and against public funding our election campaigns without being a hypocrite.


Post a Comment

<< Home