Daily Archives: October 11, 2013

The sorriest people this country ever had were slaves

Coming over here and working for nothing.  Fornicating with their white masters and having mixed-race children slaves.  Putting non-slaves out of jobs.

But the next-sorriest by far were Indians running around in jock-straps, refusing to work and claiming they had some prior claim to the land regular people wanted.  Even though those Indians weren’t even citizens.

The third sorriest were regular people who didn’t come from rich wealthy families, didn’t own anything, and were forever pestering mine owners, factory owners, railroad owners, and anyone else hiring them to pay them a living wage.  They couldn’t even be trusted enough to have a direct voice in the proceedings of government.  Everyone who did have a direct voice could see with one eye those regular people would all the time be taking away their power and wealth and property rights.  Given half a chance.

Luckily there were rich wealthy people who knew from telling their servants and slaves what to do and the servants not doing it right, that regular people were crap.  And when those rich wealthy people were setting things up they made damned sure those slaves, Indians and regular people wouldn’t get their hands into the pockets of the decent rich wealthy people running things.

But slaves were far and away the worst of the lot.  Came over here, half of them illegally after it was already against the law to import slaves.  Putting regular, honest, hard working regular people out of work.

Old Jules

Advertisements

Unfair victimology

Hi readers.  Thanks for coming by.

The white kid, lower left needs to start keeping notes now if he's ever going to catch up.

The white kid, lower left needs to start keeping notes now if he’s ever going to catch up.

I was talking to the cats and Old Sol this morning about how white women really get screwed in the victimology department.  They only have white males they can blame for everything bad that ever happened to women.  And even the rights they have were given to them by white males instead of them getting to fight for them and win them, so to speak.  If white males hadn’t given them the right to vote they’d never have gotten that right.

Robs hell out of the macho of white-woman victimhood militancy.  Creates all manner of demands for illusory constructions of reality.

Hispanic women have it somewhat better.  They don’t bother blaming males for their historic problems because they can blame white people, both male and female for their downtrodden-ness.  Same as Hispanic males.  And militant Hispanic females have a lot more macho as a consequence.

Black females have it next-to-the-best of all possible worlds.  Black men, too.  They’ve got ancestors who were enslaved by just about everyone, including blacks.  So black females don’t put much energy into blaming men.  They can blame whites and Hispanics of both genders with impunity.  There’s only one group of people anywhere who hasn’t enslaved blacks, and that’s American Indians.  Native Americans.

Native Americans have it all.  Sheeze, they can blame everyone, including other tribes of Native Americans for their troubles.  And Native American women couldn’t give a crap less about blaming men for anything.  They’ve got a target-rich environment that includes everyone.

Damned black US Cavalry buffalo soldiers, slave-taking Utes and Navajos, you name it, Native Americans have got it in the victimhood reign of terror.

But it brings us wealthy, even less-than-wealthy white males into a somewhat untenable, target-poor blame environment.  About all we’ve got is welfare mothers and ex-wives to blame for our lousy situation.

Old Jules

The only thing that ever scared the US Congress

Hi readers.  Thanks for coming by for a read.

The framers of the US Constitution were careful, careful, careful to put as much distance as possible between the voting citizenry and the people running things in Washington.  They did their best to make it near impossible for groups of individual citizens to directly recall elected officials, judges, anyone capable of directly influencing the activities of government.

That’s because they didn’t want the Boston Tea Party running things.  Simple as that.  They knew the people who’d be elected to office would be people who could afford to campaign.  Wealthy property owners who could afford to leave their jobs to serve in Congress.  People who’d respect the property rights and interests of other wealthy people.

So they deliberately left out any provision for direct citizen initiative or referendum demands related to laws, changes in the Constitution, replacing federal judges, getting rid of corrupt or incompetent elected officials.

But they did provide the illusion of the possibility for changes in Article V of the Constitution.  A demand, not by citizens, but by states for a Constitutional Convention.  And every time there’s ever been a demand by states approaching likelihood, the US Congress suddenly saw the error of their ways.

States have demanded an Article 5 Constitutional Convention a lot of times since 1787.  Never, not once has one happened.  You can see a list of the tries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Article_V_Convention

According to Article V, Congress must call for an amendment-proposing convention, “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States”, and therefore 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications. Once an Article V Convention has proposed amendments, then each of those amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (i.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Plenty difficult enough to reduce the possibilities of it ever happening.

The next nearly-successful attempt to call a convention was in the late 1970s and 1980s, in response to the ballooning federal deficit. States began applying to Congress for an Article V Convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. By 1983, the number of applications had reached 32, only two states short of the 34 needed to force such a convention.[18] Enthusiasm for the amendment subsided in response to fears that an Article V Convention could not be limited to a single subject and because Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which required that the budget be balanced by 1991 (but that Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1986).[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

As you can see, the states have been concerned about the Federal deficit a longish while.  Congress sidestepped a Constitutional Convention by promising promising promising they’d mend their ways.

But as you can also see, they gave it a wink and nod as soon as the danger of an Article V Constitutional Convention ceased to loom in front of them.

So what can you as a citizen, as a voter, as an unhappy frustrated idealist do?

Not a damned thing except grin and bear it.  The US Constitution is not about you.  Quit thinking it is, quit whining about it, quit worrying about it.  Human beings generally haven’t had a lot to say about what demands their aristocrats would choose to make on them.  And at least for the moment it could still be a lot worse than it is.

Old Jules