Nothing is Timeless

Wilder Publications recently added a disclaimer to its publication of the United States Constitution. It reads "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.  Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relationships have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.” Pretty harmless, eh?

Apparently not so. This seemingly harmless statement has created outrage among Conservatives. They claim the Constitution is timeless and flawless. But it is far from that. Times change, people change, values change. The American people need to ask themselves, is the Constitution appropriate for the freedoms desired today? Does "We the People" mean literally "We the People", or should it be taken in its original context as white men? Does the right to bear arms mean I can have a missile launcher in my backyard? While a question like that may seem silly, arms are arms, whether pistols or high-tech missiles. To quote Glenn Beck, "I'm just asking questions." Not to mention that Wilder Publications places this disclaimer on all works it publishes.

If Progressivism, a movement to reform the ills of society, is cancer, then what is Conservatism? It certainly can't be less harmful than cancer. After all, it is trying to hinder improvement. Conservatism is nothing short of a degenerative disease, peeling away at the opportunities for America to do what she does best: improve. It won't be long until India and China surpass the United States as the leading nations of the world if Conservatives continue to limit her.

I think the Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. It ensures me my liberties and my freedoms. But that doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers who created this document could foreshadow the modern world. This is why amendments are necessary. If you are going to challenge the validity of statements questioning the Constitution, you might as well ask why any amendments to the Constitution were necessary.

And quoting Lincoln as a preserver of the Constitution is quite ironic. He himself challenged the Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. But I guess its alright to omit a fact like that if it compromises your entire argument.

Habeas Corpus fact provided by M. Patrick Morgioni.

Let Him Be

Recently Paul McCartney visited the White House to accept an award and play for the First Family. As usual, Conservatives found a way to spin that into complaints about taxes and big government. Jane Gilvary of JOTUS seemed to have a problem with McCartney's joke about former president George W. Bush's intelligence and how Obama responded.

Even if McCartney did offend the current President, Obama acted the only way he could. It is not his job to call out his guest of honour, especially in such an occasion. Did you honestly expect the President to embarrass Sir Paul McCartney? There is no way to rectify such a situation, so the President was forced to accept the artist's comments.

Also, Gilvary thinks that Obama admires McCartney because neither of them were born in the United States. That logic is severely flawed in two ways: Obama was born in the United States, and foreigners don't necessarily sympathize. Especially coming from a grown adult, claiming that Obama was born outside the United States is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Oh by the way, the Tea Party also told me that McCartney was born in Kenya. Second, strangers don't connect based on what they are not, they connect through common trait.

Obama admires McCartney because he was a prominent member of the most famous band in history. End of story. And as far as the "Taxman" goes, taxes have not gone up for 95% of families under Obama.

Gilvary also tries to provide a British equivalent, which is as flawed as her argument. If Michael Jackson were to be knighted by Queen Elizabeth, he would need a time machine to travel to the late 1500's. I think you mean Queen Elizabeth II. Good thing the Bulletin didn't publish this one.

Gilvary cites Bush's education as a strong point. The fact is, Bush gained admission into Harvard and Yale not because of his brilliance, but because his family attended there. The Universities wanted his family's money. There is no shortage of "Bushisms" that expose why society would view him as stupid. So when McCartney makes a joke about his intelligence, don't get defensive claiming how smart he is. An MBA from Harvard means nothing if he didn't earn it, like a non-celebrity student would. Besides, he is fortunate enough getting to serve as President after not being elected.

Even more egregious than Sir McCartney getting the prestigious Gershwin Prize because of illicit drug use is having George Bush elected to the prestigious President of the United States position after illicit drug use. Oh wait ... he didn't actually win.