Musing's musings

I'd like to make a few suggestions...

...for additions to the "For Dummies" series of books. We can start with The Constitution for Republicans, since it does not appear that many of them have ever actually read it--or if they have, they've failed to retain any of the salient points. As evidence, I present the following, from the peroration to Rush Limbaugh's closing plenary address to the Conservative Political Action Public Asshattery Convention, last Saturday in Washington, D.C., in which he was attempting to argue that President Obama's policies represent a "bastardization" of the Constitution:

We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause]

For the purposes of comparison, I herewith present the actual Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sorry, Rush, but of the words you thought were in there, only "Liberty" actually appears--and not in the context you wanted. What you were looking for was the Declaration of Independence, which, of course, you also got wrong. Here's the pertinent passage in the original:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

"Freedom" is not in there, guys. But note that "Government" is. Ooops. The Limboob, and all the boobettes who stood and mindlessly cheered his pompous pontifications at CPAC should all have to go back and retake high-school civics. Oh, and the leaders of the Republican Party might want to rethink all that groveling at his feet they're doing, lest they embarrass themselves even further than they already have.

"Depart, I say, and let us have done with you!"*

Roland Burris is turning into Rod Blagojevich's gift that keeps on giving--whether or not we want it to. Virtually every leading Democrat in Illinois--and not a few from other states as well--has asked him politely to consider stepping down, but he steadfastly refuses to do so. Even when Dick Durbin, his fellow Illinois senator, urged him to quit, he announced his intention to stay put.

Fine. We'll just have to wait for the Senate to expel him, or for a competent authority to remove him. Or, in the worst-case scenario, we'll just have to wait out the end of his term, which has only a little more than a year and a half left in it. Burris did seem to hint, after his meeting with Durbin yesterday, that he was not considering running for re-election in 2010--which is just as well, given that everyone in Illinois (except, possibly, Roland Burris) knows that he'd get absolutely trounced in the Democratic primary and if, by some miracle, he managed to pull off a victory in the primary, he'd get his ass handed to him in the general.

At this point, I'm less annoyed with Burris (he's just doing what he's always done) than I am with some of his more clueless supporters. The local NPR station this morning ran a story, which I only heard in bits and pieces as I was shaving, about a group of black ministers who are insisting that Burris has done nothing wrong and that he shouldn't have to quit anything. And then there's Danny Davis, who seems to have become Burris's BFF after losing the Senate appointment to him, who seems to feel that the Senate seat formerly held by President Obama is now somehow the property of Illinois's African-Americans. And, since I seem to be on a Brit-quoting kick in this post, I'll borrow from a later British politician (Sir Winston Churchill) and say that's nonsense up with which I will not put.

There are no quotas for Senate seats--or for any other political appointments, for that matter. The idea is unconstitutional on its face, and it's simply ludicrous thereafter. If we're going to divvy up our representation according to the race of Illinoisans, then we need to have 1.422 white senators, 0.294 black senator, 0.292 Latino senator, 0.084 Asian senator, 0.04 Native American senator, 0.164 "other" senator, and 0.03 biracial senator. I won't even attempt to do the parallel calculations for our House delegation, since I'd have to do it by the racial makeup of the various legislative districts. Davis should content himself with getting another Democrat in Obama's old seat--and leave race out of it.

(*Oliver Cromwell, dismissing the Rump Parliament, 1653: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!")