Category Archives: politics

Please Help Us, Zombie Andrew Jackson

Screen Shot 2017-05-01 at 5.30.28 PMHelp us Zombie Andrew Jackson. Please.

In case you did not yet get the news on the other side, here’s what the man who currently holds your old gig had to say:

“I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. And he was really angry that he saw what was happening, with regard to the Civil War. He said, there’s no reason for this. People don’t realize, the Civil War — you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question. But why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”

Is this for real? Was this an episode of Drunk History? I mean…honestly. Let me quote that one more time…just let it sink in.

“People don’t ask that question. But why was there a Civil War?”

Ummm….

IT WAS SLAVERY, STUPID!

So,  Mr. President…no, not you Easy D, but Zombie Andrew Jackson. Can you please arise from the dead and help rid us of our pestilence…that plague of imbecility that has descended upon our nation’s most hallowed office…before another epic conflagration erupts? We need your help. I will put aside the fact that while you were alive, you were an Indian-murdering slave-owning sociopath. Because apparently, you are the right man for the job.

With compliments,
Keith

Social Media Firebrands Take Heed

Screen Shot 2015-12-09 at 9.39.25 AMI can’t help but wonder what people think they are doing by going on hysterical rants across the various social media platforms. I am not talking about the occasional humorous meme or the not-so-humorous news story that you wish to share with your friends on your own timelines, I am talking about Internet trolls and their endless stream of ideologically motivated shit-smearing on comment threads – especially Facebook.

If you think that you are somehow participating in the body politic you are either delusional or just confused. Here’s a suggestion (and I speak to all political affiliations here). Instead of ranting from the comfort of your favorite Archie Bunker chair, try to get involved – I mean really involved. If you feel so strongly about your political agenda, volunteer for the candidate who best reflects your personal politics, learn and engage the issues like an adult – with data and reasonable discourse. Because here is what you are otherwise accomplishing: 100% of nothing.

My guess is that you won’t do anything beyond anonymously spewing glazed-over fanatical vitriol. Why? Because you probably don’t have the cajones or the knowledge to rationally debate someone face to face in a productive way and you really have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation anyway. Yet you still won’t SHUT THE FUCK UP,  which means that you are part of the problem. You breed divisiveness and perpetuate ignorance. I think we have had enough of that.

With compliments,

Keith

 

John Norton Pomeroy on Impeachment

Screen Shot 2014-06-27 at 10.10.19 AMAs I was writing something on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and thinking of those in favor of a broadly defined Constitutional approach to impeachment, I came across a succinct statement authored by legal scholar John Norton Pomeroy in 1868 (he published it in 1870). Pomeroy and others were not so terribly concerned that an executive or other officer might act illegally, but rather that they might abuse their powers. Well – these days it seems like a lot of people are thinking about executives overstepping their authority – nothing new I suppose… I welcome any and all comments.

The importance of the impeaching power consists, not in its effects upon subordinate ministerial officers, but in the check which it places upon the President and the judges. They must be clothed with ample discretion; the danger to be apprehended is from an abuse of this discretion. But at this very point where the danger exists, and where the protection should be certain, the President and the judiciary are beyond the reach of Congressional legislation. Congress cannot, by any laws penal or otherwise, interfere with the exercise of a discretion conferred by the Constitution…If the offense for which the proceeding may be instituted must be made indictable by statute, impeachment thus becomes absolutely nugatory against those officers in those cases where it is most needed as a restraint upon violations of public duty. 

With compliments,

Keith