It's sort of hard to know where to start. Trying to make sense of the current "Big Republican Candidate Position" about eliminating the 14th Amendment is somewhat like being at a birthday party for 3-year-olds that's being held at a Gymboree and trying to herd all the kiddies together while they're running around over-energized on sugar from the cake and ice cream, hoping to get them to just sit down for 30 seconds so that they can get ready for nap time.
I really don't know where to start. After all, when the concept that "The 14th Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution" doesn't seem to register and has no impact, you know you're headed for the edge of the cliff. And when going to the next step and quoting the very first sentence of that 14th Amendment -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside" -- goes whizzing around and flying past without being able to land on safe ground, it becomes further clear that the common bond of English language doesn't help. It gets even more other-worldy, something so bizarre that Lewis Carroll wouldn't have even dared put in Wonderland for being slammed as too ludicrous when you have Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) -- who as state legislator was a supporter of in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, and who just two years ago was a co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate that provided an earned pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants...and whose own parents were not citizens of the United States when he himself was born here, which is what made HIM a citizen!!! -- now says, " I am open to exploring ways of not allowing people who are coming here deliberately for that purpose to acquire citizenship." And things spin even more out of control when Donald Trump (R-Trump) goes on "Fox News" and explains that a few lawyers have told him that the Constitution is unconstitutional. No, really. "I don't think they have American citizenship," he said, "and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers, some would disagree. But many of them agree with me—you're going to find they do not have American citizenship." Just like you're going to find, according to Donald Trump and many of his very, very good lawyers, that Barack Obama doesn't have a U.S. birth certificate, not counting the one that Mr. Obama has made public. And taking it further into the mad whirling dervish, pretty much all the Republican candidates for president (with the exception of Jeb Bush, and even he has had to hedge his bets ever-so-slightly) have largely jumped on the bandwagon to speak of their outrage over how the Constitution is written and show their support for intolerance and pointless, pandering indignation. And how do these fine Republican candidates even refer to what is at the center this issue? "Anchor babies." No, really. Hey, yes, let's get even more demeaning, if that's even possible considering the standards of today's Republican Party, given its support for the leading candidate whose poll numbers rise as he ridicules a war hero, smears Mexicans as rapists, and calls women fat and ugly and pigs, without being taken to task by most of his fellow competitors. (There's far more, as we've seen for the past six years, but that should suffice for now.) Just to be clear, though, about this: they aren't "anchor babies,"-- the correct term is "citizens of the United States." (Side note: for the record, it is not possible to determine if the term "Anchor babies" exists only because the word "tar" was already taken.) If you want to debate how best to deal with an issue that bothers you, swell, go to it, but let's deal with it for what it actually is. Calling these American citizens nothing more than just insignificant little "anchor babies" makes it so much more comfortable to dismiss them. So much easier to ignore and hide what you're trying to do. Keeping in mind, too, just for proper perspective, that these "anchor babies" who the GOP candidates insist are causing such a problem for America are now, in fact, not just babies, but grown children and adults. But of course it's more difficult making your case if you have to call American citizens "anchor children" and "anchor adults." And when it all stops swirling, you realize that it kind of gives new meaning to the phrase, Anchors Away... And beyond even the faux-cries to declare the Constitution unconstitutional, Republicans continue to drag out their old chestnut -- "We have to start a process where we take back our country," their leading candidate moans. What I'm just trying to figure out though is when Mr. Trump would like to take it back to -- before the Constitution perhaps, though it's that Constitution that defined the country he and Republicans want to take back. Maybe he means only before the 14th Amendment was passed -- though that passage was done to ensure citizenship rights to slaves. So, Republicans can't want that, one hopes. It's end up one more bewilderment in this madhouse. And let's understand, too, amid all this angst over the horrible, nasty, mean-old 14th Amendment to the degree that many in the Republican Party and some of its candidates running for president want to repeal the entire amendment, what the 14th Amendment is actually about -- this is amendment that deals with due process and equal protection under the law. And that has the GOP all in a tizzy, with the vapors. If you want to see today's Republican Party in a nutshell, there it is. If you want to see how the GOP has gone from the "Party of Abraham Lincoln" to the hiding spot of the Tea Party corporations and home of religious zealotry, there it is. To be very clear, there's nothing wrong at all with anyone disagreeing with a Constitutional Amendment. That's not only a valid thing to do, but healthy. People disagree with interpretations of amendments all the time. In fact, a large part of the country disagrees with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment over gun control. But disagree with it or not, it's still the 2nd Amendment and part of the Constitution and therefore constitutional. That's how the whole annoying Constitution thing works. You don't challenge the Constitution in court to see if it's constitutional. By definition, it is constitutional. It's not a law that if you don't like it, you just rewrite the text a bit or simply write a new one. It's the Constitution, it's the foundation on which all laws are based. You can challenge how it's been interpreted in a court case, but the huge problem with that is the 14th Amendment is really, really clear and remarkably specific -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." There really isn't any wiggle-room there. Like, none. "All persons" means..."all persons." It's word for word direct. At least the 2nd Amendment is quite fuzzy as written, and that's why referring as it does to things like "fully regulated militias" and what comprises "Arms" is open to interpretation. (Case in point, the 2nd Amendment wasn't always interpreted to mean individual rights, that only changed...after 200 years in the 1980s.) But there are no modifiers or militia in the 2nd Amendment -- it says "All persons." You can't miss them, they're the first two words. If someone wants to make the effort to repeal the 14th Amendment or amend the Amendment, that's another matter entirely, and it's perfectly fine, go to it. Maybe it'll even inspire those who want the 2nd Amendment obscurities addressed to take action. Or prompt those who want to take away the vote for womenfolk. They should just know that it's an incredibly long and arduous process, requiring a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress, as well as then being passed by by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures (many of which require three-fifths votes, not simple majorities). Side note: Just by way of a guideline to those on the Amend the 14th Amendment Traveling Road Show, ever since the Equal Rights Amendment for women was first introduced in Congress, supporters have been trying to get it passed for the last...er, 92 years. The good news is that it did finally make it through Congress in 1971, after 48 years of trying, but getting through the state houses has been pesky. It came close, getting 35 state legislatures to pass the amendment out of the 38 needed -- but then five states subsequently rescinded their votes. And adding to the difficulty is that there was a 1979 deadline set by Congress on passage, and 24 of those initial 35 states had 1979 deadlines written into the bills. And this is just about giving equal rights to women! Something you wouldn't think is all that controversial. (And you thought I was joking about repealing voting rights for the womenfolk...) So, anyone who wants to repeal and rewrite the 14th Amendment better pack a big sack lunch. It's going to take a while. Meanwhile, the Republican Party and its circus of candidates, following the lead of TV personality Donald Trump, who seemingly has become their ringmaster, keep spinning further out of control in ways that are incomprehensible to known Man. There is SO much that is insanely, pointlessly and literally wrong about just this one issue that has risen up to enthrall the Republican Party and drive it to a frenzy. And I don't know where to start.
0 Comments
I came across this video from Funny or Die the other day by accident, scrolling through credits on iMDB. And with the baseball season heading towards the post-season and exhibition football just starting up, this seemed the proper time for it. It's a trailer for the mythical film, Field of Dreams 2: Lockout. Though it's not as amusing as it could be, it has a few good jokes and is a very well-produced satire on Field of Dreams about a lockout in the National Football League. Plus, it has a few fun cameo surprises. (One that I'll mention, since I'm just guessing and could be wrong, is 'The Voice.' As you may recall in Field of Dreams, the voice that famously says, "If you build it, he will come," is uncredited. That's the same here, so I have no idea if I'm right in my guess. But it sounds like it might be Timothy Busfield, which would be a wink to the original since he played Kevin Costner's brother-in-law,who tries to get him to sell the land.) Anyway, stick with it to the end. (It's pretty short.) Here's a pretty amusing bit done the other night on Jimmy Kimmel Live! They took a bunch of actual tweets from Donald Trump, put them to music and then got Josh Groban to perform them. Between the richly emotional music and Groban's moving performance, this all adds a level of heartfelt sincerity that is missing from the originals. Though John Oliver's long pieces tend to be well-done, occasionally one comes by that leaps to a higher level. This past Sunday's was one of those. It deals with televangelists, and on that level, it's extremely entertaining as it jumps along for the first 10 minutes. But then at about the 10:30 mark, he kicks it into high gear when he deals with televangelist Robert Tilton in a way that is thorough inspired. That segment alone makes the whole piece worth it. Except that that's not the pinnacle nor the main point. And when he gets to it -- and I will say no more -- it becomes almost operatic. The video runs for 20 minutes, but it zips by, you want it to go on, and is worth every second. The recent series of ads for Kentucky Fried Ch...sorry, for KFC with Darrell Hammond have been somewhat controversial. At least as controversial as comic TV ads can get. There have been some people who've gotten their nose bent out of joint having an actor play the real-life, though no-longer living Col. Sanders and doing so in a fairly irreverent way. Personally, I've sort of enjoyed the whimsical nature of the ads, holding no particular reverence for Harlan Sanders, especially given that his "Colonel" title is a honorary one that pretty much anybody in Kentucky can get. I admire the success of the business he began and so late in life, around age 65, I believe. But as for a company being irreverent about itself, great. Well, as it turns out, for all those people who were bothered before, KFC is now ratcheting up the irreverence. KFC is replacing Hammond with another Saturday Night Live comedian, and one who is even far more snarky -- Norm MacDonald. Yes, Norm MacDonald, who got himself fired from SNL. And the company is playing games with it all, as well, having fun with the switch and being upfront about it. That this is the "real" Col. Sanders, and that other guy was just a fake. Here are the first three in the new series. I'm not completely sure if this is actually a case of Darrell Hammond being "replaced," or if it was the intent all along, to play games with the Col. Sanders image. First of all, if the concept of an irreverent Colonel played by an SNL comedian wasn't working, they'd have dropped the whole idea. And if it was working, they'd have kept Hammond. Second, it seems pretty fast -- and convenient -- to swap actors and to another SNL actor. But mainly, the comments from KFC itself have supported the idea that they are having fun being irreverent, which suggests it's all part of a larger campaign. (For all we know, it'll get even more off-beat.) For instance, in the press release announcing the change, the chief marketing officer for KFC, Kevin Hochman, says -- "Other than not quite looking like him, his voice being different, and his inability to cook the world's best chicken, we thought Norm was the perfect choice to play the Real Colonel. I think the fans will agree." And then there's the comments from the head of the company itself,Greg Creed, CEO of Yum! Brands which is the parent company of KFC, which not only support the off-beat nature of the campaign, but were made back in May at a conference, which suggests he was happy being as goofy as possible and had absolutely no problem with Hammond, while clearly (as CEO) being well-aware where the campaign was headed. Mainly, though, in a world where corporate heads will do anything to protect the sanctity of the brand, I love his comments that actually embrace the indignation. "So far the response has been about 80 percent positive, 20 percent hate it," he said about the Hammond campaign, reported by Food Business News. "But you know what? That's better than 100 percent being indifferent. And that really is what's important … we had lost relevance in the U.S.—60 percent of millennials had not eaten KFC." To which Creed then added my favorite comment, something you pretty much never hear the head of a company say: "I am actually quite happy that 20 percent hate it, because now they at least have an opinion. They're actually talking about KFC, and you can market to love and hate; you cannot market to indifference." All the more reason I applaud the KFC campaign. I don't quite know what to make about Megyn Kelly announcing last week that she's taking a 10-day vacation from her "Fox News" hosting duties. Now, it's possible that she had this vacation planned all along. But my understanding (and this is been a little bit though to confirm) is that it if she that was the case, it had only been three days. So, an extra weeks appears to have been tacked on, at best. It's difficult to know if this is at her request, coming as it does following the bizarre controversy between her and Donald Trump with her debate question, and his response -- and his follow-up slams. And the Fox viewer responses towards her that have apparently been vicious. Or if it was Fox's choice? And whoever made the decision -- was it done to let passions cool down, or more out of petulance, by either side?? Whatever the answer, it's hard to imagine that this was just a planned vacation. In part because of the timing, in part because of the (apparently) added days, in part because of the reactions on all sides, but also in large part because of her own announcement on her show. Hosts do sometimes announce their time off, but not always, and it's usually very brief. "Ill be take taking off for a week. Jerry Granvile will be sitting in here, so you'll be in good hands." But Ms. Kelly awkwardly and almost breathlessly goes out of her way to explain why she's taking time off. And it's basically because she's been SO stressed from working so hard that she needs it. Noting, too, that "It's been an interesting week." There's a whole lot of "Methinks she doth protest to much" going on here for it just to be "I'm going on vacation, see you soon." By the way, the only thing I do know about all this is that the whole controversy is insane, and that it speaks volumes about "Fox News" viewers and management. And I am 100% in support of Megyn Kelly, who did absolutely nothing wrong and acted only as a normal journalist, asking a rational question. The problem, of course, is that this was on "Fox News", where "normal journalist" and "rational question" can be the cause of angst and outrage.
This was a debate of 10 people running for President of the United States. They'd darn well better be prepared and able to take incredibly hard questions, the most difficult questions possible. (As Kelly herself noted to Mr. Trump, "If you can’t get past me, how are you going to handle Vladimir Putin?") And the thing is, she asked several pointed, and very fair questions to the range of candidates, not just to poor victim Donald Trump. And the thing is even more -- the question she asked to Donald Trump was pretty easy. Not quite a softball, but not far off. What made it perhaps seem oh-so tough was the set-up to put the question in context. But the question itself when she got around to asking it was easy. And it all even began with a compliment. And the only reason the context seemed oh-so tough was because Donald Trump had created a very bad foundation for himself. Just as a reminder, lest reality be lost in in the weeds, here's the question, minus Donald Trump's interruption quip to get a mean-spirited laugh -- "Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women...Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?" As Ms. Kelly, said, If you can’t get past an easy question like that, how are you going to handle Vladimir Putin? For all the words that have subsequently come, and all the positioning and posturing, let's be clear about something. That is not a hard question. That is not an angry question. It is a pointed, fair and easy question put in context with facts that should be asked because Megyn Kelly is right -- if Mr. Trump is the GOP nominee, the Democratic candidate, most especially if it's Hillary Clinton, will ask it, so it will have to be addressed. Might as well address it in friendly surroundings with an audience cheering. In fact, if Donald Trump had just stopped at his response about "political correctness" that received those cheers from the audience, he probably would have been fine on just that alone, that's how easy the question was. And if he'd added, "Sometimes as a public figure on TV I say things for hyperbole that aren't politically correct. It has nothing to do with temperament, my temperament is fine. It has to do with getting people's attention amid all the noise. And the truth is, I think the world of women and actually think our government should do more for them. And if there's a war on women it's the Democrats who..." -- and then he could have gone on to completely change the attention away from the question while making a triumphal speech on behalf of women while slamming the opposition that would have got people cheering even more...he would have changed everything entirely to his favor. Because it was that an easy question. "Do you have the temperament to be president?" Yes, I do. Man, is that a tough question. And if you can't handle that, how can you even expect to handle Vladmir Putin???!! But this here isn't about Donald Trump, because he'd not going to be president or the GOP nominee. The point of this is Megyn Kelly taking a vacation as a result of all this. Because it was her choice, or management's choice, or the pressure and anger of the viewers for her asking such a mean old question to poor Donald Trump, made worse perhaps because she's a woman. And the thing is, it doesn't fully matter what the answer to this is -- though it's not without meaning. But what matters is that this whole incident and vacation have ripped open the door in public view to the "Fox News" audience and management about who precisely they are. And it's not a pretty sight. Nor does it have anything to do with "news." People who watch a news organization expect hard question, and news organizations expect to ask hard questions because that reveals news. Only if you aren't an actual news organization and your viewers only want to watch with blinders and filters are will there be anger at asking people running for President of the United States a "hard" question. That anger only comes if your viewers are expecting to be watching a PR outlet where everything presented for your side is positive puffery. The response from "Fox News" and its viewers isn't that of anyone who actually wants "We report, you decide." This whole pathetic controversy has absolutely nothing to do with reporting. It's been the antithesis of reporting, it's been outrage at reporting, and acquiescence to that outrage. There is only one legitimate response from any actual news organization to Donald Trump's hissy fit. "We hope that Mr. Trump will be at the next debate, but if he doesn't t want to show up, he has until next Tuesday to let us know, in which case we'll fill the spot with someone else." There is only one legitimate response from viewers who want actual news. "If you can't handle a question about calling women fat and pigs and slobs who should be on their knees, maybe you shouldn't be running for president. Or shouldn't be calling women fat and pigs and slobs in the first place." But this has nothing to do with "news." Nor does "Fox News" and its viewers. And thanks to viewer reaction and the organizational response, that curtain has been torn down and shredded the PR puffery facade has been made as clear as possible. Here's hoping Megyn Kelly has a nice vacation... |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|