Well, that was utterly appalling.
Early yesterday evening, I flipped the TV on to a random channel and saw crybabies whingeing about how the fact that they weren't previously declared the winners, and therefore the most powerful people in da bidness with not just the right, but the sacred obligation, to dictate all that is right and good, and who may speak on matters of import, obligated them to pitch a hissy fit and prevent anyone else from playing. There's just one tiny problem:
Contrary to what the links in the preceding paragraph imply, I was watching a news summary of Heffalump reactions to Justice Scalia's death and the impending nomination/confirmation crisis. Which, I might add, is also dominated by white men of a certain age (and socioeconomic background). Frankly, I'm not sure which group should be more appalled with this comparison: Selfish, self-aggrandizing, immature entertainers should be insulted by being compared to selfish, self-aggrandizing, immature politicians... and vice versa.
For all of you "originalists" out there, please explain to me how "advice and consent" of a legislative body as a whole had an "original meaning" that a subset of that body may operate to obstruct another branch of government's (hell, two other branches) efforts to fulfill duties laid down in the same bloody document. Specifically, please explain to me how this provides Constitutional authority to:
- Refuse, as a partisan matter, to hold a committee hearing on a nominee to a coordinate and coequal branch of government;
- Refuse, as a partisan matter, to hold a committee vote after the committee hearing on that nominee to a coordinate and coequal branch of government;
- Refuse, as a partisan matter, to allow floor debate on that nominee to a coordinate and coequal branch of government; or
- Refuse, as a partisan matter, to allow a floor vote on that nominee to a coordinate and coequal branch of government,
in the face of the clear duty of another coordinate, coequal branch of government to make that nomination in the first place. I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath...
Oh. Wait a moment. As quoted by another character, Emmanuel Goldstein already stated the original position (with no apologies — none whatsoever — to John Rawls, who also did so in the negative and at much greater length, and pondering that will tell you what is really being negated):
The object of power is power.
And the source of that quotation should tell you a great deal more than you really want to hear.
Perhaps you morons need to adopt a cat or two. No, it's not a perfect solution, nor even appropriate given all the facts right now; it's just a framework to find a way forward. And the next time that a mediocre musician tells me to shut up based on the color of my skin (which does not accurately reflect my ethnicity, or for that matter much of anything else) instead of the content of my character, I'll just slink back to partisan politics where the racism and bigotry are at least less overt.