An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
- Today is the 236th birthday of this representative democracy — which gets just about as much attention as the text of the document that forms its basis. The irony that so many people arguing over what it means have never read it from front to back (when it's a lot shorter than another document whose disputed meaning leads to arguments — and wars — and bigotry) is perhaps a bit much when hypocritical theocrats (like, but not only, this one) elected for being "more christian" than opponents have never even contemplated that part of the base document identifies the true enemy of representative democracy: Theocracy. The Founders didn't wait for the amendments to bar "establishment" — only to use that word.
- Or one from Colorado bringing a new meaning to politics in smoke-filled rooms. Maybe the purpose of the smoke was always to hide self-aggrandizement (particularly while this particular christian dominionist unable to read Article VI of the document which she has sworn to "support" is going through something not contemplated in that other, frequently-conflicting-internally-and-externally document — a divorce).
- But that's less offensive than an ignorant football coach asserting his version of christian dominionism against military officers… some of whom just might not be christians (I'm not going to out any of those I know to be atheists or otherwise nonchristians). Or, more to the point, just might not have been persuaded by his position. The entire point of a "representative democracy" is that it doesn't just tolerate dissent — it embraces it. That's why we have a Speech and Debate Clause (now being used to protect some of those who would throw temper tantrums because they can't believe an ally lost an election in one of the more-reflexive examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences).
- All of which is entirely consistent with looting artifacts from other cultures that are (presently) unable to fight back — or, for that matter, to other dubious ways "the original" can be acquired. Perhaps the fetishization of "the original" in the fine arts is partly to blame here, particularly for works long out of any copyright protection; especially for two-dimensional "prints," for all but specialists — and we make no such objections for playscripts with directors' coffee stains and actors' marginal notations! — a quality reproduction is probably what should be on display anyway (to help protect that original!)…
- Or maybe we could all just go on strike. We should, though, ponder whether the problem is as much management as those to whom management answers: Not individual shareholders, but hedge-fund managers and institutional investors who actually have the ears of management regarding "profit margins" — and believe, just like all of the children in Lake Woebegon, that they're entitled to an above-average return. This is passive aggression in investment — the presumption that passively invested money deserves a "return" equal to or greater than that achieved by labor, or even the effort and responsibility of hands-on management, notwithstanding the long-term consequences.
- Failure to recognize who's in control at public corporations (it's not the individual shareholders at NewsCorp, guys!) sounds a lot like not acknowledging the true authors — not even in house (and I've done more than a few of those myself) — doesn't it?
🦉