The Return of Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3

With the amount of legislation and Constitutional Amendments addressing slavery and voting, you would think that our government would be able to figure it out. Yes, I know it's a long shot to think the government is capable of figuring anything out, especially when it's so clearly articulated. But I can hope.

A brief history lesson: during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the northern, mostly anti-slavery states maintained that since slaves could not vote and were legally considered property (thanks, Dred Scott*) then they should not be counted as population. The southern, pro-slavery states wanted the population numbers which translated to more seats in the House of Representatives and more electoral college votes (more political power). The compromise resulted in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution which said that one slave equals 3/5 of a person. See? Even when the country was new, the government still managed to make stupid decisions that really didn't solve anything.

Anyway, the 13th and 14th Amendments effectively rendered that little section of the Constitution moot, and future legislation and Amendments would ensure that every adult citizen counted for one whole person and had one whole vote. That is, until the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee met this past weekend.

The DNC RBC went a step further than its predecessor and effectively said that Michigan and Florida delegates, while whole people in reality, only count for half a vote when it comes to picking a candidate. I'm too lazy to sort through exact numbers, but this motion disenfranchises several hundred thousand voters.

Good job, Democratic Party - you've managed to violate at least 4 Constitutional Amendments, the entire Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and 3 bylaws of the Cape Cod Homeowners Association. Impressive.

* - The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was handed down 70 years after the Constitutional Convention, but it doesn't change the fact that most people viewed slaves as property in 18th Century America.

Victims of Their Own Political Correctness

In today's politically correct world, one cannot accuse a minority of gaining their position as a result of affirmative action. Well, if you want to be called a racist, go for it. But since "racist" is the modern day equivalent of "witch" in 1692 Massuchessets, it's no wonder people in polite society refrain from the accusation.

In theory, affirmative action is a fine idea - provide opportunities to minorities that, due to social prejudices, were unavailable to those groups in the past. In application, however, affirmative action was less than perfect; kind of like communism - in theory, it works. Ultimately, affirmative action, in some cases, put unqualified people in positions, and some of those unqualified people failed miserably at their job / education. Sure, qualified people fail as well, but the chances of failure increase significantly when the person is unqualified, regardless of minority / majority status.

And that brings us to Barack Obama. The man is flat-out unqualified to be President of the United States. I'm not going to say that he is where is he because of affirmative action. But, at the same time, I'm not disagreeing with Geraldine Ferraro and Bob Johnson when they say that Barack is where he is due in large part to his race.

With Barack's lackluster performance at the Philadelphia debates, the San Francisco bitter comments, and his absolutely horrendous handling of the Jeremiah Wright crisis, several Democratic party members and leaders are questioning just how capable is Barack in a general election.

If you go on Real Clear Politics' numbers, Hillary has a larger lead in a McCain match up than Obama does. Most pundits (Democrat and Republican) are in agreement that this Wright thing is going to get much worse before it gets better (it may even last through the general election). So if Obama continues to have slip-ups and really looses favor with the electorate, will the Democractic super delegates give the nomination to Hillary?

Personally, I maintain that the DNC has painted itself into a corner. With his promises of hope and change, Obama excited a good number of people. The problem was that no one, even the most passionate of his supporters, really knew who Obama was - as a man or politician. Now that the shiny new-Obama shine has faded, we see that he really is no different than every other politician out there. But he has won enough delegates to be the logical choice for the nomination.

Hillary, on the other hand, is strengthening her argument that she is more electable than Obama. If the DNC super delegates give the nomination to her, a Democratic mutiny is a very real possibility as is a number of Obama supporters staying home and not voting in protest, thus cutting into Hillary's chances of winning the general election.

In part, this entire situation stems from the Democratic party's desire to have it all. It's a politically correct wet dream to have both a woman and a black man contending for the title of First [fill in the blank with the appropriate minority title] President. If Bill Richardson would have been able to stick it out and capitalize on the Hispanic vote, there's no telling where the nomination process would be right now.

The only problem is when you pit two minority groups against each other (women vs. blacks, in this case), polarization is inevitable, and when you slight one group in favor of the other, it only fuels the racist / sexist charges. At the end of the day (or at Denver in August, if you want to get technical) the DNC is going to have to make a very non politically correct choice, and that is a liberal's worst nightmare. Well, that and a sudden repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

Don't Call It A Comeback

And the saga continues. Not that I'm complaining. The longer Hillary and Barack waste their time, energy, and money on beating each other up, the less John McCain has to whenever the Democrats finally figure out who their nominee is. And let's be honest - Johnny doesn't exactly pull in the money and crowds like Barack. There's just something about old, white guys on the verge of death that tends to push away the younger crowd. Go figure.

Next up: Indiana. I think the polls have Hillary and Barack neck to neck, but I'm fairly confident that the Clinton machine will waste no time in highlighting Barack's disdain for the proletariat. Likewise, Barack will hit on Hillary's issues as well. Fun times to be had by all. Maybe, if we're lucky, Barack will come out and say something like, "You stupid crackers wouldn't know what's good for you even if it sponsored Dale Jr." That would be awesome.

In barely related news, here's another video from The Onion. There's some bad words in there, so if you're at work, make sure you have the headphones on. The last thing the anchor says is the best. Please to enjoy:

Study: Nearly 80 Percent Of Roommates Got So Drunk Last Night

Stuff You Need to Know

Instead of going on a long-winded rant on any number of topics, let's do the shotgun approach. Here's some headlines from yesterday and today.

- Nancy Pelosi warned Gen. Patreaus not to try and sugar coat the recent violence in Basra, Iraq when he testifies next week on Capitol Hill. Interesting - I don't remember her warning Patreaus not to try and downplay the success we've had since the The Surge has been in full effect. For any leader of this country to be (or even to pretend to be) this ignorant about military affairs is sickening.

- Ted Turner, because he's an expert on the Earth's climate, says the earth will be 8-10 degrees warmer in 30 or 40 years. He claims that crops won't grow, and mankind will have to result to cannibalism. D&F reader B1 comments - "How did this man become a billionaire?Thank God he'll be dead before we become cannibals - I hate a Turner Steak.When the Muslims cut back to 1 or 2 children from 8 - 10 kids the world will be safer." I comment - SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE. IT'S PEOPLE!

- In ironic coincidence news - the World Meteorological Organization's Secretary General stated that the Earth's temperature has not risen since 1998. So don't go out getting copies of Alive for cannibalism pointers just yet.

- Obama has managed to energize the youth vote. What is his secret? Is it the "hope" for "change" and a better future? Is it Obama's pledge to FINALLY bring the country together and do away with the devisive partisan politics? Nope - it's Dave Matthews tickets.

- Just so everyone is on the same page - Hillary's pathological lying is now a joke, and, therefore, no longer a major personality flaw. After all, lying as part of a joke makes the joke funnier.

It's Scary. Very, Very Scary.

It's becoming more and more evident that Hillary has some serious anti-social tendencies. First, she continued to repeat the whole sniper fire story after it's was painfully clear that the truth was pretty much 180 degrees in the other direction. Then, we get this story of her boss during the Watergate scandal firing her for less than honest practices (and I'm being generous with that description).

Yesterday, while campaigning in Philadelphia, Hillary compared herself to Rocky (because Rocky was from Philly, for you un-American bastards that have never seen Rocky). In an attempt to convince her supporters that she was not going to quit the race, Hillary said, "Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people."

Where to begin? First off, Rocky loses in the first movie - not by a knock-out, but by points. The similarities between that and losing due to super delegates is blatant, to say the least. Next, and more importantly, Hillary is all too willing to call it quits in Iraq. In fact, she has said on multiple occasions that we should give up. There is no chance of victory. So what are we to take away from this? Hillary is a fighter, but only when her own personal interests are at stake?

Onto Barack - commenting on Congress' hearing on big oil yesterday, Obama made the case that the "windfall" profits should either be heavily taxed or taken away from big oil. Naturally, the government would then redistribute the wealth in a fair and judicious manner, or something...

It's my belief that if you punish people (or companies) for being in the right place at the right time (which is really what we're talking about here), than you inevitably suffocate the capitalist spirit and system that has made this country what it is. If success if going to be punished, than there is no motivation for success, only mediocrity. Besides, one could argue that Barack received some "windfall" profits with the proceeds of his two books. This effectively moved Barack and his family from firm middle class to upper class in a relatively short period of time. Sounds like Barack is in need of some redistribution of wealth.

And because I'm in a fair and judicious mood this morning, let's talk about John McCain. There are more and more stories popping up about McCain contemplating switching parties after the 2000 Republican Primary. This should come as no surprise to anyone. He's been on the liberal side of moderate since forever. His only true conservative credential is the "Regan foot soldier" mantra, and that doesn't necessarily a conservative make.

So, to sum it all up - all the candidates scare me. It looks like I'm going to end up picking the lesser of two evils. The system isn't perfect, but at least it's not Communism....yet.

Of Course You Know, This Means War

I can't figure out if this is an actual random person or someone within the 10's of D&F readers trying to prod me into writing more. Either way, we received the following comment this afternoon:

"So it appears DinkFlika has been silenced by the Liberals - how wonderful!For those needing interesting and intelligent commentary: http://dailykos.com/ "

Two problems with this comment.

1. The number of responses to political posts that could be viewed as "liberal" happens to be the same number of sniper rounds Hillary had to avoid on her 1996 trip to Bosnia. That's 0 for those of you not keeping up with current events. So, to claim that D&F has been silenced by liberals despite the complete lack of commentary from liberals doesn't really follow. Hang on - I completely forgot about the primary means of changing the world for liberals - hope and change. Now it all makes sense. Well played, liberals.

2. I do not frequent Daily KOS for the simple reason I know how to blame other people for my problems and also how to demand that government fix all the woes in my life. I'm guessing that a vast army of liberal minded people update the Daily KOS on a regular basis whereas D&F is doing good if we get one update a day. The reason for this is simple - the majority of Daily KOS contributors are almost certainly unemployed and have the time to complain about how the government is not solving their problems. The other contributors to D&F and I, on the other hand, have actual jobs that require some amount of attention, and we can't sit around figuring out ways to make it easier for radical Islamic terrorists to attack the country. For this, we apologize.

Oh well, here's a sampling of the days headlines that are sure to entertain and maybe even educate:

- According to Christopher Hitchinson, the biggest scandal of Hillary's non-incident during her 96 trip to Bosnia wasn't her flagrant and almost sociopathic lying, it was the fact that hubby Bill decided to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of civilians at the hands of the Serbs for Hillary's failed attempt to socialize health care.

- Alice Walker puts Barack Obama on the same level as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela. I'll let you figure out if that's an appropriate comparison or not.

- In the latest attempt to provoke God into smiting the human race, the "pregnant man" has released pictures indicating "he" and his wife are / were body builders. In related news, your local forecast calls for swarms of locusts, plagues, and a 80% chance of first-born son killings. Take that umbrella!

- In Waycross, GA, police were able to prevent a class of third graders from violently assaulting their teacher. I would of thought the Children of the Corn would have made it past the 3rd grade by now.

If you're nice, I will post again later tonight. If you're not nice, you'll have to wait until I'm bored at work again, which will be tomorrow morning sometime.

Hillary Wasn't Lying

Yeah, so William and I have been rather busy this past week, and that's why D&F has not been updated. We're sorry. To make up for it, I give you this unedited video of Hillary's trip to Bosnia. You know - the one where she was shot at and had to run for cover. Or something....

Please to enjoy -

See more funny videos at CollegeHumor

Does It Hurt to Get Repudiated?

The big political story the past week has been revolving around Geraldine Ferraro and her comment about Obama's success being due in large part to his race. Ferraro was sitting on Clinton's campaign finance committee, but was quickly dismissed for her views. Based on the speed at which Ferraro was thrown under the bus, Clinton must have some Hulk-like upper body strength.

The name of the game in this modern, "respectable" Presidential campaign is Guilt by Association. As soon as someone even remotely connected to a campaign says something inflammatory or dirty, the candidate involved cannot repudiate / reject / denounce that person and those comments quick enough. Except Barack Obama - he gets a free pass.

John McCain: At a rally in Cincinnati, Bill Cunningham dared to use Obama's middle name (Hussein) and had some comments about Hillary as well. When told about Cunningham's remarks, McCain couldn't start apologizing fast enough.

Hillary Clinton: Pick one - a staffer implied Obama not only took, but sold drugs, Ferraro and her comments, etc. In each case, the staffer involved has either been dismissed or submitted a rather hasty resignation.

And then there's Barack Obama. Yes, someone on his staff called Hillary a "monster," and that person left the campaign. Man, Obama is really cracking down on the name calling. But what about his pastor - the Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Here is a sampling of some of Rev. Wright's thoughts:

- 5 days after 9-11, Rev. Wright took the position that the US caused 9-11 through it's sponsorship of state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africans, and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (I didn't think Japan was involved with 9-11, but whatever...). Granted, Obama was not running for President at the time, but he is now. And when asked about these comments, Obama explained that Wright was simply "trying to be provocative."

- In another sermon in 2003, he blamed rampant drug-use and the high percentage of incarcerated blacks on government conspiracy. This sermon was wrapped up with the choice phrase, "God damn, America." Nice.

The question is - why is Obama allowed not to rebuke this guy? Rev. Wright presided over Obama's wedding and the baptism of his two kids; he has taken an extended sabbatical to campaign for Obama. Clearly, he's involved with the campaign, and if you listen to the propaganda, Barack is a very spiritual person who goes to church on a regular basis. To me, that means Barack's spiritual advisor plays a pretty important role in Barack's life.

When speaking to a Jewish group, Barack tried to explain that Rev. Wright is like that crazy uncle everyone has. Ok, I have some crazy uncles, so I can relate to that comment. However, I am not running for President, and my crazy uncles are not a significant influence in my life. Call me old fashioned, but when it comes to deciding who's going to be in charge of our country, I would prefer a person who doesn't listen to someone that thinks the country is the enemy.

I'm going to chalk all this up to a gratuitous application of The Double Standard. The media has turned on Hillary, so Barack is getting the free passes. As for McCain - well, he's still a Republican in name, so he shouldn't expect any favors.