Government By The People – And Some Weirdoes

In honor of “The Donald” Trump, here’s a list of the folks who rule us – or would like to.

ADHOCRACY – a committee formed ad hoc to deal with a specific issue.
ARISTOCRACY – a government or state ruled by an aristocracy, elite, or privileged upper class.
AUTOCRACY – government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.
CHRYSOCRACY/PLUTOCRACY – Rule by the rich
CLEPTOCRACY/KLEPTOCRACY – a government or state in which those in power exploit national resources and steal; rule by a thief or thieves.
COTTONOCRACY – Cottonocracy refers to planters, merchants, and manufacturers who control the cotton trade.
DEMOCRACY – a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
DEMONOCRACY – Theology – power of, or rule by, demons.
DESPOTOCRACY – The rule by a despot or despots; the power of despots
DOLLAROCRACY – Dollarocracy refers to a state in which private wealth determines the base of political powerIt is synonymous with plutocracy
DOULOCRACY/DULOCRACY – A government where servants and slaves have so much license and privilege that they domineer
ERGATOCRACY – rare government by the workers
GERONTOCRACY – a state or government in which old people rule.
GYNAECOCRACY/GYNECOCRACY/GYNOCRACY/GYNARCHY – government by women.
HAGIOCRACY – government by a body of persons esteemed as holy.
HIEROCRACY – rule or government by priests or ecclesiastics.
ISOCRACY – a government in which all individuals have equal political power.
KAKISTOCRACY – a form of government in which the worst persons are in power
MEDIOCRACY – government or rule by a mediocre person or group.
MERITOCRACY – leadership by able and talented persons.
MILLOCRACY – Rule or government by mill owners
MOBOCRACY/ OCHLOCRACY – the mob as a ruling class
MONOCRACY – government by only one person; autocracy.
NOMOCRACY – government based on the rule of law rather than arbitrary will, terror, etc
PANTISOCRACY – a community, social group, etc, in which all have rule and everyone is equal
PEDANTOCRACY – the supremacy or power of bookish theorists
PHYSIOCRACY – an 18th-century group of French economists who believed that agriculture was the source of all wealth
PLANTOCRACY  – a ruling class of plantation owners
PORNOCRACY – government or domination of government by whores
PTOCHOCRACY – government by the poor
PUNDITOCRACY – influential media pundits, (a learned person, expert, or authority).collectively.
QUANGOCRACY – the control or influence ascribed to quangos
SLAVOCRACY – the rule or domination of slaveholders
SNOBBOCRACY/SNOBOCRACY – social class or group exercising power through snobbish influence or elitist control
SQUATTOCRACY – squatters collectively, regarded as rich and influential
STRATOCRACY – government by the military
TECHNOCRACY – a theory and movement, prominent about 1932, advocating control of industrial resources, reform of financial institutions, and reorganization of the social system, based on the findings of technologists and engineers.
THALASSOCRACY/THALATTOCRACY – dominion over the seas, as in exploration, trade, or colonization
THEOCRACY – a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
TIMOCRACY – a form of government in which a certain amount of property is requisite as a qualification for office.

Did you see anyone you recognized??

A House Built On Sand

The United States Constitution, you may be surprised to learn, mentions religion only twice: Once, in Article VI, where it states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” and again, in the First Amendment, where it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s it; you’ve now just read everything there is to read about religion in America’s most significant founding document.

This turns out to be an awkward revelation for the Christian nationalist; if the founders were, as Christian nationalists maintain, creating a “Christian nation,” it is quite odd that the words, God, Jesus, Christianity, and the like are entirely absent from the “supreme law of the land,” and that religion is only mentioned twice and in an entirely negative sense. Clearly, the US was established as a religiously neutral secular government—the first of its kind in the history of the world.

Frankly, I’m not sure how the founders could have been any clearer in their intentions without literally writing the words “THE U.S. IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.” Of course, some of the founders actually did write these words in the Treaty of Tripoli, which in 1797 was signed by President John Adams with the unanimous consent of the US Senate, and which says that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

We can keep going. While Thomas Jefferson’s exhortation for a “wall of separation” between church and state is well-known, what may be less well-known is that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights and father of the Constitution, was equally vociferous against the idea of mixing religion with government. On the issue of congressional chaplains, for example, Madison wrote, in the Detached Memoranda, “the establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.” He noted that minority religions would likely never achieve chaplainship, and, therefore, that the promotion of one religion above all others using government resources was a clear violation of constitutional principles—principles, keep in mind, that he would be very familiar with on account of the fact that he drafted them.

Further, note that the Constitution opens with the words “We the people,” which is a direct philosophical declaration that the government draws its power from the consent of the governed, not from a deity. Additionally, the idea that all persons are created equal, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, is fundamentally at odds with the idea of Christian supremacy. As one Supreme Court decision put it (before it was overtaken by conservative Christians), “A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.”

Therefore, under no reasonable interpretation of the founding documents—not even and especially under the flawed, conservative interpretive scheme of originalism—can we possibly conclude that the country was founded as a “Christian nation.”

And yet that is exactly what the Supreme Court is attempting to turn the nation into, as constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel masterfully explains in his latest book, American Crusade: How the Supreme Court Is Weaponizing Religious Freedom. By analyzing several key Supreme Court cases over the last thirty years, Seidel shows us how these cases are being increasingly decided against the principles and sentiments of the founders—and against the best interests as a country.

The League of Sedentary Gentlemen

I have joined a prestigious, if none too exclusive club.  The League of Sedentary Gentlemen graciously offered me an honorary membership, just because I mentioned that my idea of exercise is a good, brisk sit.  I questioned accepting membership in a group that would accept me as a member

They all sit around (what else) texting each other with suggestions for the best way to get a wife, or grandkid, or a guilt-ridden neighbor to bring them another beer or a fresh mint julep.  Well, most of the rest of them do.  I’m an old technological Luddite, still trying to figure out the intricacies of these new-fangled touch-tone phones.

I tried to talk one or more of them into coming over to the house and explaining it to me, but none of them want to leave the safety and comfort of their living room or front porch.  They claim that if they relieve pressure on their butt-cheeks, their prostates will swell.

I’ve spent a good chunk of my life, fetchin’ and totin’ for other folks.  I just thought that it was time to sit back, take it easy, and deeply cogitate about… sittin’ back and taking it easy.  There are no problems that are too deep or complex, that they can’t be addressed with the judicious use of a remote control, and/or an intercom or walkie-talkie.  I’ve got this COVID ‘sheltering at home’ thing down to a fine science.

I have so impressed so many of the group, that I am considering standing for election as President of the League, but standing can get you tossed out of this loosely rational knit organization.  I expect to sit, comfortably, both before and after I achieve total control.  My dynamite campaign trick will be to distribute a NSFW photo of my ass, showing the corduroy marks from the extra pillow that I added to my computer chair.

I have a lot of great ideas for the League, that don’t involve strenuous movement.  I’d like to set up a group of online webinars, with titles like, ‘Leaving the Rocker/Recliner To Go To Bed: Good Idea, or Bad?’‘How Do You Know When You’ve Had Enough Nothing?’ – ‘Door-Dash, Skip The Dishes, and Uber-Eats: Pillars of the Republic! and ‘Screened Front Porches: Salvation Of The Nation!’

I might become so famous and well-known that I could sit on the Supreme Court – as long as I get an aide who will wheel me into the courtroom.  What is your position on abortion?  Recumbent, on the couch.  The sun can rise every day, but I am not that motivated.  I have an irresistible force to remain an immovable object.

I wouldn’t object if you expressed your unwavering support for my plan.  I’ll take your word for it.  It’s not like I’m going to actually get up and check.

Another labor-saving position

 

WOW #13

Grumpy Old Dude

Okay, I don’t mind when Dictionary.com gives Donald Trump a hard time. He deserves it.  I take strong exception, though, when they start to insult me.  This week, they chose the word:

Cantankerous

Definitions for cantankerous disagreeable to deal with; contentious; peevish: a cantankerous, argumentative man.

Origin of cantankerous

1765-1775

Cantankerous seems as apt in sound and meaning as honk or boom. One earlier spelling of the word is contankerous, which suggests its development from Middle English contak, conteke “quarrel, disagreement,” from which are formed contecker, contekour “one who causes dissension.” An unattested adjective conteckerous, contakerous could have been formed on the models of traitorous or rancorous or contentious. Cantankerous entered English in the 18th century.

* Standards

I don’t feel that it’s nice for them to describe me as difficult to deal with, or contentious. I am easily pleased. I will happily accept perfection. I also think that it was unnecessary to claim that I am peevish. I may have a few (okay, a bunch of) pet peeves. I have raised them from kittens, until now, they can eat raw meat.

The son works a midnight shift, driving to work late in the evening, and coming home early in the morning, on nearly abandoned streets. When he occasionally has to accompany me somewhere during the day, and watches me pilot through volume of traffic, and the vehicular antics of Kitchener’s ‘So, You Think You Can Drive,’ he has been known to declare, “I hate people!”

I don’t hate everybody. I don’t know everybody. I certainly don’t hate anyone who comes to this site and reads my screeds, so you guys are all safe.

Thor