Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 14, 2005
Founding Documents Road Show

(lifted from a comment in one of yesterday’s threads)

by Billmon:

Appraiser: And what do have for us today, Uncle Sam?

Uncle Sam: It’s this Constitution I picked up at a colonial garage
sale a couple of centuries ago. (He holds it up. Zoom in for a tight
shot of "We the People") It has a lot of sentimental value . . .

Appraiser: Yes, and it’s quite rare, too. But as you can see (points
to various rips, tears and smudge marks, particularly on the Bill of
Rights) it’s hardly in mint condition.

Uncle Sam: Yes, I know. It’s been through a few wars . . .

Appraiser: (chuckles) We all know how that goes. But you can
tell that some pretty important parts don’t work any more. (points to
the congressional war powers clause)

Uncle Sam: Gee, I didn’t know that was worth anything.

Appraiser: (laughs) It’s easy to forget. But tell me: What are those crayon marks at the bottom?

Uncle Sam: Well, um, that’s is, I, uh, was fooling around with the thing, and, uh . . .

Appraiser: And?

Uncle Sam: I thought it would look nice with a couple of fresh
amendments — you know, to stop the goddamn flag burners and keep the
gays from violatin’ the sanctity of holy matrimony.

Appraiser: (sighs and shakes his head) We see this all the time.
Owners often don’t understand that trying to repair a fragile antique
can do more harm than good. So do you have any idea what your
Constitution is worth?

Uncle Sam: (nervously) I, um, like to think it’s priceless. (quickly) But I’ll consider any offers!

Appraiser: (laughs good naturedly) Well, in today’s market I’m sure it would fetch a good price at auction . . .

Uncle Sam: Oh boy!

Appraiser: . . . if it were still in good condition. In fact,
I bet there are plenty of people who would gladly die for it. But as it
is, well, I’m afraid sentimental value is about all it has left.

Uncle Sam: (long face) Oh, I see . . .

(We hear the tinkly Antiques Roadshow theme, then the appraisal flashes up on the screen: U.S. Constitution, badly damaged: $0)

fade to black.

Comments

Been a long time since I read it, but Kundera has a riff on kitsch which he says is the denial of impurity, the past is reclaimed by kitsch without the content of historical suffering. Antiques RoadShow is a means of totalitarian rule.

Posted by: slothrop | Jul 14 2005 16:45 utc | 1

TANTE AIME’S REVERSE-SURFING FUNDAMENTALS
The most powerful research tool on the internet is reverse-surfing.
Begin with a random seed, let’s say Findlaw’s Usama bin Laden link:
http://news.findlaw.com /hdocs/docs/binladen/usbinladen5303101pn.pdf
Google the root fragment of that random seed link:
http://www.google.com /search?hl=en&lr=
&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-44,GGLD:en&q=%22
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen%22
Follow lines of interest as they converge:
http://www.trackingthethreat.com /content/entities/ent1113.htm
http://www.sentineltms.com
http://www.fmsasg.com/
Google converged link and suspected new interlink, say, “FMS + Pentagon”:
http://publish.uwo.ca /~mcdaniel/weblinks/4GW.html
Follow lines of interest as they converge:
http://www.usdoj.gov
/ag/trainingmanual.htm
Any questions?
THIS REVERSE-SURFING TUTORIAL BROUGHT TO YOU BY TANTE AIME
[and layout modified by b because text broke layout borders]

Posted by: tante aime | Jul 14 2005 16:51 utc | 2

Mark Rothko Says that in the same way that baby talk is protected from intellectual scrutiny or mockery by the fact that it’s ‘cute,’ kitch (he was referring to popular illustration from the 40’s, but same thing) is protected by an armor of ‘decorativeness.’ So… POWER TO THE UGLY ANTIQUES!!

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 14 2005 16:51 utc | 3

Why wait for the past? When you can have nostalgia for the future.Now

Posted by: anna missed | Jul 14 2005 18:28 utc | 4

Thanks b!

Posted by: tante aime | Jul 14 2005 18:43 utc | 5

Wow, that’s one heavy link tante aime.
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/weblinks/4GW.html
A Canadian University geography department that appears to view warfare, battlespace and networks such as AQ and the Internet as geography problems!
Nice demo.

Posted by: jonku | Jul 14 2005 18:45 utc | 6

Jonku: Just trying to herd you cats back to reality with an “R”.

Posted by: tante aime | Jul 14 2005 18:49 utc | 7

Advid Michael Green’s comments on the Founders and their vision of government-in-tension may be relevant at this point.

Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 14 2005 20:24 utc | 8

Sorry, finger dyslexia! David Michael Green.

Americans are wont to worship the Founders as icons, very often without knowing why, and certainly without much consideration of their flaws. It would be an interesting exercise, I imagine, to ask them what they thought of these men (“Hey, great guys!”), and then follow up by asking why they feel this way. My suspicion is that one would get lots of vague pronouncements about the Revolutionary War and the Constitution and freedom and democracy and such. The case of the revolution has always been rather odd, given the inherent conservatism of American domestic and foreign policy, and the country’s far too frequent (and far too successful) efforts historically at stifling revolutionary attempts at liberation at home and especially abroad.
As for the rest, for decades polling data has demonstrated a lack of broad support for the sort of civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, when asked in the abstract. And I will risk being labeled elitist to suggest that many Americans have only a vague grasp, if any at all, of the significance of concepts like separation of powers, federalist power sharing, bicameralism, separation of church and state, etc. Given that there are nearly two hundred other countries in the world, not to mention loads more historical regimes to choose from, this weak appreciation for the Constitution is likely especially true in a comparative sense. That is, what makes this particular governmental scheme better than, say, the British one, which is highly different but certainly still a democracy?

he explores this question at some length, illuminating how the BushCo strategy of concentrating power in the Executive violates the fundamental principles on which the Founders drafted the original federalist scheme of government.

Posted by: DeAnander | Jul 14 2005 20:26 utc | 9

And I recall when George Will and other conservatives were nodding approval “on principle” at the weakening of the Executive Branch during the Clinton years.
Those fuckwits wouldn’t recognize a principle if it rammed a hedge trimmer up their right nostril.

Posted by: OkieByAccident | Jul 14 2005 22:25 utc | 10