Trained ape fires back at Rumsfeld – “At least, I wouldn’t have invaded Iraq”. Challenges Rumsfeld to a game of tic-tac-toe.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stirred up controversy last week when he criticized the Obama administration’s handling of Afghanistan by saying that “A trained ape could get a status of forces agreement” in Afghanistan. Many people in social media blasted the comment as a reference to a derogatory term used against African Americans. However, a spokesperson for Rumsfeld pointed out that “trained ape” is a phrase that Rumsfeld uses a lot regardless of who it is directed at. He used the same phrase when criticizing Hillary Clinton’s handling of Afghanistan and he famously used it when justifying the invasion of Iraq – “There’s no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons. We all know that. A trained ape knows that”
It seems clear that the comment wasn’t intended to be racist, however it was offensive to apes, especially to trained apes, which prompted a response from Samson the trained ape. “Yeah, I may only be a trained ape but at least I didn’t invade Iraq. I may not have high intelligence, but you know what else I don’t have Don? Hubris. Not to mention arrogance and egomania. Maybe you should use a different phrase like ‘even a broken clock is right more often than Donald Rumsfeld’. I mean, you’re not even using the phrase ‘trained ape’ correctly. In my cage, whenever we want to make the point that something is obvious, we’ll say ‘that’s so obvious, even a neo-con would understand it’. See, even a trained ape is more subtle than Donald Rumsfeld”
After the interview, Samson challenged Rumsfeld to a game of tic-tac-toe, best 2 out of 3. The loser has to admit they’re not as smart as a trained ape. No word yet on whether Rumsfeld has accepted.
Supreme Court rules that wealthy people can spend as much money as they want on elections including buying votes from poor people.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court continued to dismantle the campaign finance reform laws by striking down a decades-old cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to federal candidates. In a surprise ruling, the Court extended the definition of free speech to include not only spending money on candidates but also the ability to buy someone else’s right to free speech or right to vote.
The ruling, combined with the Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 that extended free speech to corporations and allowed them to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, practically guarantees that wealthy Americans will be able to determine the outcome of all future federal elections.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “the top 1% of Americans are outnumbered 99 to 1 by the rest of the country. It is, therefore, not only fair, but necessary that they be allowed to spend 100 times more on elections than the average American. This includes not only the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on candidates but also the right to buy the rights of other Americans to spend on elections or vote. If the wealthy are restricted in any way from using their money to influence elections then there would be a dangerous imbalance in our democracy where the majority of elections would be determined by the majority of the voters. This goes against the very heart of the Constitution”
The vote was 5-4 along ideological lines with the 5 conservative members voting in the majority. Justice Thomas wrote a supporting argument for the majority. When asked where in the Constitution it says that people may buy or sell their right to vote, Justice Thomas admitted that he doesn’t really understand the Constitution. “You see, back in those days, the English they used was much different than the language we use today. So it’s really hard to read and understand exactly what it means. However, I’m pretty sure the founding fathers always intended America to be run by the wealthy.” While many question Thomas’s legal prowess, it is hard to ague with his grasp of history.