by Chris Cannon
Fortuitously timed for our new reign over America, we propose—in keeping with the original intent of the Founding Fathers—to restore the details of these responsibilities to each amendment:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The people shall make no shield of religion, or prohibit common sense from trumping the right to fondle altar boys; or claim free speech includes the right to lie; or conduct peacefully assembled flash mobs that block traffic when we are running late.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The people shall not ignore the “well regulated” part of this amendment when asserting their constitutional right to brandish automatic weapons when picking their children up from preschool.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No citizen shall, in time of peace, war, or metaphorical war, pretend that preaching racism and xenophobia qualifies as “supporting the troops.”
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Citizens are expected to be smart about hiding their weed.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The public shall not pervert these rights by attributing criminal activity to noncriminal acts, such as wearing a hoodie, riding a skateboard, gathering in groups, or walking through Arizona.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Wealthy citizens shall not use their money and connections to draw out legal processes to such an absurd level that it breaks the system, leaving poor citizens with the choice of being white or going to prison.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The public, particularly the media, shall not convict fellow citizens in the court of public opinion based on something they saw on Geraldo.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Citizens shall not do things that make us want to be cruel and unusual.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The public shall acknowledge that “the people” includes immigrants, gays, and women.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The states and the people shall be worthy of the rights granted them, and not douche it up for everybody. (We’re looking at you, Florida.)
* * *
Canafact
Angry Birds is based on the Revolutionary War tactic of catapulting messenger pigeons across enemy lines to prevent them from being brought down by British snipers.
It’s a Promise!
All new legislation must be titled to reflect its actual contents. The Patriot Act will be renamed “Fuck You, Thomas Jefferson.”
* * *
4.7 Science vs. Religion (Spoiler: Science Wins in Overtime!)
The great theologian Bertrand Russell told us there are two kinds of morality: the kind we preach but do not practice, and the kind we practice but do not preach. Unfortunately, it is preaching morality, not practicing it, that gets you elected. This is why candidates preach about getting the government out of your private life, but once elected, practice an inflexible set of rules on how you must treat your vagina and with whom you may share it.
The very concept of “morality” has become a political tool. Worse, morality has been hijacked by religion, so that it is no longer possible to be independently moral on the national stage—a candidate has to issue press releases on little notepads that say “from the desk of God.” It’s been noted that even President Obama scored votes because of his resemblance to Jesus: a dark-skinned socialist who fights poverty, offers free health care, turns the other cheek, and is crucified by out-of-touch white guys who think the world is flat.
The claim of superior morality is the grand magic trick of the election process, a sleight of hand that elevates a candidate to greatness because he can wiggle his fingers and pull a Holy Spirit out of his hat. Meanwhile, the audience doesn’t notice that the food was overpriced, the drinks were watered down, and the performer neglected to supply a feasible plan for withdrawal from the Middle East. Candidates who claim moral superiority over their opponent are basically saying, “Sorry about the wars, the debt, and the poverty, but hey, watch me saw a homosexual in half!”
The true Houdinis of politics—and these guys really should be headlining in Vegas—are those who can misdirect the audience to be wary of their own senses by attacking rationality itself. They will tell you that faith is a sensory organ and evidence is just opinion wearing a lab coat. Their followers are easy to spot (global warming deniers, Tim Tebow fans) but impossible to reason with, because they believe in their party politics the way children believe in Santa: “It doesn’t matter if your platform contradicts all rational thought, I’ll support it as long as there’s something under the tree for me.”
Beware any candidate who tells you that God and science are on the opposite sides of a mud pit in some universal tug of war. Science is the means by which we grow as a civilization, and faith unites us as a community to make that growth mean something. They are no more in conflict than the gravitational forces between the earth and the moon, each steadying the orbit of the other but governed by different atmospheric rules. Which is why attempting to “prove” the existence of God makes faith as useless as a lunar hurricane monitor, while praying for divine intervention in our daily lives reduces God to a concierge with attention deficit disorder.
Our administration will not be a religious institution, but it will be a moral one. We will thus create two distinct bodies to regulate these differences: the Department of Faith and the Department of Reason.
Canada has a proud tradition of religious tolerance. W
e believe a Jew even lived here once. But religion is also a business, and if the government has to protect consumers from things like raw milk and naughty language on the television, then the Department of Faith will protect them from things they actually need protection from.
For instance, if you want to put $50 million a year into your church’s “Funny Hat Division,” that’s fine, but you have to be transparent to the investors who pay your bills and eat your crackers. You will purchase www.funnyhatdivision.com, you will detail your expenditures on the site, you will show it to that sweet old lady who gives you half her pension every month, and you will let her decide whether those hats are really worth the comedy.
The Department of Reason will oversee all of the government’s programs that rely on faith-free rational thought, protecting citizens from faith-based influence in what should be purely rational matters. Sex education for teens will cease to resemble a kindergarten magic show. Gays will be considered human rather than “almost.” Climate change will no longer be dismissed as God’s plan for polar bears. Pedophiles will be prosecuted no matter how funny their hat is.
Should an issue come about that cannot be handled by one of these departments, the opposing parties will settle the matter through a “friendly” game of hockey (see Chapter 1.5, “Understanding Hockey, from the Country That Gave You Football and Basketball”).
* * *
It’s a Promise!
Anyone who questions evolutionary genetics will have to explain the Neanderthal uncle in every family.
Canafact
Canadians prefer to piss each other off with unintelligible accents rather than bringing God into it.
* * *
4.8 Living in Fear: The War of the Words
Below is a brief (and incomplete) list of entities with whom, according to Fox News, America is at war:
Terror Kids
Marriage Ladies’ night
Christmas Conservative women
Hanukkah Fishermen
Easter Salt
Halloween Spuds
Fall holidays Sugary drinks
Fossil fuels Chocolate milk
The Constitution Food*
[*There are apparently two-front wars on the food items in this list.]
As we (The North American “we”) systematically replace our journalists with pundits, we shouldn’t be surprised that news metaphors increasingly lean toward the hyperbolic. It’s hard to find a story about “sharing” anymore that does not invoke the specter of communism, and the next kitten caught in a tree will probably be reported as “the War on Mittens.”
The real metaphorical war—the war to trend all wars—is the war on language, an ideological blitzkrieg to colonize our vocabulary by elevating every minor difference of opinion into a battle for your children’s souls. Every offense is a hate crime, every tragedy a holocaust, every protest a revolution, every critic a Nazi. It’s no wonder we are all scared shitless; the only good news we hear anymore is that Armageddon has been delayed because Satan and Exxon had a scheduling conflict.
It’s not a stretch to picture this as a long-term effect of the nineties political correctness craze, which gave us firepersons, Ebonics, and the hyphenated American. But we let a good thing get the best of us, and before long the obligation to respect people’s differences mutated into a requirement to respect their opinions, then their exaggerations, and then their lies. Over time, media organizations (formerly known as “the News”) discovered there was ratings gold in giving airtime to the chronically obtuse, and Rush Limbaugh never had to worry about money again.
So we turned to our comedy shows, of all places, to find sources we can trust, because our news anchors stopped taming lions and started cramming increasingly obese clowns into increasingly tiny cars. As our discourse became absurd beyond rational debate, we took up satire as the only available rhetorical strategy. Imagine if our grandparents had considered Laugh-In a reliable source of information because they just couldn’t trust that Cronkite fellow. Imagine if our parents believed 60 Minutes was biased toward hour-lovers, and tuned in to Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update” to confirm that Generalissimo Francisco Franco was still dead.
Over the past decade, we have ceased operating within a common frame of irony, no longer able tell the logical from the ridiculous. How much more evidence do we need than the fact that, at some point in the 2012 Republican primaries, Newt “Third Time’s a Charm” Gingrich became the spokesman for the sanctity of marriage? Somewhere in heaven—whether because he lost all faith in humanity, or because punch lines were never so obvious when he was alive—George Carlin wept.
The American Dream—once a simple romantic comedy—has been released on DVD as a horror film, with director’s commentary by the Mayans that roughly translates as “You’re all pretty fucked.” Our paranoia extends far beyond fringe terrors like the idea that Dick Clark’s death means there will be no more new years. We’ve built an artificial network of panic-perches from which we squawk about the evils of evolutionism, health care, education, sustainability, basic human kindness, and—somehow—Muppets and Dr. Seuss.
Even in Canada the war of the words has been elevated to a dizzying state, with foreign speculators branding the unconscionably dirty tar sands as “Ethical Oil” and portraying local environmentalists as part of some radical terrorist network. It wasn’t long ago that Canada was like Mayberry, where the constable wouldn’t let you out of a parking ticket until you tried a slice of Aunt Bee’s pie. But Andy and Opie have gone fishing with the boys, and here as in America, the Barney Fifes are taking over.
It is time to act, and we are asking Americans to help us fight the good fight. Reclaim your natural right to rational discourse and sensible governance. Reclaim your constitutional title of “We the people,” and remind your government and media that they answer to you. Reclaim your great nation. And then put us in charge of it.
Thanks for reading, and keep an eye out for our next book: I Am the Lorax, I Speak for the Terrorists.
Appendix A
Some Handy Tear-Out Application Forms
We can’t fix everything on the first day. So until we get around to the little things, we will be streamlining the hiring of civil service employees with tear-out applications in keeping with current hiring standards. Samples below:
Application for Supreme Court Justice
Congratulations on your nomination to the United States Supreme Court! To streamline the process and avoid contentious confirmation hearings, please fill out the following application.
With which law school are you affiliated?
a) Yale
b) Harvard
c) Columbia
d) I withdraw my application
In what way would you bring diversity to the Supreme Court?
a) I am a woman
b) I am a visible minority
c) Both a) and b)
d) I tan well
What aesthetic deficiencies might make you a target of partisan attacks?
a) Weight problem
b) Height problem
c) Excessive mustache (women)
d) Insufficient mustache (men)
What might reflect poorly on your character during the nomination process?
a) Former oil company lobbyist
b) Secret affair with intern
c) Secret affair with oil company lobbyist
d) I own all of Nickelback’s albums
What do you like best about the Constitution?
a) The gun parts
b) The gay parts
c) It’s all good
d) Fixing it
If you could add one item to the Constitution, what would it be?
a) The right to keep and bear more things
b) Quiz restrictions on Facebook
c) A more marketable title
d) An index
Would you be willing to participate in the Court’s “Wacky Robe Friday”?
a) Yes
b) No
What are your views on the death penalty?
a) I support the death penalty
b) I do not support the death penalty
c) I enjoyed Death to Smoochy
d) I am against death in all its forms
Do you favor gun control?
a) Yes
b) No
c) It is wrong to infringe on a gun’s constitutional rights
d) All guns should wear a leash
What best describes your views on same-sex couples?
a) It is a matter for the states
b) It is a matter for the feds
c) Gays have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us
d) I would enjoy viewing them
What are your views on the separation of church and state?
a) We are a Christian nation
b) We are a secular nation
c) We should skirt the issue by referring to Christian ideology as “the moral center”
d) They are a constant disruption and should not be allowed to sit next to each other
Please choose the abortion stance that describes you best:
a) Pro-choice
b) Anti-abortion
c) Only in cases in which the mother’s life is threatened
d) Only in cases in which my nomination is threatened
