It’s not that Justin Curmi doesn’t deserve some sympathy for his struggles. It couldn’t have been easy for him.
Justin Curmi is a graduate from Baruch College in Manhattan, New York. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Philosophy and Political Science. His college career was a battle due to personal battles with dyslexia. These battles have forced him to learn how to teach himself difficult subject matters without help. Through anguish and painful moments, he has overcome major hurdles that dyslexical presented to him. Now, he is looking towards unorthodox thoughts and methods to analyze political matters.
Aside from an excessive use of the word “battle,” there is no apparent reason why he was “forced” to “learn how to teach himself difficult subject matters without help.” One of these battles appears to be writing ability. Another, reasoning ability. The bio would be understandable but for one thing: this is Curmi’s bio at the Huffington Post, where Curmi has been given the opportunity to use this soapbox to explain his understanding of the Constitution.
Thus far, Curmi has written three posts on the subject. His first deals with the Preamble:
The preamble starts with “We the People of the United States…” There is no description or characteristics to the identity of people that has claim to the USA. The only given information is that it is those who believe in the principles of the USA, for the world “We” implies an exclusive set of people. Then the following idea is “the people,” which in conjunction with “We” is stating that people of the USA are people, and not alienated people. But, people with individuality separate from any domination. The people are what make the USA, and not the monarchy or totalitarian regimes. Thus, “We the People” are people who uphold the principles of the USA because the people grant the rights to each other.
His second post is about the First Amendment:
Now, how do they choose if it is a proper grievance and not a populist grievance? The answer was provided in the first part. The grievance must be filtered through the Five Aims of the USA and after, through the Bill of Rights. This is the balance to the check that is produced by this amendment. If the grievance is of populist mentality, it is the job of the government to educate and teach the people the reasoning they cannot adhere by their grievance. If it is a proper grievance (one that filters through the Five Aims of the USA and has some coherence to it), it then is filtered through the Bill of Rights. This will allow the proper grievance to demonstrate whether or not it has issues that was not noticed when it was filtered through the Five Aims of the USA. This whole process is to ensure that the USA is not gripped by a certain identity.
In his third post, Curmi explains the Second Amendment:
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.
This isn’t offered to be critical of Curmi, even though his writing on the Constitution is totally absurd and outrageously wrong. There are lots of folks who have bizarre ideas about the Constitution, and most can’t blame them on an intellectual disability. And it’s not that we shouldn’t encourage people who labor with such a disability to write and express their views. Thinking is a good thing, regardless of whether it works out well or not. Curmi gets an A for effort, even if Baruch gets an F for giving him a degree.
But what of Huffington Post? Do they get applause for allowing someone who suffers from an intellectual disability to stand atop its soapbox, giving a voice to someone who otherwise wouldn’t be able to have his views heard outside of a very small circle of friends?
Curmi makes no claim to being a lawyer, to having any greater expertise in the understanding of constitutional law than the guy at McDonalds whose primary function is to persuade you to supersize. It’s not his fault that his thoughts on the Constitution are ridiculously misguided. This is America. He’s allowed to be ridiculously wrong.
Yet, that doesn’t mean that a reputable media outlet should allow its soapbox to be used to make people stupider. Sadly, that’s the best Curmi can hope for, given his views about the Constitution. But for empathy, he would win a Billy Madison award for his writing. There is nothing in Curmi’s writing worthy of discussion. It’s sheer, unadulterated nonsense.
So what is it doing on Huffington Post? It’s bad enough that such outlets post insidious nonsense by non-lawyers designed to garner clicks while misinforming their clueless but adoring fans about the law. After all, people find the law fascinating, provided it confirms their feelings. And these outlets milk people’s ignorance unmercifully, furthering their political agendas at the same time as they get those clicks advertisers love.
But Curmi? What is he doing on HuffPo? This isn’t about click bait, furthering an agenda. If it’s about being kind to those suffering from intellectual disabilities, then create a vertical that makes the purpose clear. HuffPo Politics is not the place to let someone like Curmi have his moment in the sun. Much as we may be sympathetic to Curmi’s “battles,” that an outlet like HuffPo would proffer this insanity as substance to its readers is inexcusable.
No, not even HuffPo has the right to make people stupider. Not even if it’s being nice to the intellectually challenged. Curmi’s writing is dumb. HuffPo’s publishing it is outrageous and irresponsible. You’ve got a huge soapbox, Arianna. Use it for good instead of stupid.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
According to his Huffington bio, his blog is titled “My Head Hurts.” Ironic, because that’s how I feel reading his “analysis” of the Constitution.
One of my favorite lines is that people avoid thinking because it makes their head hurt. Bringing up the name of his blog was almost too good to pass up, but I really tried to avoid denigrating Curmi’s writing or thinking in deference to his challenges. Having an intellectual disability isn’t a choice. Using one’s big soapbox to post something idiotic, on the other hand, is a choice.
If only someone at HuffPo bothered to read Curmi’s writing before publishing it, maybe their head would hurt too and they would have thought better of it.
Avoiding criticizing his writing is fine and laudible– dyslexia effects language processing specifically reading and writing. Dyslexia does not however preclude intellectual thought. A quick google tells me einstein, da vinci, and edison, among many others, had dyslexia. I can find no such drivel from them. Maybe im being a privaleged shitlord but this seems like way too much deference.
Also i think dyslexia is a learning disability not an intellectual disability.
I was trying to be nice. Don’t make me say the obvious.
And we know that can be difficult sometimes, and so we really do appreciate the effort. Feel free to collect your tummy rub at the local office.
I’m going to take this as official confirmation that the Time Cube Guy did, in fact, reproduce at some point. I took the liberty of clicking through to several of his articles, and that’s a decision I will have to live with for the rest of my life.
#ThingsYouCan’tUnread
I read his article on the preamble and it occurred to me that HuffPo said to Curmi what my late father used to say to me: “I know you don’t know nothing, but whaddya’ think?”
Yeah, but your late father didn’t then post your reply for the world to see.
I can offer one possible explanation that may not be obvious. Its speculation, but a reasonable one.
Michael Bloomberg.
Just as we are in the middle of a rape crisis in which women are being accosted virtually every second, and victims need to be believed whether their beliefs are true or not, we are under a gun violence crisis that is only exceeded by the rape crisis. Mr. Bloomberg has embarked in a one man with billions of dollars campaign to promote his own personal agenda, and the tactics used by him against the Second Amendment are nearly identical to those who try to circumvent the First Amendment via the hate speech exception, or the Fifth Amendments through the rape culture exception, the Fourth through safety exception.
Mr. Bloomberg even started his own on line newsource, thetrace, designed to be an authority on the subject to allow it to be cited by those who support his agenda.
The rape culture crowd does the same.
You start to get used to hearing the same buzzwords and arguments too. Did you know that the Second Amendment isn’t binding because its, you know, just an amendment? I guess the same applies to the First and all those after that one. I’ve learned that when it comes to promoting an agenda, the legislative branch can carve out Bill of Rights exceptions too, and have it upheld by a District Court based on feelings.
Its only a matter of time before the mental gymnastics used to support one agenda will carry over to another agenda. Its happening now, a topic that you almost never address here except for virtually every day. To paraphrase Yogi, 90% of your blog is on that subject directly and the other half your blog indirectly.
PS. I too suffer from slight dyslexia. You learn to deal with it and move no.
But HuffPo isn’t Bloomberg.
True, HuffPo is not Bloomberg, but he’s got enough money and influence in the media he could get his choice of articles published.
Again, pure speculation as to why, but one that would not surprise me.
“PS. I too suffer from slight dyslexia. You learn to deal with it and move no.”
I see what you did three.
There’s no question that Bloomberg has a gun control agenda that he wants to advance, but this hypothesis raises an obvious question: Why crap?
Bloomberg has the money to hire highly skilled writers, even highly skilled thinkers, and to publish their work product in whatever medium he chooses. So why would he want to dredge the ranks of the post-post-secondary underemployed for some of the worst examples of writing and argumentation on the web?
So I ask myself, what are the chances anyone would be that big an asshole as to take the hard left and make this about Bloomberg, which has absolutely nothing to do with the post. And I answer myself, nobody would be that big an asshole, amirite?
Hey man, if you were referring to me, I was just trying to come up with a reason why HuffPo posted this drivel.
I had had no intentions of taking a hard left. Besides, I have trouble distinguishing between my left and right anyway. For all I know, I made a hard right and nailed it.
I got feelings you know. But if I am truly an asshole, (I take the 5th) can I at least self identify as a uvula instead?
Don’t get all bent. If it was about you, I would have replied to you. I have mad “reply button” skillz.
“Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.”
“Sustained.”
My protege, Cristian, writes there. I’m conflicted.
“Move to recuse.”
“Granted.”
I like the “Five Aims of the USA” part.
Aim for the shooting arm; take out one kneecap; drop two into center of mass; finish with the head.
Those are all political analogies, of course. Do you think that is what he meant?
Yes, that’s exactly what he meant. You have a keen eye.
Zoe: “Preacher, don’t the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killing?
Book: “Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.”
I am appalled by Justin Corsi’s slander of dyslexics by association. We’re better than that. And how could any school award a degree in philosophy to one who so clearly lacks a working grasp in logic? And how could the HuffPost publish such drivel unless they are trolling their readers?
You ever hear the one about the agnostic insomniac dyslexic? He was up all night thinking about dog. Sorry.
that is evisneffo, you krej.
Puy.
As a previous winner of a Billy Madison award for my comments on this blog, I want to know where your empathy was then?
You fucked up. You commented.
There’s no way a graduate in both philosophy and political science could have such a layperson-level poor grasp of both subjects. Coupled with grammatical errors that could be attributed to dyslexia and others just manifest in laziness and failure to edit, it’s obvious HoPo itself edited his piece. They wanted to show how a dyslexic’s post-college draft would appear; but when his article was devoid of typical dyslexic errors they “showed him” and added in such poor grammar and sentences of objectively laughably wrong political philosophy that Curmi has several causes of action against HoPo for this slander. Of course, this assumes they would be devoid of an affirmative defense like idiocy or the otter enumerated FRCP 12b defenses.
As you say, Scott, the real question is why the Huffington Post would post this sort of meaningless drivel. (Of course, the HuffPost is the same site that regularly invites readers to click onto lists like “Top 10 Ugliest Accordion Players.”) Dyslexia isn’t an intellectual disability, and it has nothing to do with this unless the Huffington editors thought the writer’s “battle” excuses poor thinking — which would insult him and everyone else with dyslexia.
When I mentioned intellectual disability, I wasn’t referring to his dyslexia.
It would be really funny if HuffPo posted the next Curmi column under the byline “Scott Greenfield” as satire.
That would be funny and give new found respect for HuffPo.
Does the fact that he’s dyslexic put Zoolander references out of bounds?
Not at all. That fact that they would be Zoolander references, on the other hand, would do the trick.