It's Time to Boycott Arizona

[Kobi]

Linus:

You bring up a really good point--the *real* problems America are facing aren't really related to immigration. Compared to the effects of letting our education system falter and turning our backs on science, they are trivial. Compared to allowing American corporations to move their headquarters off-shore to avoid paying corporate taxes or moving jobs overseas, immigration just fades into the background. Compared to a trillion dollar defense budget all the social services *combined* do not even begin to compete for the amount of weight they have on the economy.

But improving the education system is a long-term project and will require more money with the payoff being intangible, so we don't want to do that. Passing laws that reward good business behavior and punish bad business behavior are difficult so we don't want to do that heavy lifting either. Cutting back our defense spending by, say, half gores way too many sacred cows. Immigrants are easy. They are nice slow-moving target and have the added virtue of large numbers of immigrants looking substantially different than the majority so blaming them is the path we've chosen in this country. Why do the hard thing that will require courage, sacrifice and will when there's a ready-made scapegoat right at hand?

Yes, it's cynical but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Cheers
Aj

From what I read in this thread, I think I am the only one who doesnt have a problem with the Arizona attempt to curb illegal immigration. I say kudos for having the gonads to tackle a problem no one else has the guts to deal with.

It is easy to say we shouldnt deal with immigration issues because there are other more pressing problems affecting the country. Unfortunately, we use this excuse to avoid dealing with many issues because no one wants to be seen as the bad guy about any issue.

Illegal immigrations costs us taxpayers billions and billions a year in services i.e. education and health care plus immigration costs of housing illegals awaiting deportation hearings and providing them with legal representation to name just a few.

With the downturn in the economy and Americans struggling to find work, my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting.

One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others.

[MsDemeanor]

Illegal immigrations costs us taxpayers billions and billions a year in services i.e. education and health care plus immigration costs of housing illegals awaiting deportation hearings and providing them with legal representation to name just a few.

Billions and billions? Go check your facts.

[Kobi]

Billions and billions? Go check your facts.

I know my facts. Conservative estimate in 2004 was illegal immigrants costing taxpayers 10 billion a year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html

[Corkey]

The problem I have is that this law has no distinction between law abiding American Latinos and American Native peoples and immeragrents who have come here seeking jobs that most Americans won't do. It is racist and is racial profiling at it's worst. Any one who isn't lilly white will be subject to this unreasonable search and seizure law. It is basic discrimination, cloaked in states rights. It is unjust, unfair, and totally unreasonable.
I do think we need to do the hard work of reform, but not at the risk of American citizens being jailed for not having their birth certificates on them.
All American citizens have the bill of rights to use, their 5th amendment right of self incrimination, but they shouldn't have to use this as they have every right to be here, they are US.

[The_Lady_Snow]

From what I read in this thread, I think I am the only one who doesnt have a problem with the Arizona attempt to curb illegal immigration. I say kudos for having the gonads to tackle a problem no one else has the guts to deal with.

It is easy to say we shouldnt deal with immigration issues because there are other more pressing problems affecting the country. Unfortunately, we use this excuse to avoid dealing with many issues because no one wants to be seen as the bad guy about any issue.

Illegal immigrations costs us taxpayers billions and billions a year in services i.e. education and health care plus immigration costs of housing illegals awaiting deportation hearings and providing them with legal representation to name just a few.

With the downturn in the economy and Americans struggling to find work, my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting.


WOW you gotta be fucking kidding me... Cause Kobi no one is stopping any *American* from getting their ass out there and picking fucking veggies for the *American Supper Table* I don't see anyone standing in line or pushing these undocumented workers to shovel our sidewalks in the winter or fucking make those lawns look all pretty.. I mean for fucks sakes, no one stops anyone or keeps anyone from doing these god damn glorious jobs.


One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others.




My allegiance is with a people who are being pegged and have a fucking spot light shown on them now because of their color. I can't believe how you think that these human being are taking the jobs of hard working American's who are out there competing for them.. You need to look around more Kobi you fucking seriously do...

PS

When my momma came over here all illegal and shit, she did not cheat ANYONE out of the maids job she got...

[MsDemeanor]

I know my facts. Conservative estimate in 2004 was illegal immigrants costing taxpayers 10 billion a year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html



This is a short newspaper article about a six year old study from an anti-immigrant organization. That's not "facts".

[apretty]

i'm not in the sort of mood to educate today, so you'll just have to trust me:

your (gonadal?!) statement is both misguided and illogical; a stupid and an overtly simplistic, racist view of our history of scapegoating (pick your brown person and odds are you'll come up with someone whos people are/have been disenfranchised) and continues to go on (scapegoating works!) in this state (AZ) and in pockets of shit-hole towns throughout this (USA) country.


so if you know a racist that needs a job, that thinks a mexican took his/her job, i have just the thing for you:

http://www.takeourjobs.org/

please educate yourself. or don't.




From what I read in this thread, I think I am the only one who doesnt have a problem with the Arizona attempt to curb illegal immigration. I say kudos for having the gonads to tackle a problem no one else has the guts to deal with.

It is easy to say we shouldnt deal with immigration issues because there are other more pressing problems affecting the country. Unfortunately, we use this excuse to avoid dealing with many issues because no one wants to be seen as the bad guy about any issue.

Illegal immigrations costs us taxpayers billions and billions a year in services i.e. education and health care plus immigration costs of housing illegals awaiting deportation hearings and providing them with legal representation to name just a few.

With the downturn in the economy and Americans struggling to find work, my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting.

One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others.

[weatherboi]

Hey Kobi!!!

What is important to recognize from the article you posted is that the study includes the social impact that undocumented workers kids have on the system but what Camarotas' study doesnt include is the impact their future contributuions will make on our society. Camarotas number one concern back in 2004 was to make these numbers as big as he could. The article is bogus and not a good measure for reform because it is so slanted.

Grant




I know my facts. Conservative estimate in 2004 was illegal immigrants costing taxpayers 10 billion a year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html

[MsDemeanor]

http://www.takeourjobs.org/[/URL]


This is hella smart.

[AtLast]

i'm not in the sort of mood to educate today, so you'll just have to trust me:

your (gonadal) statement is both misguided and illogical; a stupid and an overtly simplistic, racist view of our history of scapegoating (pick your brown person and odds are you'll come up with someone whos people are/have been disenfranchised) and continues to go on (scapegoating works!) in this state (AZ) and in pockets of shit-hole towns throughout this (USA) country.


so if you know a racist that needs a job, that thinks a mexican took his/her job, i have just the thing for you:

http://www.takeourjobs.org/

please educate yourself. or don't.


And I need to add the numbers of white, middle and upper middle-class LDS polygamous offshoot people with dozens of children on welfare!! Take a gander at how much taxpayer money goes to these people! And the men that have fathered all of these kids are only financially responsible for those within the marriage that is legally recognized.

I get really ticked with the BS advocated about immigrant (yes, illegal) social service and education taking from US citizens. Not to mention corporate welfare in the US!!

The fact of the matter is, big Agriculture (and service industry) businesses have been bringing in illegal’s to work at shit wages for decades and is the culprit with how many illegal’s are here. Frankly, they should be footing the bills for illegal’s here. And citizenship should be moved along for these people so that they are part of the tax base and can live here and prosper and see their children have education and opportunity. And please universe, get Latino [populations especially registered to vote en masse! This is the fastest growing population in the US today and they need some political clout!

The taking our jobs argument is just plain incorrect! Yes, educate yourself and stop knee-jerk talking-point responses!! Get the damn facts!

[Kobi]

It is always amusing how if you dont not ascribe to the knee jerk bleeding heart liberal stance , one is subject to ridicule and rudeness. Im used to it here.

It does not diminsh the fact that illegal workers diminish the wages of Americans....why pay more for American workers when we can go get illegal day laborers for a mere fraction of a living wage. It also undermines our overall standard of living. But, why focus on those facts when we can resort to how Americans dont want to do real labor.

Funny, how our economy is in the tank and I see more Americans doing landscaping and general labor work this year then ever. A job is a job, and our priority should be to citizens and those here legally.

Companies can use H2 visas and get workers here legally to do "scut work". One does not have to resort to illegal people.

But, as I said, it is easier for knee jerk liberals to be profane and rude then to inject any rhyme or reason into the situation. Preying on emotions rather than facts is sad but customary.

[The_Lady_Snow]

It is always amusing how if you dont not ascribe to the knee jerk bleeding heart liberal stance , one is subject to ridicule and rudeness. Im used to it here.

It does not diminsh the fact that illegal workers diminish the wages of Americans....why pay more for American workers when we can go get illegal day laborers for a mere fraction of a living wage. It also undermines our overall standard of living. But, why focus on those facts when we can resort to how Americans dont want to do real labor.

Funny, how our economy is in the tank and I see more Americans doing landscaping and general labor work this year then ever. A job is a job, and our priority should be to citizens and those here legally.

Companies can use H2 visas and get workers here legally to do "scut work". One does not have to resort to illegal people.

But, as I said, it is easier for knee jerk liberals to be profane and rude then to inject any rhyme or reason into the situation. Preying on emotions rather than facts is sad but customary.


I was rude, I will continue to be rude as long as people come in here with their bullshit about how we take ya'lls jobs..


It's clear Kobi, I don't see no white folks out in the fields picking your pack of peppers...

Like I said look around out of your white zone once in a while...

[Corkey]

Kobi, sincerely, there is no such thing as an illegal person. Undocumented certainly, but illegal, no. The knee jerk reaction as you call it is that you have voiced what FUAX news wants to be repeated, it isn't news and it isn't correct. White americans will not do the jobs that undocumented immeragrents do, that is a fact. Please I grew up in a very Latino rich county. All the farm workers were paid a below minimum wage, the farm owners can't afford to pay them more, because we don't pay the farmer a decent dollar for the produce we consume. It is an economic nightmare that these undocumented face. Human rights for all, or none of us have them.

[AtLast]

This is hella smart.

Yup! it is!

[Kobi]

I was rude, I will continue to be rude as long as people come in here with their bullshit about how we take ya'lls jobs..


It's clear Kobi, I don't see no white folks out in the fields picking your pack of peppers...

Like I said look around out of your white zone once in a while...

How incredibly racist and presumptuous of you.

[The_Lady_Snow]

How incredibly racist and presumptuous of you.


oh please....

You come up on in here and start saying how we take your jobs, and how Americans are suffering from job loss due to Latinos and you want to call me presumptuous and racist..

All my people were wet backs Kobi, all of them, I am too.

So don't tell me how we take your jobs, we do jobs American's don't wanna get up off their asses and do including raising their children

[Kobi]

[Corkey,

I hear what you are saying. I could respond in kind i.e. saying people are undocumented rather than illegal is just a marketing ploy to take legal immigration out of the picture and make ilegal immigration more palatable.

And, illegals or undocumented workers do not only take "menial jobs". I have worked with many who are doing office type work and quite proud to tell me how they came here on a visitors visa or a student visa with no intention of ever leaving.

The media hype works both ways. You can say I listen to the wrong media but then again what makes yours the correct one?

It is all in the eyes of the beholder. None of us know the "truth". And to espouse one truth is more right than another is wrong.

We are a country of immigrants. My grandparents were immigrants. Tho they came in legally and put up with waiting lists and quotas and racism.

I may not agree with your take on things but I respect your right to feel differently. And, I dont have the need to be rude or belittling about it. It doesnt make either of us right or wrong. It just means we see it differently.

Wow. Thats how a respectful conversation evolves.



QUOTE=Corkey;139717]Kobi, sincerely, there is no such thing as an illegal person. Undocumented certainly, but illegal, no. The knee jerk reaction as you call it is that you have voiced what FUAX news wants to be repeated, it isn't news and it isn't correct. White americans will not do the jobs that undocumented immeragrents do, that is a fact. Please I grew up in a very Latino rich county. All the farm workers were paid a below minimum wage, the farm owners can't afford to pay them more, because we don't pay the farmer a decent dollar for the produce we consume. It is an economic nightmare that these undocumented face. Human rights for all, or none of us have them.[/QUOTE]

[SuperFemme]

i'd like to donate a week long vacation to el salvador, guatamala, bolivia, and mexico (resort towns not applicable) to the next person who comes in here and bitches about the audacity of those sneaking across the border.

You know, you never can really know until you walk a mile in somebody elses shoes....

[Corkey]

Ok Kobi, I don't just get my news, I lived it. I may be progressive, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Yes most americans are immigrants, not all. You see this law will target anyone who has brown skin, Latinos and Natives who have been here before there were any Europeans. As far as I'm concerned it is the Europeans who are here illegally. They stole our lands and now they want to take our citizenship. Well I for one am not going anywhere, and I am fighting this heinious law. Live in your white neighborhoods, just remember they were stolen from MY people.

[MsDemeanor]

It is always amusing how if you dont not ascribe to the knee jerk bleeding heart liberal stance , one is subject to ridicule and rudeness. Im used to it here.
Can you explain how the expression "knee jerk" applies to this conversation? The people posting here have done their homework, they've researched the facts, and some of them have lived the topic. If having compassion makes us bleeding hearts, so be it. That's so very preferable to being heartless.
It does not diminsh the fact that illegal workers diminish the wages of Americans....why pay more for American workers when we can go get illegal day laborers for a mere fraction of a living wage. It also undermines our overall standard of living. But, why focus on those facts when we can resort to how Americans dont want to do real labor.
Migrant workers are a backbone of our economy. Businesses hire them and pay them less because those workers have no protection. They can be subjected to harsh conditions and underpaid (or not paid at all), while the business can either keep prices down or pocket the additional money that they're not paying in wages and benefits and for safe working conditions. If you're bothered by immigrant workers, you should be talking to your representatives about cracking down on the businesses that hire them.

Americans do real labor and lots of it; backbreaking gutwretching labor. The businesses that are allowed to get away with it are the problem. Do you think for one minute that the greedy heartless bastard that owns the deadly WV coal mines wouldn't hire migrant workers for less pay if he thought that he could get away with it?

Funny, how our economy is in the tank and I see more Americans doing landscaping and general labor work this year then ever. A job is a job, and our priority should be to citizens and those here legally.

Those folks are probably doing the work under the table, not paying taxes on their earnings and illegally subsidizing their unemployment benefits. If they get sick, they're likely using the emergency room for health care, since unemployment benefits aren't enough to pay COBRA. Are you angry that these people aren't paying in to the system while they are using expensive medical services, or is it okay since they're, you know, white and all.

I also gotta point out how racist your comment is. You see "more Americans"? I think you mean "more folks who's skin ain't brown". You can't tell from driving by a work site who is and isn't an American. You'd be the kind of person who would assume that the guy doing my yard work is "illegal" because he's brown. Wrong. He's got a blue passport.

Companies can use H2 visas and get workers here legally to do "scut work". One does not have to resort to illegal people.
What does the work done by medical residency students have to do with the conversation.?

But, as I said, it is easier for knee jerk liberals to be profane and rude then to inject any rhyme or reason into the situation. Preying on emotions rather than facts is sad but customary.
We're all still eagerly awaiting your injection of facts in to the conversation.

[Kobi]

oh please....

You come up on in here and start saying how we take your jobs, and how Americans are suffering from job loss due to Latinos and you want to call me presumptuous and racist..

All my people were wet backs Kobi, all of them, I am too.

So don't tell me how we take your jobs, we do jobs American's don't wanna get up off their asses and do including raising their children

Lady Snow,

This isnt even worth responding to. Obviously you have some issue which I have no intention of making mine.

[The_Lady_Snow]

That's the thing right there Corkey, you said it, this fucking law *targets* a particular kind of people..

Let's be honest, they are not going to pull the irish undocumented worker are they?

No they are gonna go for the brown one, who looks like one of them kinds that take American jobs..

Yessiree buddy

*spits* Redman out

[Linus]

Some thoughts about the cost of "illegal immigrants" (undocumented workers is more accurate): http://cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html <-- this study indicates both the extra $$$ the undocumented workers bring in as well as areas where they take more. I think what was interesting was this:

Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens. I can certainly see the benefit of not becoming documented. To say that they should return home and put efforts there, I do not think that's realistic. In my last work related visit to Mexico City (Santa Fe to be specific), I saw a billboard -- by one of the local cartels -- advertising work with full benefits (including education for kids). The reality is that the country -- from what I saw and read in the local english papers (not sure how accurate they were) -- or at least the gov't continues a fairly corrupt and the only solution would be civil war. This could mean a whole family being killed. Compare this to coming to the US where the worst is deportation and/or jail.

I dunno. I can see why it's more appealing to come here. Additionally, CIS does point out that when the first "settlers" (read: illegal immigrants) landed in the US there was no gov't and any gov't was rather small and localized. If the gov't was like what exists today back then, I can bet that many wouldn't be allowed to stay.




Funny, how our economy is in the tank and I see more Americans doing landscaping and general labor work this year then ever. A job is a job, and our priority should be to citizens and those here legally.

I don't know if removing the undocumented would resolve the work scenario. Many of the jobs that are maintained/held by undocumented workers are below minimum wage, have no benefits and are difficult. It's not to say that a US citizen wouldn't be able to do to the work, I can bet that the company wouldn't last long without someone suing them for their wages being too low, which in turn, would likely cause it to close.

Companies can use H2 visas and get workers here legally to do "scut work". One does not have to resort to illegal people..

Umm.. My company is applying for an H1-B for me. They got me an L1-B previously. That one cost the company $20K. I have no idea how much it will cost to get the H1-B (and eventual green card) but the reality is that it's not as cheap or easy to get those visas. Additionally, it will force companies to pay -- at minimum -- minimum wage. For some, this would defeat the benefit of having a worker from the South (which seems to be the most concern -- few seemed concerned "aboot" all them Canadians staying here).

I think it's myopic for any nation to say that the solution to everything is to "kick out the illegals!". That will not resolve issues and will actually make things worse.



You can read the full CIS study here: http://www.cis.org/node/54

[The_Lady_Snow]

Lady Snow,

This isnt even worth responding to. Obviously you have some issue which I have no intention of making mine.



So lemme get this straight...

I have an issue???

With since you know me so well???

Cause I thought we were discussing, debating, having a heated discussion on how *you* brought up the facts we take your jobs...

Am I wrong?

Notice the brown loud girl who does not speak proper sentences gets told she has *issues*

[SuperFemme]

Lady Snow,

This isnt even worth responding to. Obviously you have some issue which I have no intention of making mine.

Yes.

She has an issue. It's her brown skin genius. :detective:

[Linus]

What does the work done by medical residency students have to do with the conversation.?


The H-2 Visa is for temporary and seasonal workers: http://www.usvisa.com/h-2_visa.shtml

I believe it was designed to allow and make it easier for Mexican (I believe it was targeted as part of NAFTA) workers to do seasonal farm work, I believe the costs associated with getting it are too hire for farms to get. Additionally, since it's a one-time only, it's not a truly viable visa.

[SuperFemme]

So lemme get this straight...

I have an issue???

With since you know me so well???

Cause I thought we were discussing, debating, having a heated discussion on how *you* brought up the facts we take your jobs...

Am I wrong?

Notice the brown loud girl who does not speak proper sentences gets told she has *issues*

Yes, yet AGAIN the brown loud girl is dismissed under the guise of having issues.

I really think that poster needs to read the TOS and maybe back away from the racist statements they are making.

As a Latina, and a member and a HUMAN it is hurtful. It is divisive. It is also uninformed and untrue.

[MsDemeanor]

The H-2 Visa is for temporary and seasonal workers: http://www.usvisa.com/h-2_visa.shtml

I believe it was designed to allow and make it easier for Mexican (I believe it was targeted as part of NAFTA) workers to do seasonal farm work, I believe the costs associated with getting it are too hire for farms to get. Additionally, since it's a one-time only, it's not a truly viable visa.
Linus, I was responding to:
Companies can use H2 visas and get workers here legally to do "scut work".
"Scut work" is the trivial crap that medical students have to do. I figure that if one is going to put out slang expressions in quotes, one should know what the quoted expression means.

[Linus]

Linus, I was responding to:
Companies can use H2 visas and get workers here legally to do "scut work".
"Scut work" is the trivial crap that medical students have to do. I figure that if one is going to put out slang expressions in quotes, one should know what the quoted expression means.

Ah. I wasn't aware it was specific to medical. I thought it just meant: "trivial, unrewarding, tedious, dirty, and disagreeable chores"

[The_Lady_Snow]

Ah. I wasn't aware it was specific to medical. I thought it just meant: "trivial, unrewarding, tedious, dirty, and disagreeable chores"

Oh you mean those jobs those people take from American's right?

:|

[MsDemeanor]

Ah. I wasn't aware it was specific to medical. I thought it just meant: "trivial, unrewarding, tedious, dirty, and disagreeable chores"
Check out scutwork.com ;)

[Kobi]

Again, just because you dont like my views, does not give you the right to be disagreeable.

Nor does disagreeing with you have anything to do with racism. It doesnt matter if you are brown, black, yellow, white or purple. There are laws in this country about immigration for a reason. To decide arbitrarily that one will circumvent those laws because it suits one does not make it acceptable. Just as it would not be acceptable to say murder is ok. You cannot pick and choose which laws you adhere to.

But then again, it is easier to just pull out the race card and feed on emotions than it is to deal with the people deliberately and willfully breaking the law.

H2 workers have nothing to do with medical residency students. H2 workers here in my area are supermarket workers, hotel workers, laborers etc. And thats a fact.

Just because I see things differently doesnt mean I am not uneducated or ill informed. Again, that is liberal rhetoric to divert attention from the matter at hand by knitpicking every detail for which there is evidence for both points of view. But then again, it serves your purpose to claim superior knowledge without having a clue about what my history or experience might be. Self serving I guess.

And that is what a knee jerk liberal is. Saying you have the only truth and your views, being more compassionate must be right, and you must quell anyone who dares to speak a different truth because it doesnt fit the program.

One can have compassion and also be reasonable and logical. But, again, it doesnt fit the liberal agenda to have such people speak out.


Can you explain how the expression "knee jerk" applies to this conversation? The people posting here have done their homework, they've researched the facts, and some of them have lived the topic. If having compassion makes us bleeding hearts, so be it. That's so very preferable to being heartless.

Migrant workers are a backbone of our economy. Businesses hire them and pay them less because those workers have no protection. They can be subjected to harsh conditions and underpaid (or not paid at all), while the business can either keep prices down or pocket the additional money that they're not paying in wages and benefits and for safe working conditions. If you're bothered by immigrant workers, you should be talking to your representatives about cracking down on the businesses that hire them.

Those folks are probably doing the work under the table, not paying taxes on their earnings and illegally subsidizing their unemployment benefits. If they get sick, they're likely using the emergency room for health care, since unemployment benefits aren't enough to pay COBRA. Are you angry that these people aren't paying in to the system while they are using expensive medical services, or is it okay since they're, you know, white and all.

I also gotta point out how racist your comment is. You see "more Americans"? I think you mean "more folks who's skin ain't brown". You can't tell from driving by a work site who is and isn't an American. You'd be the kind of person who would assume that the guy doing my yard work is "illegal" because he's brown. Wrong. He's got a blue passport.
What does the work done by medical residency students have to do with the conversation.?

We're all still eagerly awaiting your injection of facts in to the conversation.

[SuperFemme]

the law in AZ is unconstitutional. that means it affects us all. it is the chipping away of our rights little by little.

at the end of the day, i feel safer knowing who doesn't like my people than having them hide in the shadows.

wink wink.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Last time I checked no laws were being passed to target and single out the purple people of Crayola land...

A law DID PASS targeting one specific type of looking kind of peoples...

It's not irish undocumented workers

It's not the Canadian undocumented workers

It's not the Russian undocumented workers

It's those pesky gosh darn latinos, who keep crossing over taking all those Wall Street jobs and sending their kids to those gosh darn Ivy League Schools..

All my people, (who do not identify with the purple people who DON'T EXIST) are wet backs, I am, my kids are first generation Americanos...

I was an undocumented problem for this country taking your jobs till the age of 13 when I got my green card...


I am still taking your jobs.

Now you tell me why the fuck I get to have a big target on my fucking back?

I bet I know more about your History than you (general btw).


So you see this isn't a liberal knee jerk reaction, YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT WE GO THROUGH.. HOW WE HIDE... HOW SCARED WE GROW UP...

So yeah

[The_Lady_Snow]

Again, just because you dont like my views, does not give you the right to be disagreeable.

Nor does disagreeing with you have anything to do with racism. It doesnt matter if you are brown, black, yellow, white or purple. There are laws in this country about immigration for a reason. To decide arbitrarily that one will circumvent those laws because it suits one does not make it acceptable. Just as it would not be acceptable to say murder is ok. You cannot pick and choose which laws you adhere to.

But then again, it is easier to just pull out the race card and feed on emotions than it is to deal with the people deliberately and willfully breaking the law.

H2 workers have nothing to do with medical residency students. H2 workers here in my area are supermarket workers, hotel workers, laborers etc. And thats a fact.

Just because I see things differently doesnt mean I am not uneducated or ill informed. Again, that is liberal rhetoric to divert attention from the matter at hand by knitpicking every detail for which there is evidence for both points of view. But then again, it serves your purpose to claim superior knowledge without having a clue about what my history or experience might be. Self serving I guess.

And that is what a knee jerk liberal is. Saying you have the only truth and your views, being more compassionate must be right, and you must quell anyone who dares to speak a different truth because it doesnt fit the program.

One can have compassion and also be reasonable and logical. But, again, it doesnt fit the liberal agenda to have such people speak out.





So I just thanked your post for you being the second person to tell me on this site that I am using my race card

Congratfuckinglations


I did not realize speaking about my experience was me throwing my fucking race like it's a god damn Pokemon Card......

[MsDemeanor]

Kobi, you've made lots of attack statements, but have yet to provide thoughtful arguments. Is there any chance that you'll quit spewing hate and rage and tossing around red herring sound bites and instead start engaging in productive discourse, or shall we just move on without you?

[SuperFemme]

it's a circular conversation at this point.

[SuperFemme]

P8t8DCSP020

[MsDemeanor]

Perhaps I was a little hasty and made an assumption. I'll restate. My question is in regards to this comment:
Funny, how our economy is in the tank and I see more Americans doing landscaping and general labor work this year then ever.
Would you please tell us exactly how you know that the people doing these jobs are Americans?

[UofMfan]

It is always amusing how if you dont not ascribe to the knee jerk bleeding heart liberal stance , one is subject to ridicule and rudeness. Im used to it here.

It does not diminsh the fact that illegal workers diminish the wages of Americans....why pay more for American workers when we can go get illegal day laborers for a mere fraction of a living wage. It also undermines our overall standard of living. But, why focus on those facts when we can resort to how Americans dont want to do real labor.

Funny, how our economy is in the tank and I see more Americans doing landscaping and general labor work this year then ever. A job is a job, and our priority should be to citizens and those here legally.

Companies can use H2 visas and get workers here legally to do "scut work". One does not have to resort to illegal people.

But, as I said, it is easier for knee jerk liberals to be profane and rude then to inject any rhyme or reason into the situation. Preying on emotions rather than facts is sad but customary.

I have to ask, do you have any idea how many H2 visas are allotted yearly?

Do you read credible and accredited economist, one who happens to have a Nobel Price in his home, state the fact that immigration, documented or undocumented actually helps the US economy?

And it helps US economy and those good ole US entrepreneurs to pay undocumented workers less. It allows those business owners to get more profits and pay less taxes. yay for them!

As a MEMBER of this community I am going to kindly ask you to stop using the term "illegal immigrant", it is racist and insulting.

I suppose you are not a "knee Jerk Liberal", another term I see you throw around in an attempt to incite and insult.

If you want to have a civil, intelligent, informed conversation, then do so. But I don't see you doing this right now. And no, it is not because you disagree with me, it is because of the way you throw racist terms around as if you had every right. Your privilege, and so much more, is showing.

[SuperFemme]

I like this kid. A lot.

CM_DQjkSX6o

[SuperFemme]

How losing undocumented workers is working out for AZ so far....

SUkheRwpd8c

[The_Lady_Snow]

I am Mexican Pull Me Over (The OFFICIAL Sticker) Vamos Mexico!!! Our dignity and pride will not be beaten; we are Aztec warriors and will continue to march ahead and fight the fight against bigotry and ignorance!! Viva Mexico!!



http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30946396&id=1205015166#!/pages/I-am-Mexican-Pull-Me-Over-The-OFFICIAL-Sticker/107945765915155?ref=ts


http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs587.snc3/30981_107945862581812_107945765915155_51196_386186 8_s.jpg

[dreadgeek]

Kobi:

You say kudos to the Arizona law. Okay. I think you continue to miss the problem that a lot of us have with the Arizona law so I will take a crack at explaining to you. The text of the law was amended from reading "may not solely consider race..." to reading "may not consider race". The reality is that the people here who are citizens and whose genetics run back some 9000 years in the area now called Arizona are genetically identical to the population living 10 miles south of the border. In other words, they will look exactly alike. The practical upshot of this is that if the only thing a law enforcement officer needs is 'reasonable suspicion' that the person is not a citizen and the two populations look precisely alike, the real-world affect is that citizens will be stopped unreasonably. I am against this law because while the words 'may not consider...' are nice and an improvement over "may not solely consider", it is still an invitation to racial profiling.

This country has a history of racial profiling and that history isn't ancient history.

Now, of course, one might make the argument that Sven from Sweden and Mary Katherine from Ireland also have much to fear from this law. The reality is that no one is going to pull Sven and MK over and ask to see their license because of how they look. It is entirely reasonable, given this nation's recent history, that Javier and Rosa have reason to worry that they will be pulled over even though their genes are from the L.A. basin and have been there since long before anyone remotely from the lands of Sven or MK even knew this continent existed.

I would love to say I live in an America where American citizens who happen to not be white need not worry about racial profiling. I would even be happy with an America where no non-white person need worry about it because it had been so long since those ideas had any real force in our society that no one alive can even remember when they did. Unfortunately, I don't live in that America.

No one is saying we shouldn't deal with immigration issues, least of all me. I think that the way immigration is being dealt with is, at its best, misguided and wrong and, at its worst, dangerous and playing with fire given this country's recent history. If this immigration law struck fear into the very heart of every employer in Arizona such that they wouldn't dream of not verifying the citizenship status of a person before hiring them, I would be okay with that. If the law imposed penalties that were draconian on businesses that hired workers who were not citizens, that would be okay. But that's not what this law does. Tossing a sop to the idea that businesses should verify, the main thrust of this law is targeting individuals. A guest-worker program would be a sane start. But we don't want that.

Then there's the issue of 'they're taking our jobs and eating up all the welfare'. I am a member of the last group of Americans who were taking all the good jobs, sucking up all the welfare and, while we were at it, running vast criminal enterprises selling drugs. In other words, I'm black. In the seventies it was us who were the problem. As manufacturing jobs were sent overseas--which really started in the late-sixties/early-seventies--blacks were also being given larger access to employment. Affirmative action, in this instance, was the reason why whites couldn't get jobs because all the jobs were going to 'the blacks to meet the quota'. At the same time, we were sucking up all the welfare because, apparently, we didn't want to work. So while we were simultaneously taking jobs that we were not qualified for and proudly telling our white colleagues that we weren't qualified for the job and were getting over on whitey (a popular story at the time) we were also sucking up all the social services, proudly telling OTHER white people (possibly the ones who couldn't get jobs) that we were going to pop out yet another baby so we could increase the welfare payments and, you guessed it, stick it to whitey. Then as if we weren't busy enough taking every good job in sight and simultaneously draining the public coffers with our indolent ways, we decided to take up the drug trade. So now, we were spending our workdays at jobs we weren't qualified for, would hit up the welfare office on the way home driving our 'welfare Cadillac' and then have an evening of selling drugs and engaging in some light drive-by shooting.

Any of this ringing any bells circa 1971 - 1995 or so? Now, it's the turn of Hispanics. You notice the same rhetoric (taking our jobs, sucking up social services, turning otherwise bucolic American cities into Fallujah)? Now, was it true that black Americans were simultaneously doing ALL of those things? No. But the rhetoric sounds very similar so you'll forgive me if I'm a tiny bit skeptical that this law is as race-neutral as you would have us believe it is.

Lastly, to the larger issue of immigration. I think that this country would do itself a favor if, for a generation, it simply closed the border. No one. From anywhere. For any reason other than political asylum. The reason why is that it would then allow us to deracialize the discussion. Right now, it is entirely reasonable--given this nation's track record--to presume that the problem is not that there are large numbers of immigrants it is who those immigrants are. I suspect that now (not 100 years ago but now), Irish or Scottish or Danish or English immigrants could come across in such numbers that if they all stood on the Atlantic you could walk from New York to Wales without getting your feet wet. I suspect that we would hear moving and poetic paeans to how immigration is the strength of America and how our ancestors braved this and that to come here and these new people who we are just so happy to have amongst us show, once again, that America is a beacon to the world. However, if people are coming from south of the border in any kind of significant numbers then it's not so much with the poetry and more with the invective. Suddenly, the paeans to immigration become more pro forma and less feeling.

Do I know, for a certainty, that I'm correct about that? No. But my take on it is *entirely* reasonable given American history as lived JUST by people I have met personally (covering people born between 1903 and now). None of the people I'm thinking of are alive, but none of them shuffled off this mortal coil more than a quarter century ago so we are not talking ancient history.

Actually, one last thing. Your point regarding what 'those people could do if they put their energies to work in changing the conditions in their own countries'. This statement shows a kind of geopolitical naivete that, quite honestly, I'm rather surprised at with you, Kobi. I figured that you were savvy enough to know that American corporations have a *disproportionate* amount of sway south of the border. I also figured you knew that the America is the 800 lb gorilla of the hemisphere. Just things that this nation has done in the last 50 years have had large impact on the lives of 'those people'.

1954 -- US Government, because the democratically elected president of Nicaragua instituted inconvenient (for an American fruit company), land reforms engineers a coup d' etat. The CIA replaces the rightfully elected leader with a puppet who then goes on to eliminate democracy and impose the death penalty on strikers. This strongman, Carlos Castillo Armas, rules Nicaragua for 30 years.

1960 -- Government of El Salvador falls. New ruling junta promises new elections. American president, not liking where this might go, orders the state department not to recognize the new government. It falls three months later to a right-wing government which is recognized.

1960 -- Guatemalan military attempt to stage a coup. It is put down by the local government. However, US military warships with 2000 Marines on alert take up station off the coast to lend support if needed.

1961 -- Bay of Pigs. 'nuff said.

1961 -- CIA backed coup overthrows government of Ecuador

1964 -- CIA overthrows government of Brazil

1973 -- US backs military overthrow of Salvedor Allende in Chile bringing to power Augusto Pinochet. 'nuff said.

1973 -- US backs military coup in Uruguay

1980 -- Right-wing junta takes power (again) in El Salvador backed by US

1981 -- US government backs the contras in Nicaragua to overthrow the left-leaning government using Honduras as a base.

I could go on but I won't belabor the point. So are you going to tell me that nations that, just a generation ago, were playing host-nation to American Great Game machinations and CIA dirty tricks would be in much better shape if only people who are leaving those areas for various reasons--most of them very, very good--would just stay home? And when they elect another government and that government talks to Cuba or that government has the audacity to suggest that the rich ALSO should pay taxes, what do you think that the US will do? Sit idly by or go with what has proven to work time and time again? If you believe that US foreign policy would NOT follow the historical pattern I have just one phrase for you: Hamas is the legitimately elected government of Palestine and the US government refuses to deal directly with it.




From what I read in this thread, I think I am the only one who doesnt have a problem with the Arizona attempt to curb illegal immigration. I say kudos for having the gonads to tackle a problem no one else has the guts to deal with.

It is easy to say we shouldnt deal with immigration issues because there are other more pressing problems affecting the country. Unfortunately, we use this excuse to avoid dealing with many issues because no one wants to be seen as the bad guy about any issue.

Illegal immigrations costs us taxpayers billions and billions a year in services i.e. education and health care plus immigration costs of housing illegals awaiting deportation hearings and providing them with legal representation to name just a few.

With the downturn in the economy and Americans struggling to find work, my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting.

One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others.

[AtLast]

[Corkey,

I hear what you are saying. I could respond in kind i.e. saying people are undocumented rather than illegal is just a marketing ploy to take legal immigration out of the picture and make ilegal immigration more palatable.

And, illegals or undocumented workers do not only take "menial jobs". I have worked with many who are doing office type work and quite proud to tell me how they came here on a visitors visa or a student visa with no intention of ever leaving.

The media hype works both ways. You can say I listen to the wrong media but then again what makes yours the correct one?

It is all in the eyes of the beholder. None of us know the "truth". And to espouse one truth is more right than another is wrong.

We are a country of immigrants. My grandparents were immigrants. Tho they came in legally and put up with waiting lists and quotas and racism.

I may not agree with your take on things but I respect your right to feel differently. And, I dont have the need to be rude or belittling about it. It doesnt make either of us right or wrong. It just means we see it differently.

Wow. Thats how a respectful conversation evolves.



QUOTE=Corkey;139717]Kobi, sincerely, there is no such thing as an illegal person. Undocumented certainly, but illegal, no. The knee jerk reaction as you call it is that you have voiced what FUAX news wants to be repeated, it isn't news and it isn't correct. White americans will not do the jobs that undocumented immeragrents do, that is a fact. Please I grew up in a very Latino rich county. All the farm workers were paid a below minimum wage, the farm owners can't afford to pay them more, because we don't pay the farmer a decent dollar for the produce we consume. It is an economic nightmare that these undocumented face. Human rights for all, or none of us have them.[/QUOTE]

Kobi, you have every right to your opinion on all of this. I differ, many others do as well. I really do believe you are not getting factual information, however, about immigrant (both legal/undocumented/illegal) workers. Also, those on the student visa's etc. are here doing a job totally within the law. If they believe they will be able to stay in the US in light of what is going on, they are mistaken. There will be immigration reform. My hope is that this reform stops how these workers are treated here. The bigotry against Latin populations in the US is sickening.

Also, just making the kinds of assumptions you are about a person working here under a visa and wanting to stay is bothersome. Why someone that is better employed (than what is available from their home country), getting an education and, oh.. paying taxes as a immigrant with a visa (it is a legal status, thus reports for income are made to the IRS and and state taxing agency necessary), wreaks of racism to me. Why are you even talking about such people in this discussion? Frankly, folks with an education job skills seem like people I want here! I hope the visa process leads to citizenship for them!

I like you, Kobi, but I am having a problem with this. Just have to disagree, I guess. But, I hope you will begin research on the fact that it is whites that are the largest population of welfare in the United States, bar none! Not, non-whites or immigrants (illegal or otherwise). And all poor people without health insurance are using our public health care funding! I don't mind this, either. Health care is a right, not a privilege as far as I'm concerned and when people are not able to have things like communicable diseases treated... it becomes a health risk for all. This very same thing happens all around the world. Why do you think traveling persons need to get certain shots?

I am not blind to there being less and less funding available for social services, education, etc. But I do not buy that this is due to illegal immigrants. Stop and take a look at how funding is done in this country as a matter of politics.

[SuperFemme]

I think if politicians were really serious about fighting undocumented workers? That they'd have super harsh laws for the businesses and individuals that hire them.

Especially in the construction/manufacturing industries, where jobs would NOT get done w/o these workers. Why you might ask? Because the employer who hires them has no responsibility. No workers comp, no insurance, a worker can lose a limb and they are quickly replaced. No compensation happens.

It's a basic supply and demand issue. It seems far more logical to go after the sources of demand than the supply showing up to meet that demand.

[The_Lady_Snow]

First Arizona passes a law that specifically targets a group of people..

THEN Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill targeting a school district's ethnic studies program.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/05/arizona_governor_signs_law_tar.html



I ask you sincerely Kobi, where you think this is not only about immigration, this is a blatant attack on a group of people...

It looks like to me from this angle that Brewer is all about whitening up her state....

Pretty shitty next thing she will want to put homos in lil camps...



Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.


-Martin Luther King, Jr.

[SuperFemme]

Have you all read Texas' new GOP Platform?

http://www.theocracywatch.org/texas_gop.htm

Scary times my friends. Scary times. TX also wants to rid it's state of what it calls "multiculturalism". Meaning that the material taught in school is designed to depict WHITE Judeo Christian Americans.

[Kobi]

dread,

Thank you. Your argument is one I can listen to. I can see the potential pitfalls in such legislation and why people would be upset about it.

Nonetheless, immigration reform needs to start somewhere and if the feds wont tackle the issue, the affected states have to develop their own plans. Maybe Arizona isnt the best standard but it is a starting place to develop something workable.

I have not said anything about immigrants and social services. Without proper documentation people are not able to get benefits of any kind at least in this state. So nothing was said about anyone sucking up welfare services. Health services are used by those without insurance which then ends up costing taxpayers more to cover the expenses. Educational services averaging over 12,000 per year per student adds up countrywide and again falls on taxpayers.

Perhaps people used to come here "to take our jobs". Now we export them....its cheaper to do so. From my labor union days, I can tell you that companies tried to placate workers by suggesting a two tier system of payments and benefits.....one for veterans and one for newbies. It was a ploy to cut expenses and wages with the workers backing. It was a terrible labor problem and we are seeing the fallout of such thinking these days. Auto workers making less than half what they are used to just to have jobs or these jobs will go overseas as well. This is not an immigration problem per se, it is an economic strategy problem fueled by workers willing to take less which lowers the standard of living for most people in the long run especially in an economic downturn.

And it is not just laborers. Financial institutions are looking to hire folks from Japan and China who are willing to work for less in corporate offices. The science industries are looking for foreign workers who are better suited to their businesses due to foreign emphasis on math and science skills as well as economics.

I had to chuckle at your political history of the our effects on other countries. It's kind of ironic how we can do so many bad things to peoples respective homelands but people still want to flock to this country. Strange thing irony.

As for people staying in their own countries and fighting for change.....we have done it here. The civil rights/gay rights movements meant conflict and hardship and death but it lead to changes. It is amazing what people can accomplish when they band together. And we were fighting an economic machine and the cia as well. It is not geopolitical niavete. It is a belief in how people who band together can force change to occur in spite of the economic machine and the cia. Otherwise we are all just pawns in a game, tossed about as others see fit. I refuse to believe any humans are that powerless as a whole.

I know immigration policy is a complex issue with strong emotional overtones. I just dont adhere to rhethoric on either side of the coin. Because for every argument, there is always another explanation, interpretation, point of view and study to support views one way or another. What made and makes this country great is the diverse points of view.

[apretty]

Again, just because you dont like my views, does not give you the right to be disagreeable.

what you consider 'disagreeable' most everyone else (in this conversation) considers 'logical, linear thought' --that's about perception.

Nor does disagreeing with you have anything to do with racism. It doesnt matter if you are brown, black, yellow, white or purple. There are laws in this country about immigration for a reason. To decide arbitrarily that one will circumvent those laws because it suits one does not make it acceptable. Just as it would not be acceptable to say murder is ok. You cannot pick and choose which laws you adhere to.

before there were 'immigration laws' there was scapegoating--for the bible tells me so: leviticus chapter 16

link: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/lev/16/21-22#21

from reference.com:
scapegoat (http://www.reference.com/browse/eb/21532)


In the Old Testament, a goat that was symbolically burdened with the sins (http://www.reference.com/browse/sins) of the people and then killed on Yom Kippur (http://www.reference.com/browse/Yom+Kippur) to rid Jerusalem of its iniquities. Similar rituals were held elsewhere in the ancient world to transfer guilt or blame. In ancient Greece, human scapegoats were beaten and driven out of cities to mitigate calamities. In early Roman law, an innocent person was allowed to assume the penalty of another; Christianity (http://www.reference.com/browse/Christianity) reflects this notion in its belief that Jesus (http://www.reference.com/browse/Jesus) died to atone for the sins of mankind.

But then again, it is easier to just pull out the race card and feed on emotions than it is to deal with the people deliberately and willfully breaking the law.

it's been proven and i can find a source if you'd like that racists are frequent users of the term, 'race card'. additionally, hitler was also within the law when he began to (and continued to) exterminate Jews in nazi germany. which brings up an interesting related bit of information: you do realize that the man (russell pearce) behind much of the wording and passage of the bill has neo-nazi ties, right? does that make you uncomfortable? that makes me uncomfortable.

(below) that guy on the right is pearce, the one on the left is locally known neo-nazi, JT ready.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/ReadyandRussell.jpg

JT Ready at a Nazi rally: (2nd from right)

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/jt5.jpg


Just because I see things differently doesnt mean I am not uneducated or ill informed. Again, that is liberal rhetoric to divert attention from the matter at hand by knitpicking every detail for which there is evidence for both points of view. But then again, it serves your purpose to claim superior knowledge without having a clue about what my history or experience might be. Self serving I guess.

you can see things differently, or you could also invest some time in discovering what is really going on. (and not every person that disagrees with you is a "liberal")

And that is what a knee jerk liberal is. Saying you have the only truth and your views, being more compassionate must be right, and you must quell anyone who dares to speak a different truth because it doesnt fit the program.

self-examination is rad.

One can have compassion and also be reasonable and logical. But, again, it doesnt fit the liberal agenda to have such people speak out.


who's a liberal?

i can have compassion for people and still think they're ignorant, intolerant racists:

i see more people pro SB1070 and pro a ban on ethnic studies (which you don't even mention) as a vehicle to further their racist agenda--these aren't people that were "against" racism in any way, prior to the bill--they're just now able to pretend that they hate brown people because they're "illegal" and they're now able to thinly veil their racism behind a totally fascist law that once-again targets brown people. (read: racists have been empowered by this law which totally sucks. and by racists in arizona i mean gun-carrying, no license-requiring guns allowed in bars, RACISTS.)

[Corkey]

Kobi, you aren't getting it, it is UN Constitutional. The federal government is the only entity that has the authority to make and enforce immigration reform. It is not a states right. What this law did was to usurp federal law, it won't pass muster. Please go back and read the bill of rights and the rest of the amendments, I do believe it is the 14th amendment.

[The_Lady_Snow]

dread,

Thank you. Your argument is one I can listen to. I can see the potential pitfalls in such legislation and why people would be upset about it.

Nonetheless, immigration reform needs to start somewhere and if the feds wont tackle the issue, the affected states have to develop their own plans. Maybe Arizona isnt the best standard but it is a starting place to develop something workable.

I have not said anything about immigrants and social services. Without proper documentation people are not able to get benefits of any kind at least in this state. So nothing was said about anyone sucking up welfare services. Health services are used by those without insurance which then ends up costing taxpayers more to cover the expenses. Educational services averaging over 12,000 per year per student adds up countrywide and again falls on taxpayers.

Perhaps people used to come here "to take our jobs". Now we export them....its cheaper to do so. From my labor union days, I can tell you that companies tried to placate workers by suggesting a two tier system of payments and benefits.....one for veterans and one for newbies. It was a ploy to cut expenses and wages with the workers backing. It was a terrible labor problem and we are seeing the fallout of such thinking these days. Auto workers making less than half what they are used to just to have jobs or these jobs will go overseas as well. This is not an immigration problem per se, it is an economic strategy problem fueled by workers willing to take less which lowers the standard of living for most people in the long run especially in an economic downturn.

And it is not just laborers. Financial institutions are looking to hire folks from Japan and China who are willing to work for less in corporate offices. The science industries are looking for foreign workers who are better suited to their businesses due to foreign emphasis on math and science skills as well as economics.

I had to chuckle at your political history of the our effects on other countries. It's kind of ironic how we can do so many bad things to peoples respective homelands but people still want to flock to this country. Strange thing irony.

As for people staying in their own countries and fighting for change.....we have done it here. The civil rights/gay rights movements meant conflict and hardship and death but it lead to changes. It is amazing what people can accomplish when they band together. And we were fighting an economic machine and the cia as well. It is not geopolitical niavete. It is a belief in how people who band together can force change to occur in spite of the economic machine and the cia. Otherwise we are all just pawns in a game, tossed about as others see fit. I refuse to believe any humans are that powerless as a whole.

I know immigration policy is a complex issue with strong emotional overtones. I just dont adhere to rhethoric on either side of the coin. Because for every argument, there is always another explanation, interpretation, point of view and study to support views one way or another. What made and makes this country great is the diverse points of view.


Yes you do....

You stated so in your original post...

[Kobi]

Corkey, if it is unconstitutional it will be challenged and overturned.

Lady Snow...I give up. I have my views on immigration which is different from rhetoric but it is not even worth the effort.

Suffice to say, there are people outside of this forum with different views.

[Corkey]

Corkey, if it is unconstitutional it will be challenged and overturned.

Lady Snow...I give up. I have my views on immigration which is different from rhetoric but it is not even worth the effort.

Suffice to say, there are people outside of this forum with different views.

Still missing the point, in the meantime, US citizens are being arrested and they're rights violated because of this. I just don't get how you can be this uninformed.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Corkey, if it is unconstitutional it will be challenged and overturned.

Lady Snow...I give up. I have my views on immigration which is different from rhetoric but it is not even worth the effort.

Suffice to say, there are people outside of this forum with different views.


You realize this whole thread is about A LOT more than just immigrations issues, that law is just more than that as well..

Kobi this law has given power to someone to pull over another human being cause their skin color makes them suspicious...

You really can't see how this is a civil rights violation?

What about the ethnic studies issue?

This is an A-OK thing with you as well???

[apretty]

Suffice to say, there are people outside of this forum with different views.

at klan rallies.

[Nat]

I was listening to a podcast the other day from the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their latest report is that hate groups in the US have risen to almost 1000. Racist hate groups are focusing more on anti-immigrant stuff right now because it's an effective way of recruiting more mainstream white people during a bad economy, but racism is still at the heart of things for many of these groups.

A bit of timeline (http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/guadalu3.htm)

Early 1845 James Polk promises Texas he will support moving the historical Texas/Mexico border at the Nueces river 150 miles south to the Rio Grande provided Texas agrees to join the union. "The traditional border between Texas and Mexico had been the Nueces River...and both the United States and Mexico had recognized that as the border." (Zinn, p. 148)

June 30, 1845 James Polk orders troops to march south of the traditional Texas/Mexico border into Mexican inhabited territory, causing Mexicans to flee their villages and abandon their crops in terror.
"Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans, was clearly a provocation." (Zinn, p. 148)

"President Polk had incited war by sending American soldiers into what was disputed territory, historically controlled and inhabited by Mexicans." (John Schroeder , "Mr. Polk's War")

Early 1846 Colonel Hitchcock, commander of the 3rd Infantry regiment, writes in his diary: "...the United States are the aggressors....We have not one particle of right to be here....It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses....My heart is not in this business."

May 9, 1846 President Polk tells his cabinet: "...up to this time...we have heard of no open aggression by the Mexican Army."

May 10, 1846 Violence erupts between Mexican and American troops south of the Nueces River. Of course Polk claims Mexicans had fired the first shot, but in his famous "spot resolutions" congressman Abraham Lincoln repeatedly challenges president Polk to name the exact "spot" where Mexicans first attacked American troops. Polk never met the challenge.

May 11, 1846 President Polk urges congress to declare war on Mexico.

May 12, 1846 : Horace Greeley writes in the New York Tribune: "We can easily defeat the armies of Mexico, slaughter them by thousands, and pursue them perhaps to their capital; we can conquer and "annex" their territory; but what then? Who believes that a score of victories over Mexico, the "annexation" of half of her provinces, will give us more Liberty, a purer Morality, a more prosperous Industry...?

1846 Congressman Abraham Lincoln, speaking in a session of congress "...the president unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced a war with Mexico....The marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, un- provoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us."

after war is underway, the American press comments:

February 11, 1847. The "Congressional Globe" reports: "...We must march from ocean to ocean....We must march from Texas straight to the Pacific ocean....It is the destiny of the white race, it is the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon Race."

The New York Herald: "The universal Yankee Nation can regenerate and disenthrall the people of Mexico in a few years; and we believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."

American Review writes of Mexicans "yielding to a superior population, insensibly oozing into her territories, changing her customs, and out-living, exterminating her weaker blood."

1846-1848 U.S. Army battles Mexico, not just enforcing the new Texas border at the Rio Grande but capturing Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and California (as well as marching as far south as Mexico City).

1848 Mexico surrenders on U.S. terms (U.S. takes over ownership of New Mexico, California, an expanded Texas, and more, for a token payment of $15 million, which leads the Whig Intelligencer to report: "We take nothing by conquest....Thank God").

(date unknown) General Ulysses S. Grant calls the Mexican War "the most unjust war ever undertaken by a stronger nation against a weaker one."

And for those who prefer cartoons:

nN1kp1ggWyM

[SuperFemme]

Arizona Immigration Law Violates Constitution, Guarantees Racial Profiling

By Mary Bauer, SPLC Legal Director

Arizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.

By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.

Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence. What kind of country are we becoming?

When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was asked what an undocumented immigrant looks like, she responded: “I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I can tell you that I think there are people in Arizona who assume that they know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

We all know what the outcome of all this double-talk will be. People with brown skin – regardless of whether they are U.S. citizens or legal residents – will be forced to prove their legal status to law enforcement officers time and again. One-third of Arizona’s population – those who are Latino – will be designated as second-class citizens, making anyone with brown skin a suspect even if their families have called Arizona home for generations.
Given the authors of this law, no one should be surprised about its intended targets. The law was drafted by a lawyer for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/winter/the-teflon-nativists) (FAIR), whose founder has warned of a “Latin onslaught” and complained about Latinos’ alleged low “educability.” FAIR has accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance website to supporters.

Making matters worse, lawmakers have allowed citizens to sue local law enforcement agencies that they believe are not adequately enforcing the new law. One can be sure that FAIR and its proxies are salivating at the prospects.

The law is not only unconstitutional, it’s bad public policy and will interfere with effective policing in Arizona’s communities. That’s why the legislation was opposed by the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. As Latinos grow more fearful of law enforcement, they will be more reluctant to report crimes, and witnesses will be less likely to cooperate with police. Criminals will target the Latino community, confident their victims will keep quiet.

Lawmakers in other states are eager to replicate this ill-advised law. Their frustration with current immigration policy is understandable, but this system must be remedied by our Congress, which should enact fair immigration reform. The federal government must craft a policy that repairs our broken immigration system and, at the same time, protects our most cherished values. States that attempt to follow Arizona’s example will only succeed in sowing fear, discord and intolerance in our communities while undermining law enforcement and inviting costly constitutional challenges.

Learn more
The Tanton Files: Nativist Leader's Racist Past Exposed (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/winter/the-tanton-files)
The Teflon Nativists: (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/winter/the-teflon-nativists)FAIR Marked by Ties to White Supremacy (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/winter/the-teflon-nativists)

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/arizona-immigration-law-violates-constitution-guarantees-racial-profiling

[AtLast]

:fireman:dread,

Thank you. Your argument is one I can listen to. I can see the potential pitfalls in such legislation and why people would be upset about it.

Nonetheless, immigration reform needs to start somewhere and if the feds wont tackle the issue, the affected states have to develop their own plans. Maybe Arizona isnt the best standard but it is a starting place to develop something workable.

I have not said anything about immigrants and social services. Without proper documentation people are not able to get benefits of any kind at least in this state. So nothing was said about anyone sucking up welfare services. Health services are used by those without insurance which then ends up costing taxpayers more to cover the expenses. Educational services averaging over 12,000 per year per student adds up countrywide and again falls on taxpayers.

Perhaps people used to come here "to take our jobs". Now we export them....its cheaper to do so. From my labor union days, I can tell you that companies tried to placate workers by suggesting a two tier system of payments and benefits.....one for veterans and one for newbies. It was a ploy to cut expenses and wages with the workers backing. It was a terrible labor problem and we are seeing the fallout of such thinking these days. Auto workers making less than half what they are used to just to have jobs or these jobs will go overseas as well. This is not an immigration problem per se, it is an economic strategy problem fueled by workers willing to take less which lowers the standard of living for most people in the long run especially in an economic downturn.

And it is not just laborers. Financial institutions are looking to hire folks from Japan and China who are willing to work for less in corporate offices. The science industries are looking for foreign workers who are better suited to their businesses due to foreign emphasis on math and science skills as well as economics.

I had to chuckle at your political history of the our effects on other countries. It's kind of ironic how we can do so many bad things to peoples respective homelands but people still want to flock to this country. Strange thing irony.

As for people staying in their own countries and fighting for change.....we have done it here. The civil rights/gay rights movements meant conflict and hardship and death but it lead to changes. It is amazing what people can accomplish when they band together. And we were fighting an economic machine and the cia as well. It is not geopolitical niavete. It is a belief in how people who band together can force change to occur in spite of the economic machine and the cia. Otherwise we are all just pawns in a game, tossed about as others see fit. I refuse to believe any humans are that powerless as a whole.

I know immigration policy is a complex issue with strong emotional overtones. I just dont adhere to rhethoric on either side of the coin. Because for every argument, there is always another explanation, interpretation, point of view and study to support views one way or another. What made and makes this country great is the diverse points of view.


The idea that a law that is unconstitutional in nature and allows US citizens with skin color other than white to be asked for documentation for entry into the US is just plain bigoted. This is not any way to begin any sort of immigration reform! Not even close! NADA!!!

Yes, there are problems with immigration policy and what goes on our borders. Drug trafficking, kidnapping and other crimes against people are not something I support at all. Yet, it is the job of the federal government to enact immigration law and enforce it. States (and other municipalities) doing this period is unconstitutional, period. There are reasons the constitution calls for this.

I have feelings for those immigrants that have done all of the necessary legal requirements to enter the US in all of this. Yet, it is so clear that corporate and big agri-business are the real culprits here. And frankly, they have a lot of blood on their hands with the treatment of illegal workers being brought here in inhumane ways to work for shit wages and no benefits.

When will people take off the class blinders and get why people are so desperate to take these kinds of chances in order to feed their families? And that the millions of undocumented immigrants here today have really been indentured servants (remember this phrase from history?) based upon racism. Just the fact of the differences between the feelings US citizens have about the northern and southern borders of the US tell us it is racist!

Look at the parallels between indentured servant contracts during US colonial times (and other periods in our history) and what goes on now!

Immigration reform will have to grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for those already here that are undocumented. There is no way that over 12million people can be displaced and deported! Isn’t going to happen (and should not). It is just time to see this and do it! And develop sane immigration policies at the federal level that must be observed by every state. Then, the tax base widens, crime decreases, etc.


An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time..........

Companies that hire illegals do this all of the time.... they are at the heart of this problem and have been getting away with this for many years! And we have paid less for produce and service off the backs of what are really people enslaved by a form of indentured service!!!


http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~crosslin/records/va/immigrants3.html


It just makes me crazy to hear that anything like the AZ law is in any form immigration reform. It isn't, it is racism in action and an insult to the Constitition of this country which many non-white people have lost their lioves fighting for along with whites. All of which have immigrant roots with one exception only- Native Americans. Oh, and there is a hell of a lot to discuss about this in terms of border states like CA that were part of Mexico at one time.

Take your blinders off!

[dreadgeek]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]dread,

Thank you. Your argument is one I can listen to. I can see the potential pitfalls in such legislation and why people would be upset about it.

Nonetheless, immigration reform needs to start somewhere and if the feds wont tackle the issue, the affected states have to develop their own plans. Maybe Arizona isnt the best standard but it is a starting place to develop something workable.


Okay then, it would appear you are far more sanguine about American citizens being treated as criminals when they are not for no other reason than that their genetics make them stand out from the majority population than I am. The Arizona law is no more a good starting place as Plessey v. Ferguson was a good start in making America a place of more equal opportunity and for much the same reasons.


I have not said anything about immigrants and social services. Without proper documentation people are not able to get benefits of any kind at least in this state. So nothing was said about anyone sucking up welfare services. Health services are used by those without insurance which then ends up costing taxpayers more to cover the expenses. Educational services averaging over 12,000 per year per student adds up countrywide and again falls on taxpayers.

So you didn't say the following?

Illegal immigrations costs us taxpayers billions and billions a year in services i.e. education and health care plus immigration costs of housing illegals awaiting deportation hearings and providing them with legal representation to name just a few.

Both education and health care count as social services.


Perhaps people used to come here "to take our jobs". Now we export them....its cheaper to do so. From my labor union days, I can tell you that companies tried to placate workers by suggesting a two tier system of payments and benefits.....one for veterans and one for newbies. It was a ploy to cut expenses and wages with the workers backing. It was a terrible labor problem and we are seeing the fallout of such thinking these days. Auto workers making less than half what they are used to just to have jobs or these jobs will go overseas as well. This is not an immigration problem per se, it is an economic strategy problem fueled by workers willing to take less which lowers the standard of living for most people in the long run especially in an economic downturn.

Okay then if it is a labor problem deal with it as a *labor* problem and not as an immigration problem. The issue of outsourcing and a race to the bottom as far as wages and benefits is an issue, deserving of concern, in its own right and has the benefit of being race-neutral as well.


And it is not just laborers. Financial institutions are looking to hire folks from Japan and China who are willing to work for less in corporate offices. The science industries are looking for foreign workers who are better suited to their businesses due to foreign emphasis on math and science skills as well as economics.

Well, that is OUR fault. WE have created a society where the next worse thing you can be is an 'egghead' (Poindexter, nerd, geek). It is not because of foreigners that native-born Americans aren't majoring in the hard sciences, mathematics or engineering--it's because Americans think that the those subjects are *hard* and why spend the best part of a decade getting an advanced degree in, say, nuclear physics when you could get a degree that is far less work? The work still needs to be done and if we aren't pushing our kids to go into those fields then employers will look far afield for them.


I had to chuckle at your political history of the our effects on other countries. It's kind of ironic how we can do so many bad things to peoples respective homelands but people still want to flock to this country. Strange thing irony.

No, not strange at all--unless, of course, you cannot make a useful separation between a national government, the nation and the people of that nation. It appears that Americans, on the whole, have a singular inability to do so. So, for Americans, the Iranian government, the Iranian people and Persian civilization are all the same thing functionally indistinguishable from one another. So if the Iranian government takes some action that is harmful to America or Americans, then from our point of view the Iranian PEOPLE did this and therefore Persian culture is irredeemably corrupt, violent, etc. So from that point of view it IS ironic that people would want to come to America because, from the point of view implied in your statement, what the American government does is what the American people has done which is what America is all about and therefore it WOULD look ironic for people to immigrate here. However, if you have a more subtle--let's call it--view of things then you can realize that there is what the American government does, there is what the American people do and there is what America stands for. America's government is not particularly popular around the globe and certainly not popular in South or Central America. The American people, on the other hand, are not particularly hated around the globe and the idea of America is positively loved! So it isn't ironic although, from a certain point of view, I can understand why it might appear so.

As a quick aside, this complicated view of America--as opposed to the simplistic view of either you think America is good or you think America is bad--is something I think that most people of color in this country have to develop to greater or lesser degrees. You see, it's impossible for someone like me to ignore what happened to my parents or grandparents no matter HOW convenient that might be for the majority if I were to develop historical amnesia. However, since I can't do that AND since America is my home I have to come to some form of peace with American history and the American present. It requires being very cold-eyed realistic about where we've come from and where we are. So I can be VERY critical of America while still being patriotic.


As for people staying in their own countries and fighting for change.....we have done it here. The civil rights/gay rights movements meant conflict and hardship and death but it lead to changes. It is amazing what people can accomplish when they band together. And we were fighting an economic machine and the cia as well.

I'm not sure that the CIA's involvement in opposition to the civil rights movement was particularly significant. I certainly can think of no instances where the CIA was implicated in the assassination of civil rights workers--unless, of course, you are going to argue that MLK, Medgar Evers or those freedom riders were killed by the CIA. It's one thing to have dirty tricks and black bag jobs carried out against your movement--it's another thing entirely to have people assassinated. For one thing, if your leadership is being assassinated they wind up being inconveniently dead which, to put it mildly, seriously reduces their leadership effectiveness.


It is not geopolitical niavete. It is a belief in how people who band together can force change to occur in spite of the economic machine and the cia. Otherwise we are all just pawns in a game, tossed about as others see fit. I refuse to believe any humans are that powerless as a whole.

I'm not arguing that people are helpless. I'm arguing that it is incomplete to put the blame for the state of Latin America solely or even primarily on people who are immigrating OUT of that region by saying that their nations would be far better off if they stayed at home. To say that, for instance, them staying in Nicaragua circa 1981 would have made Nicaragua a better place *despite* American-financed guerillas (the contras) and death squads making life in that nation a living hell is to actually ascribe to these immigrants superhuman powers. My reading of history--which may be wrong--is that the assassination of national leaders who are popularly elected has a dampening effect on the prospects of a nation. This is particularly true if it happens repeatedly whenever that popularly elected leader proposes some kind of reforms to make the nation in question better and more amenable to the locals instead of some US corporation or another. Your reading of history may, of course, vary.


I know immigration policy is a complex issue with strong emotional overtones. I just dont adhere to rhethoric on either side of the coin. Because for every argument, there is always another explanation, interpretation, point of view and study to support views one way or another. What made and makes this country great is the diverse points of view.


It seems, actually, that you do adhere to the rhetoric on one side. You're correct, there is always another explanation or interpretation but that doesn't mean that this other explanation and/or interpretation is correct. There was another explanation and interpretation for segregation in America---that interpretation was that blacks were *inherently* inferior and Jim Crow was no worse treatment than what we deserved. I see no reason why I should give any credence to that interpretation but it IS another interpretation and explanation for why segregation lasted until the last third of the 20th century. There were studies done to support segregation that showed that blacks were inferior. One needn't do any studies, in fact, one could point to, for instance, elite schools and say "well, no black has ever gone to this or that university and therefore blacks are not capable of getting into that university". As a statement of evidence that would hold up well-enough. Let's say the university is a tier-1 school and getting into a tier-1 school as a non-legacy admit is a pretty good sign that someone has enough brain cells to rub together and generate high-quality heat. No blacks were enrolled at said school in some year. Therefore, blacks were not mentally capable of handling the work at that university. QED. Now, is that a legitimate viewpoint? No. Is it a reasonable interpretation of the data? No. But it WAS an alternative explanation to the idea that certain universities would not admit blacks.

We've gotten to a place in this country that just because someone CAN argue a contrary point we think both contrary points are legitimate and valid. I refuse to buy into this idea any longer and I also refuse to pretend to buy into it. If you argue that the dogs are fish and I argue that dogs are mammals one of us is wrong--is your argument a different point of view? Yes, but that doesn't mean it is a correct point of view.

Just having diverse ideas does not make a country great or strong. The ability to sift through diverse ideas and separate the good ideas from the bad ideas does but not merely the presence of different ideas.

[SuperFemme]

Supreme Court to review Arizona law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is
entering the nation's charged debate over
immigration, agreeing to hear a challenge
from business and civil liberties groups to
an Arizona law that cracks down on
employers who hire undocumented workers.

The justices on Monday accepted an appeal
from the Chamber of Commerce, American
Civil Liberties Union and others to a lower
court ruling that upheld Arizona's law. The
measure requires employers to verify the
eligibility of prospective employees through
a federal database called E-Verify and
imposes sanctions on companies that
knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano signed
the measure into law in 2007. Napolitano
now is Homeland Security secretary.

The law is separate from the recently
adopted Arizona immigration law that is
intended to drive illegal immigrants out of
Arizona and also is being challenged as
unconstitutional.

In the case under high court review, the
chamber and ACLU argued that Arizona and
other states that have imposed similar laws
are overstepping their authority. Only
Congress, they said, may legislate about
immigration.

The Obama administration weighed in last
month on the side of the chamber and ACLU,
also arguing that federal immigration law
trumps state efforts.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the law.

The federal law that created the E-Verify
system in 1996 made it voluntary and
sought to balance efforts to discourage
illegal immigration with concerns about
discrimination against all immigrants.

Argument will take place in the court term
that begins in October.

The case is Chamber of Commerce v.
Candelaria, 09-115.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/28/20100628arizona-employer-sanctions.html

[Sabine Gallais]

Just having diverse ideas does not make a country great or strong.


I was a little shocked and disappointed when I first read this. Isn't the diversity of our ideas the cornerstone of our intellectual development? Isn't our lively debate over issues appropriately rife with diverse ideas? It would seem to me that if we subscribe to a few relatively homogeneous ideas, we're gunna be in deep doo doo. I appreciate all of the research and the posting of detail after detail after detail, but quantity does not necessarily outstrip other voices or their validity.



The ability to sift through diverse ideas and separate the good ideas from the bad ideas does but not merely the presence of different ideas.


Who exactly would we appoint as the arbiter of what is good and bad? Should I expect someone to sift for me or should I rely on my own ability to do that? I'd rather do it myself, thankyouverymuch. I read, digest and take away what I find valuable. I expect everyone else to do the same. I can't fathom squashing other diverse viewpoints simply because I have questions. There is certainly no shortage of folks willing to challenge and debate the validity and the views so I'm not sure what you are advocating for here.

[apretty]

I'm not sure what you are advocating for here.

critical thinking, at least that was my read.

[dreadgeek]

I was a little shocked and disappointed when I first read this. Isn't the diversity of our ideas the cornerstone of our intellectual development? Isn't our lively debate over issues appropriately rife with diverse ideas? It would seem to me that if we subscribe to a few relatively homogeneous ideas, we're gunna be in deep doo doo. I appreciate all of the research and the posting of detail after detail after detail, but quantity does not necessarily outstrip other voices or their validity.


Let me be clear, I'm not saying we should have homogenous ideas. I AM saying that there is a difference--a qualitative difference--between good ideas and bad ideas. Not every diverse idea was or is a good one. For example, please explain to me every single benefit that was gained by America--as a whole--by the ideology behind segregation. How was America made stronger by the idea--just to take one example--that black men were inherently dangerous and that for the protection of white women there needed to be social rules *seriously* proscribing the interactions between black men and white women. Not how we were made stronger by getting over that idea or proscribing its inaction. How did the mere *presence* of this idea make America stronger? The argument that Kobi and, it would appear you, are making is that merely having diverse ideas--regardless of what those ideas might be--is the strength of America. It doesn't matter if those ideas promote beneficial social attitudes or baleful ones, just the diversity of those ideas is strong enough. By that light, according to this argument, an America without active racist ideology is LESS strong, vibrant, healthy than an America *with* active racist ideology. I strenuously disagree unless and until someone can explain to me what, to take another example, the mere presence of anti-miscegenation laws, codes and social sanction did to make America stronger. (Again, please don't say that we became stronger because we had to overcome those things because that would be saying that the suffering of the people who actually had to live under the system of Jim Crow was justified so that we could say we got rid of Jim Crow. I would argue, in case anyone is tempted to make that argument, that we would have been better off without a system of segregation to get over.)



Who exactly would we appoint as the arbiter of what is good and bad? Should I expect someone to sift for me or should I rely on my own ability to do that? I'd rather do it myself, thankyouverymuch.

One can have the idea that there are bad ideas without having to have an arbiter of what is good or bad. If, for instance, you hold to the belief that, to stay in the ballpark of what we're discussing here, black people are simultaneously unqualified affirmative action hires, drug dealers and welfare cheats and there is no *actual* empirical evidence to sustain that belief I'm going to call that a bad idea. Beliefs about how the world works--the world all of us live in--that are not empirically supported are probably not good ideas. Let me also be clear, I'm not saying we should make these ideas illegal--I think that good information can drive out bad information if allowed to do so. However, good information cannot do so if we decide that 'all human beings are and should be equal before the law' and 'all white people should be equal before the law but no black people should be equal before the law in the same way that whites are' are both good ideas, both of which are worthy of consideration and neither of which there is any metric by which we can distinguish what is preferable. The argument you appear to be making here, is that there is no way to distinguish those two beliefs and no basis upon which a society could choose which is preferable. I disagree.


I read, digest and take away what I find valuable. I expect everyone else to do the same. I can't fathom squashing other diverse viewpoints simply because I have questions. There is certainly no shortage of folks willing to challenge and debate the validity and the views so I'm not sure what you are advocating for here.

Why on Earth is it that people consider arguing a point vigorously is considered squashing of other viewpoints? I can't, for the life of me, see why that should be the case. What I am saying is this:

For most all of my adult life and probably going back a little further than that, Americans--my parochial interest here--have behaved as if the only way to have social harmony is to treat every idea as being equally valid, all opinions as being equally correct, and all ideologies as being equally fair. We have behaved as if there is no *actual* reason to choose an ideology that promotes tolerance and equal justice over one that promotes intolerance and favoring the majority at the expense of the minority. Now, I want to be clear I am NOT saying that either you or Kobi or anyone else in this discussion or reading these words is a racist. I AM saying that the ideology you are espousing, that all ideas--regardless of what they are, how sound they are, how well they map to the real world or what their effects are--add to the diversity and strength of America. So in that construction, the ideas of the Klan or the neo-Nazis add to the strength of America and there is, in fact, no way to decide whether or not we should prefer the views of George Wallace or Martin Luther King, Jr. circa 1965. What's more we have taken the absolutely insane (to me) position that any views that anyone holds are valid for no better reason than that someone holds them. I hate to break this to you but George Wallace and Martin Luther King, Jr. held fundamentally different views in 1965--diametrically opposed views, in fact. One of them was wrong. I would argue that it was George Wallace who was wrong and that America would have been better off if his ideas about segregation and the necessity of it had never taken root in this country.

What I am saying is that I have grown weary of pretending that opinions that are born out of incorrect information are as good (read useful/valid/comporting well with reality) as opinions born out of correct information. I'm not going to play that game anymore. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't ideas that are wrong--like segregation.

One practical consequence of this cognitive corner we've painted ourselves into is that we now have a generation of people who *reflexively* say that they are not racist because they know being a racist is something they shouldn't want to be but they cannot articulate WHY racism is wrong. They just know that the socially acceptable attitude is that racism is wrong. Thus, you can have laws or statements that are blatantly racist and the people pushing the laws or propounding these statements genuinely believe that they aren't racists because they aren't using, for instance, the 'n-word' or the 's-word'.

[dreadgeek]

critical thinking, at least that was my read.

Yes, apretty, critical thinking is *precisely* what I'm advocating for.

I am, pretty much, a free speech fundamentalist. Outside of advocating immediate violent action (we hate group X, we have bats and knives, they don't, there's a group of them over there let's go get 'em!) and child pornography I'm pretty content to let anyone say, print, write, speak, sing, publish, broadcast or post any damn thing the spirit moves them to do. That does NOT, however, mean that I have to give credence to that idea or treat it as if, on its face, it must be true or valid or worthwhile just because someone else believes that to be the case.

Again, taking segregation and anti-miscegenation as my examples. Firstly, I have to say that one thing I find, ironic, is that people who will reflexively praise Martin Luther King, Jr. for his vision don't understand something very core about his vision (or the vision of my parents). It is this (and it is my vision as well): black people are human beings and deserving of the full package of rights, responsibilities, duties and obligations of any citizen. No matter how many people might say that I am not, I am not obliged to give those ideas any kind of quarter. Just because person X thinks that the only reason I am where I am is because I'm an affirmative action hire who is unqualified for their job does not mean that I, at any point, need to sit down and think "maybe their right". I see nothing in Martin Luther King's speeches that ever led me to believe that he thought that Bull Connor or George Wallace might have a point and that he thought SNCC or any other civil rights group should perhaps consider that maybe segregation and anti-miscegenation was correct and best for all parties concerned. King's vision was uncompromising on that point. Today many would call King closed-minded because he wasn't willing to ever grant "well, maybe Buckley is right when he writes that blacks shouldn't have the vote". I don't call that closed-minded, I call it having clarity of vision and the courage of his convictions.

I am really advocating three things--clarity of vision and communication, courage of our conviction, and critical thinking.

I am not interested in pretending that Fred Phelps might just have a point that queers are hell bound. So I won't.

I am not interested in pretending that the ideas that queers are more likely to be child molesters and that this myth (which is wrong) is as valid a point of view as the reality that queers are no more likely to abuse children then anyone else in the population. So I won't.

I am SO convinced that I am a full human being--capable of both good and evil, kindness and malice, member of a species that is, at once, the most beautiful and the ugliest creature on this planet--that I will not give credence to any ideology that states otherwise.

Lastly, I think that ideas are important. If ideas don't matter then it really shouldn't concern us if good ideas are drowned out by bad ideas. We needn't go to the trouble of taking ideas seriously if they don't matter. This idea that having contradictory ideas out there seems, to me, to be a way of not taking ideas seriously. If Fred Phelps' ideas don't matter then what do I care what he says as long as he isn't saying it to me? Who cares how many people listen to Phelps and believes what he says, his ideas don't matter anyway and they're just his opinion to boot. If, on the other hand, ideas matter, if they impact what happens in the real world then we should take ideas seriously and put some kind of care into both choosing ideas and developing criteria upon which to choose them.

So let me ask everyone here these questions:

Do you think that a world in which it is commonly believed that queer people are a threat to children is the same as one in which queer people are not believed to be a threat?

Do you think that a country in which Hispanics are thought to illegal aliens invading 'our' country is the same kind of country in which Hispanics aren't thought of in that manner?

If you don't believe they are equivalent then you have *some* kind of criteria for telling the difference between a bad idea and a good idea. If you do believe that they are the same then why should any person, any community, any nation choose one set of ideas over the other set?

[dreadgeek]

Sabine:

If it doesn't matter what the idea is, if the only thing that really matters is that there's a diversity of ideas, can you give me a reason why any given person shouldn't hold racist ideas? Can you give me a reason why we should prefer a society that does not have racial segregation over one that does? Not what the *law* proscribes but what we might want to prefer as a society even IF the law did not state it expressly? Can you give me a reason why we should promote tolerance over racism if what is important is that there is diversity of ideas? Because if what matters is that there is a lively debate over ideas then we should want a society where racist ideology is given a foothold. We should make certain that we balance out the teaching of tolerance with the teaching of racism so people here 'both sides'. We should, in our teaching, make certain that we do not favor either side--we should treat the ideas that all people should be treated fairly and the idea that some people should be treated unfairly as being functionally equivalent for one another.

I'm taking you at your word, Sabine, that the words you use mean what they mean--that what we should want is the maximum amount of diversity of ideas without giving much consideration as to whether those ideas are good or bad, true or false, factual or non-factual. So should we choose between tolerance and racism? If so, why?

Cheers
Aj

I was a little shocked and disappointed when I first read this. Isn't the diversity of our ideas the cornerstone of our intellectual development? Isn't our lively debate over issues appropriately rife with diverse ideas? It would seem to me that if we subscribe to a few relatively homogeneous ideas, we're gunna be in deep doo doo. I appreciate all of the research and the posting of detail after detail after detail, but quantity does not necessarily outstrip other voices or their validity.






Who exactly would we appoint as the arbiter of what is good and bad? Should I expect someone to sift for me or should I rely on my own ability to do that? I'd rather do it myself, thankyouverymuch. I read, digest and take away what I find valuable. I expect everyone else to do the same. I can't fathom squashing other diverse viewpoints simply because I have questions. There is certainly no shortage of folks willing to challenge and debate the validity and the views so I'm not sure what you are advocating for here.

[dreadgeek]

I'm curious. What WOULD it take for what is happening in Arizona to raise the hackles of people who are sanguine about it? If you think this is a good law, if you think that the directive that came down from Governor Brewer that ethnic studies programs will be eliminated was a good idea and that neither of those are any more racially charged as, say, a law against driving 100mph in a school zone is, what would make it take for you to say "okay, THIS is racially charged".

I ask because the combination of the immigration law, the ethnic studies law and an elementary school lightening the faces of children in a mural because there were too many brown faces even though the mural is of children attending the school sets off all kinds of racial red flags for me.

It seems to me that Arizona is targeting Hispanics. It seems to me that a lot of the anti-immigration rhetoric is either racially charged or walks right up to the line of it. There are clear tracks from white supremacist groups to the law, to the banning of ethnic studies and the lightening of the faces on the mural. All of that taken together should, I think, give us a moment of pause.

I would also like an explanation from anyone who cares to give one what it is about racist ideas that has made America stronger. The statement has been made and defended by at least two posters that the strength of America is the diversity of ideas with no qualifiers. I presume, then, that this applies even to ideas that are as abhorrent as racism. So if, in the name of diversity, we should want all ideas to be treated as equal such that we should not even try to argue *down* ideas that we find odious--and part of what I was called to task on by Sabine seems to be my willingness to argue down a position I disagree with--what are the strengths that America has gained from racist ideas such that we should not want those ideas eliminated and should, in fact, possibly even want them disseminated widely. Surely, no one is saying that we should have a diversity if ideas as long as some ideas aren't spread far and wide.

Now, if you are going to answer please keep in mind that the argument "America was made better by racist ideas because we overcame them" is both insulting AND callous. It is insulting because it basically takes all those who were beaten or killed in the cause of civil rights were just so many eggs that had to be broken. It is callous because it would be like saying to the woman who has lost her family, her vision and her ability to walk in a terrible car accident "you are SO lucky that this happened to you because now you have adversity to overcome". Would it not be better for that woman if her family were still alive, she could still see and still walk even if that meant she was somewhat less of an inspiring person? I would argue that her life would be better being less inspiring with her family, her eyesight and her legs. In the same vein, I would argue that although we are rightfully proud that America made slavery illegal and eventually got around to the idea that non-white citizens were ALSO citizens before the law, it would have been better for all parties concerned over the last 230 years if those issues hadn't been there for us to get over.

If anyone takes up my questions, I thank them for it in advance. I really want to know what you think America gains from racism such that an America without racism would be a weaker nation than one with it.

If a less abstract question would help here it is: imagine your son or daughter or your lover consistently made racist statements. Would you try to discourage them or would you accept those statements without criticism because those are diverse ideas? If the former, why would you discourage those ideas and try to convince your loved one that they were wrong? If the latter, then on what basis can you say that racism--even racism codified into law--is wrong? Why is it wrong?

[SuperFemme]

Since the Presidential Election it seems to me that racism is coming out of the shadows in this country.

It frightens me. In a big way. I am often incredulous that the American people are okay with what they are seeing and hearing.

The very same people who use the constitution as a catch all for bad behaviors are willing to just undo the fourteenth amendment? What about section 3?

As a mother, there have been times my children have come home with some very upsetting comments. We have to sit down and hash out the WHY'S of it all. This past year proved particularly difficult, because we now live in a very white, very christian and very Republican area. My son came home with lots of thoughts from his class mates. One time he told me how the boys in his class had said that the one POC in the class was a thief because of her skin color. He'd argued and gotten in a fight and consequently was mad at ME. Luckily we were able to sit him down and work it out.

How could I not? I am often times in company that feels ok with making racial slurs/jokes whatever. I have light skin, so when the wetback jokes start flying I am often met with shock and embarassment when I call it out. Mind you something shifts, and those people don't invite me to have lunch with them or make prolonged eye contact anymore.

So why is it wrong? Because no human being deserves bad treatment based on the color of their skin. Or hair. Or religion. No one person is ever "better" than another.

[Toughy]

Aj..........this is what it would take:

Sally gets stopped for not using a turn signal. Sally gets all nervous and cop gets suspicious that Sally might be without papers because she averted her eyes and fumbled around in her purse and looked around nervously. Cop decides that Sally's driver's license doesn't look authentic....it looks like a forgery. Cop asks Sally for her proof of citizenship.....her birth certificate. Sally of course does not carry her birth certificate on her person....she was born in this country, so was her mother and her grandmother and her great-grandmother....she don't need no stinking papers.

Cop then arrests Sally and takes her to jail....her car goes to the impound lot. It's Friday evening at 7:00pm. Sally actually gets her phone call...........she calls Mom.....Mom does not have a copy of said birth certificate and can't get one before Tuesday morning because all government offices are closed until Tuesday (Monday is a holiday....Labor Day).

Long story short............Sally sits her ass in jail until Tuesday......well maybe longer depending on how fast Mom can get birth certificate or until the DA decides she really is a citizen. Then it's gonna cost her 200-300+ bucks to get her car out of impound. And if she was supposed to be at work she may well lose her job.

Sally is a white girl and now Sally is beyond pissed at the 'papers please' laws.

The above scenario has happened to brown folks in AZ who are born in this country, whose parents and grandparents and great grandparents were born in this country.

[dreadgeek]

So why is it wrong? Because no human being deserves bad treatment based on the color of their skin. Or hair. Or religion. No one person is ever "better" than another.

SF:

And this right there is why I am so passionate about this. Ideas have consequences. This is why I think it matters if we are able to say "no, these ideas are wrong and here is why." It's why I can no longer pretend that ideas are neutral in their effects. Ideas have consequences and we should evaluate ideas on a number of criteria--including what those consequences are. I also believe that there are inviolate ideals--like peaceful tolerance as much as is humanly possible and without jeopardizing the lives of others. But with that comes the responsibility to defend tolerance and the tolerant society against those who would advocate for intolerance.

Ideas matter because people matter. The minute we decide that all ideas, (even the idea that not all people matter) are equally valid, equally worthy of consideration and just part of the diversity of ideas we have set up the tolerant society to fail. There are ideas we should be on the lookout for and prepared to argue against with all our passion. Like many others here, I believe that there is a non-trivial element of racism in the Arizona law. This doesn't mean I believe that anyone arguing here has racist reasons for supporting it. I believe that racism is one such idea that we should be prepared to say loudly and repeatedly, 'This idea is wrong. Here is why it is wrong. Here is why it is invalid. Here is why it is dangerous.'

I am willing to tolerate anything this side of the advocacy of intolerance. Neither democracy nor tolerance are suicide pacts.

Thank you for having the courage to call out bad ideas when they are spoken to you. I'm sorry that it costs you community but thank you nonetheless.

[dreadgeek]

This is what I don't understand--how can *anyone* be sanguine about this law? How can people *not* put themselves in that scenario and imagine it happening to them. And then I remember just how different things can be. The other night, on the way home from our anniversary dinner, a cop pulled up to us as we were passing the downtown police HQ. He asked if he could turn in front of us (we were at the curbside, he was in the middle lane), and told us that our passenger side taillight was stuck in 'on'. As we drove away J commented "I wonder how that would have gone if you'd been driving and this wasn't an Audi". This is a thought that only would have occurred to J since being with me. She's not racist. She's not callous. She's white, from Salt Lake City and it just never occurred to her that it was like this for non-white people.

Thank you for making the scenario visceral.



Aj..........this is what it would take:

Sally gets stopped for not using a turn signal. Sally gets all nervous and cop gets suspicious that Sally might be without papers because she averted her eyes and fumbled around in her purse and looked around nervously. Cop decides that Sally's driver's license doesn't look authentic....it looks like a forgery. Cop asks Sally for her proof of citizenship.....her birth certificate. Sally of course does not carry her birth certificate on her person....she was born in this country, so was her mother and her grandmother and her great-grandmother....she don't need no stinking papers.

Cop then arrests Sally and takes her to jail....her car goes to the impound lot. It's Friday evening at 7:00pm. Sally actually gets her phone call...........she calls Mom.....Mom does not have a copy of said birth certificate and can't get one before Tuesday morning because all government offices are closed until Tuesday (Monday is a holiday....Labor Day).

Long story short............Sally sits her ass in jail until Tuesday......well maybe longer depending on how fast Mom can get birth certificate or until the DA decides she really is a citizen. Then it's gonna cost her 200-300+ bucks to get her car out of impound. And if she was supposed to be at work she may well lose her job.

Sally is a white girl and now Sally is beyond pissed at the 'papers please' laws.

The above scenario has happened to brown folks in AZ who are born in this country, whose parents and grandparents and great grandparents were born in this country.

[SuperFemme]

I really appreciate your posts here AJ.

I too, wonder what would have happened had you not been in that Audi the other night, because I've seen it way too many times to pretend it doesn't happen.

We have relatives coming over from El Paso next month. Can I just tell you how surreal it was to have several conversations with them about what "paperwork" they should bring along because they have to drive through AZ.

They are worried that a birth certificate isn't enough, even though they are 7th generation Americans. They go right to the nightmare scenario of being detained and having social services take their small children.

Seriously. Who should be worrying about ICE when going to visit Mickey Mouse?

[MsDemeanor]

I'm curious. What WOULD it take for what is happening in Arizona to raise the hackles of people who are sanguine about it?
Given that the alternative is having to agree with a bunch of bleeding heart knee jerk commie socialist fascist nazi liberals who support a president who wasn't even born in this country, my guess is "nothing will".

[The_Lady_Snow]

Watch this video!! U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the legality issues in another Arizona immigration law!! "No Mas" - "No More"


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37986278#37986278

[The_Lady_Snow]

Immigrant farm workers' challenge: Take our jobs


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/ap_on_en_tv/us_immigration_take_our_jobs

[SuperFemme]

Given that the alternative is having to agree with a bunch of bleeding heart knee jerk commie socialist fascist nazi liberals who support a president who wasn't even born in this country, my guess is "nothing will".


you kill me. here is an interesting article, written no doubt, by a bleeding heart knee jerk liberal.

http://www.american-reporter.com/3,972/9.html

[SuperFemme]

I feel like everytime I read the news I see people advocating for intolerance.

I made the mistake of watching 8: The Mormon Proposition last night. The powerful wave of hatred towards gays shocked me. The fact that they so blatantly hate and conspired the way they did shocked me.

Seeing Bill O'Reilly refer to the POTUS as "Mr. Obama" shocks me.

Rand Paul shocks me.

Sally Kern shocks me.

A law written by a man with known racist/neo-nazi ties targeting brown people shocks me.

I could go on and on and on with a list of people that are in powerful or political positions advocating for intolerance.

However, I have not (nor will I ever) become numb to the feeling of shock. I am afraid that a majority of America has become numb, spewing back rhetoric heard on Faux News (which IMO is not a new outlet any longer, but a Political Lobbyist).

Where is this all going to end?

[Kobi]

Dread,

You and I have had this discussion before. Critical thinking, good and bad ideas by whose standards?

You can quote Brown vs the Board of Education, the Black codes, Pluessy vs Ferguson, the entire litany of racism in America. But, judge it by whose standards, under what conditions, and by whom?

Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you. Booker Washington. W.E. B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Malcom X. Louis Farrakhan all espoused a different philosophy of empowering yourself by taking the control of your own lives. Here is the reference for those who need it for words to have any relevance http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/05/-8216-this-is-how-we-lost-to-the-white-man-8217/6774/ .

So what was a good idea and a bad idea? And by whose standard? Cuz some people would be saying the leaders of the Black movement were betraying their own people by thinking this way.

Did Obama become President because he espoused racism? He got an education, he has ideas people were ready for, he was willing to listen, he knew he had to compromise. You dont succeed by beating people over the head because they disagree with you.

And one can not take anything as a given. The constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Chicagos no gun rule was just decided in the Supreme Court. 9 justices...5 saying you have the unqualified right to have guns, 4 saying you dont. Which is a good idea and which is a bad one? And by whose standards?

Now back to immigration and the Arizona law.....everyone wants to brand me a a racist because I dont "critically think as they do". So be it. I look at the larger picture of immigration and how policy affects the quality of life in America. A solid immigration policy based on economics served us well when we were a growing industrialized nation. And immigrants made tremendous contributions to what this country has become. Immigrants who circumvent the system cause problems for all of us. I wont even bother to go into the ways this a problematical cuz none of you even bother to listen.

Do I like the idea of American citizens being subjected to having to prove they are citizens? About as much as I like being humiliated at an airport as a potential terror threat because I use liquid soap. Is it a good idea or a bad idea and by whose standards?

When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows.

And immigration issues do NOT just affect persons of color or ethnicity. Here in Mass. if you want the state mandatory health insurance or a driver license, you had damn well have proof of citizenship. It affects all groups, all colors, all nationalities, all socio-economic groups. Arizona is just more blatant about it. Amazes me that the feds or the aclu havent sought an injunction pending review and makes me wonder why.

What annoys me most on these forums is when one has a different point of view, others feel it is their right to belittle them, to call them names, and be generally rude. They would not like it if I went around doing the same to them but it is ok for them to do it to me and others under the guise of racism. Pull out the race card and civility goes in the hopper. But, they are the first to say....read the TOS?????? Hello??????









Let me be clear, I'm not saying we should have homogenous ideas. I AM saying that there is a difference--a qualitative difference--between good ideas and bad ideas. Not every diverse idea was or is a good one. For example, please explain to me every single benefit that was gained by America--as a whole--by the ideology behind segregation. How was America made stronger by the idea--just to take one example--that black men were inherently dangerous and that for the protection of white women there needed to be social rules *seriously* proscribing the interactions between black men and white women. Not how we were made stronger by getting over that idea or proscribing its inaction. How did the mere *presence* of this idea make America stronger? The argument that Kobi and, it would appear you, are making is that merely having diverse ideas--regardless of what those ideas might be--is the strength of America. It doesn't matter if those ideas promote beneficial social attitudes or baleful ones, just the diversity of those ideas is strong enough. By that light, according to this argument, an America without active racist ideology is LESS strong, vibrant, healthy than an America *with* active racist ideology. I strenuously disagree unless and until someone can explain to me what, to take another example, the mere presence of anti-miscegenation laws, codes and social sanction did to make America stronger. (Again, please don't say that we became stronger because we had to overcome those things because that would be saying that the suffering of the people who actually had to live under the system of Jim Crow was justified so that we could say we got rid of Jim Crow. I would argue, in case anyone is tempted to make that argument, that we would have been better off without a system of segregation to get over.)




One can have the idea that there are bad ideas without having to have an arbiter of what is good or bad. If, for instance, you hold to the belief that, to stay in the ballpark of what we're discussing here, black people are simultaneously unqualified affirmative action hires, drug dealers and welfare cheats and there is no *actual* empirical evidence to sustain that belief I'm going to call that a bad idea. Beliefs about how the world works--the world all of us live in--that are not empirically supported are probably not good ideas. Let me also be clear, I'm not saying we should make these ideas illegal--I think that good information can drive out bad information if allowed to do so. However, good information cannot do so if we decide that 'all human beings are and should be equal before the law' and 'all white people should be equal before the law but no black people should be equal before the law in the same way that whites are' are both good ideas, both of which are worthy of consideration and neither of which there is any metric by which we can distinguish what is preferable. The argument you appear to be making here, is that there is no way to distinguish those two beliefs and no basis upon which a society could choose which is preferable. I disagree.



Why on Earth is it that people consider arguing a point vigorously is considered squashing of other viewpoints? I can't, for the life of me, see why that should be the case. What I am saying is this:

For most all of my adult life and probably going back a little further than that, Americans--my parochial interest here--have behaved as if the only way to have social harmony is to treat every idea as being equally valid, all opinions as being equally correct, and all ideologies as being equally fair. We have behaved as if there is no *actual* reason to choose an ideology that promotes tolerance and equal justice over one that promotes intolerance and favoring the majority at the expense of the minority. Now, I want to be clear I am NOT saying that either you or Kobi or anyone else in this discussion or reading these words is a racist. I AM saying that the ideology you are espousing, that all ideas--regardless of what they are, how sound they are, how well they map to the real world or what their effects are--add to the diversity and strength of America. So in that construction, the ideas of the Klan or the neo-Nazis add to the strength of America and there is, in fact, no way to decide whether or not we should prefer the views of George Wallace or Martin Luther King, Jr. circa 1965. What's more we have taken the absolutely insane (to me) position that any views that anyone holds are valid for no better reason than that someone holds them. I hate to break this to you but George Wallace and Martin Luther King, Jr. held fundamentally different views in 1965--diametrically opposed views, in fact. One of them was wrong. I would argue that it was George Wallace who was wrong and that America would have been better off if his ideas about segregation and the necessity of it had never taken root in this country.

What I am saying is that I have grown weary of pretending that opinions that are born out of incorrect information are as good (read useful/valid/comporting well with reality) as opinions born out of correct information. I'm not going to play that game anymore. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't ideas that are wrong--like segregation.

One practical consequence of this cognitive corner we've painted ourselves into is that we now have a generation of people who *reflexively* say that they are not racist because they know being a racist is something they shouldn't want to be but they cannot articulate WHY racism is wrong. They just know that the socially acceptable attitude is that racism is wrong. Thus, you can have laws or statements that are blatantly racist and the people pushing the laws or propounding these statements genuinely believe that they aren't racists because they aren't using, for instance, the 'n-word' or the 's-word'.

[SuperFemme]

it's not because of how you apply critical thinking skills.

it is because of sweeping generalizations like: "he got an education" or "you played the race card" that people might sit back and think what your are saying has racist overtones/undertones.

nobody can "make" you think anything, or force you to see how your statements are hurtful to the brown people here. that is not possible.

you ARE entitled to your thoughts.

it is in the manner that you choose to share them that you become suspect.

[apretty]

Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you.



excuse my ignorance--but what do you mean by 'your own leaders'?

are we segregating leaders? and if so, by what?

(also, i find it ironic that you'll respond to every person in this thread except for me and i am the ONLY person that actually lives in arizona.)

[dreadgeek]

[FONT="Century Gothic"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]Dread,

You can quote Brown vs the Board of Education, the Black codes, Pluessy vs Ferguson, the entire litany of racism in America. But, judge it by whose standards, under what conditions, and by whom?


Well, let's see--by what standard? Let's start here. Black people in the 19th century were not considered fully human enough to be citizens. Now either black people WERE human enough to be considered citizens but weren't, in which case an injustice was done or we were not, in which case, Jim Crow was no worse than we deserved. I would argue that it was the former and that there was an injustice. Your mileage, of course, may vary.


Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you.

Kobi, I'm going to say this once and hopefully I'll never have to say this to you again because the next time I have to say it I won't be anywhere near as polite. It is an extraordinarily bad idea to attempt to plug me into the slot labeled "angry black woman who tries to blame white people for all the conditions of her life". I'm not that woman. No one who has ever read anything I've posted on the Internet can justifiably put me in that slot. You haven't read a lot of my posts so perhaps you don't realize this but I hold only myself responsible for the conditions of my life and, as my local friends and my wife will tell you, I push myself extraordinarily hard. One of the things I use to do so is the following: "to be a successful black person in America you have to strive to be the smartest person in the room--every room, every time. Not pretend to be, not puff yourself up to be, but to ACTUALLY be. You show up early, you stay late. If the average for your field is a bachelor's get a masters. If a master's get a doctorate. If you do ALL of that and still don't get the goodies--then and only then can you call it racism". If you are going to try to put me in the category of 'angry black woman who blames white people for the conditions of her life' you are going to look quite the fool and so take this as a friendly warning against such a doom-ridden path. I don't take insult at much that is said on these boards, the sentence I quoted from you above I take as an insult.

Being brutally honest about the history of race in America isn't espousing racism. Pointing out racial injustice isn't espousing racism. If it is then that list of black men you just pulled out of the hat to try to bolster a point that is flailing about ALL espoused racism. If battling injustice or pointing it out is espousing racism, then MLK also espoused racism. You don't get to have it both ways and invoke black people you've never read in depth to try to prop up a point while simultaneously claim that other blacks (or other non-whites) are 'playing the race card' when those blacks you invoke would ALSO be playing that same card. Secondly, just because a black person brings up the history of race in America does not mean that she is 'relying on the white race to solve racism'. I do not now, nor have I ever, posted anything on this or any other message board that could be read as blaming white people for the condition of my life in even the most wild-eyed interpretation. You will never read anything from me along those lines because it is not how I think. However, I am not going to do you or any other white person the favor of developing convenient historical amnesia and pretend that Jim Crow wasn't profoundly unjust nor am I going to do you the favor of pretending that perhaps there was a point to Jim Crow and maybe it wasn't a bad thing.

I KNOW it was a bad thing, Kobi because black people are human and human beings should not be treated in the way blacks were under segregation. By whose standards? By ANY standard that recognizes that all people are human beings and deserving of some baseline amount of justice, equality and respect. You may not hold to that standard, you may want to play games and say "who is to say if it was wrong to say black people aren't fully human and by what standard" but I'm not in the least bit obliged to go along with it. Until such time as you can demonstrate that I and the people I am genetically related to are not exactly members of Homo sapiens sapiens then segregation was wrong--by any standard that recognizes human beings as human beings and deserving to those things we hold to be self-evidently true.


Booker Washington. W.E. B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Malcom X. Louis Farrakhan all espoused a different philosophy of empowering yourself by taking the control of your own lives. Here is the reference for those who need it for words to have any relevance

At any rate does this have to do with ANYTHING? I was using race as an example of an idea because you claimed that the diversity of ideas--without qualification--is what makes America strong. I was asking--and you have avoided answering--what about racist ideas made America stronger such that now that those ideas are (or were) in attenuation the nation is less strong than when racist ideas were widespread and socially acceptable? So are you saying that my using the history of race in America to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the idea that any idea is something that should be accepted no matter how sound it is or isn't, I am somehow saying that white people are responsible for the conditions of my life?

I'm curious, have you actually read either Washington or DuBois? Farrakhan is a clown and a charlatan at best.


Did Obama become President because he espoused racism? He got an education, he has ideas people were ready for, he was willing to listen, he knew he had to compromise. You dont succeed by beating people over the head because they disagree with you.

Kobi, not to put too fine a point on the matter but I have forgotten more about what it takes for a black person to be successful in America than you will ever realize that there is to learn. If you were to live as long as Methuselah you would still never know half of what I know about what it takes to be successful in America if you are black.


Now back to immigration and the Arizona law.....everyone wants to brand me a a racist because I dont "critically think as they do". So be it. I look at the larger picture of immigration and how policy affects the quality of life in America. A solid immigration policy based on economics served us well when we were a growing industrialized nation. And immigrants made tremendous contributions to what this country has become. Immigrants who circumvent the system cause problems for all of us. I wont even bother to go into the ways this a problematical cuz none of you even bother to listen.

You know what's really interesting to me? When we were a growing industrial economy CERTAIN immigrants were okay but certain other ones were not. The Irish weren't okay--when we were a growing industrial economy and then they became okay. The Italians weren't okay when we were a growing industrial economy--and then they became okay. Then it was the Chinese and the Japanese and it took a tad bit longer for them to become okay. And the Jews, of course, had their turn of not being okay. This isn't the first time America has had one of these paroxysms of anti-immigration hysteria and the language has always been precisely the same and in a couple of generations everyone will once again be claiming how immigration makes America stronger and pretending that 20 years earlier, they weren't screaming at the top of their lungs about the latest group to come over the border.


Do I like the idea of American citizens being subjected to having to prove they are citizens? About as much as I like being humiliated at an airport as a potential terror threat because I use liquid soap. Is it a good idea or a bad idea and by whose standards?

So, Kobi, do you like the idea of American citizens being subjected to humiliation because they happen to share a phenotypic trait with someone who was born in Mexico and is here picking strawberries? Are you okay with that?


When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows.

Actually, people did think twice about it. They thought twice about it so much that eventually the United States government apologized for violating the civil rights of US citizens. And if you read ANYTHING about the period, you realize that, in fact, it wasn't necessary.


And immigration issues do NOT just affect persons of color or ethnicity.

When I hear about Seamus who overstayed his visa being stopped for driving while Irish I'll give that some credence. However, here in the real world the people who need to be careful to have their ID on them--including a birth certificate--when they are out walking the dog are all brown-skinned. Like I said, when I hear about it happening to a white person who some cop thinks looks like he or she overstayed their visa from Ireland, I'll change my tune.


Here in Mass. if you want the state mandatory health insurance or a driver license, you had damn well have proof of citizenship. It affects all groups, all colors, all nationalities, all socio-economic groups. Arizona is just more blatant about it. Amazes me that the feds or the aclu havent sought an injunction pending review and makes me wonder why.

The ACLU HAS sought in injunction and it is working its way through the courts (it's amazing what happens when you pay attention to these things) and the Feds have *also* said that they will challenge the law (again, fascinating what you learn when you actually look into an issue).


What annoys me most on these forums is when one has a different point of view, others feel it is their right to belittle them, to call them names, and be generally rude. They would not like it if I went around doing the same to them but it is ok for them to do it to me and others under the guise of racism.

I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.

Aj

[Kobi]

With all due respect that is bullshit.

When I state my views and someone calls me a racist, I am not the one who pulled the race card out, they did.

And it is not even the race card, it is anyone who disagrees with you must just be squelched just for disagreeing and the easiest way to shut them up, some think, up is to call them racist.

These are complex issues that cannot be watered down to just one aspect if we expect to solve them. Making it a one aspect agrument is the quickest way to stop it dead in its tracks. It makes a mockery out of the complexity of trying to balance many aspects of any issues and how it impacts millions of people ...not just one group or race.

And I love again, how you dismiss the entire gist of my post and turn it to the race issue again. That is critical thinking? And you have the audacity to question how I develop my views?

And what, now you have a problem with Obama being an educated man?

And again, you want me to see how my statements are hurtful to brown people but it is ok for brown people to belittle me and call me names? Yeah that is sure fighting fair...uh huh sign me up for more of that logic.

And again, it is how I ME say something. Of course you all dont have the same requirement. You can say whatever you feel, however you feel like, and call anybody anything and its ok? Not in my world. Its a give and take. You show respect you get respect. And maybe sometimes people come across as caustic and abrasive because they know damn well that disagreeing is going to lead to a slaughter of character under the guise of misplaced righteous indignation. But noooo we cant deal with that behavior cuz it runs contrary to our motives, we must regain control.

The TOS say respectful to all not just to those who agree with you.

That is the kind of thinking that leads to laws like Arizonas, and the rise of the new right and its ultraconservatism, and others nonesense.

Life is complex. Balancing the needs of all is complex because there are many factors to consider to do the best for the most while trying to piss off the fewest.

It would really be nice if WE could take the higher road here and say yeah this group has a point and this group has another point and that group makes a little sense too. How can we put this all together so everyone wins even if we dont all get everything we want without having to call people names?







it's not because of how you apply critical thinking skills.

it is because of sweeping generalizations like: "he got an education" or "you played the race card" that people might sit back and think what your are saying has racist overtones/undertones.

nobody can "make" you think anything, or force you to see how your statements are hurtful to the brown people here. that is not possible.

you ARE entitled to your thoughts.

it is in the manner that you choose to share them that you become suspect.

[Medusa]

Kobi,

I'm always incredibly dismayed when someone says that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card". Especially since you seem to be intelligent.

I have seen more than one person in these forums resort to saying that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card", so what Im about to say isn't solely directed at you but I hope that you can hear what I'm about to say with an open mind.

Race is not a "card" that a person can whip out. Race is a part of a person's LIVED experience, a part of their lives, and unfortunately, oftentimes is a huge part of unfair, ignorant, and biggoted treatment that they receive from people who view their race as a "thing" that they whip out when they are trying to be "uppity" or "arrogant" or "overpowering" or (gasp) "too loud".

It is also incredibly disrespectful.

Sadly too, any argument you make using the "race card being pulled out" will get lost with folks like me who translate that as "white person who refuses to examine their racism or privilege".


M

[dreadgeek]

Kobi,

I'm always incredibly dismayed when someone says that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card". Especially since you seem to be intelligent.

I have seen more than one person in these forums resort to saying that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card", so what Im about to say isn't solely directed at you but I hope that you can hear what I'm about to say with an open mind.

Race is not a "card" that a person can whip out. Race is a part of a person's LIVED experience, a part of their lives, and unfortunately, oftentimes is a huge part of unfair, ignorant, and biggoted treatment that they receive from people who view their race as a "thing" that they whip out when they are trying to be "uppity" or "arrogant" or "overpowering" or (gasp) "too loud".

It is also incredibly disrespectful.

Sadly too, any argument you make using the "race card being pulled out" will get lost with folks like me who translate that as "white person who refuses to examine their racism or privilege".


M

Medusa:
I have never--and I doubt I ever will--hear a sufficient definition of 'playing the race card' that draws a useful distinction between 'pointing out injustice' and 'playing the race card'.

Kobi, using the 'playing the race card' logic then DuBois and Washington played the race card as did MLK, Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks, John Lewis and every other black person who marched, wrote, protested, or did anything to fight segregation. ALL of them were 'playing the race card' because ALL of them refused to pretend that racism was okay. All of them called injustice as injustice and therefore were 'playing the race card'.

Now can you explain to me the difference between Thurgood Marshall arguing Brown v. Board and 'playing the race card'? Do you have a definition of playing the race card that makes a distinction between that and pointing out injustice where it is encountered?

Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Wow, I was once agaon going to mention that by boycotting Arizona we are hurting the workers themselves more than the State. The waiters, taxi drivers, sheet ironers, factory workers.

But it seems way more in going on here than my brain can handle today.

OK, maybe a little. :)

There is no "us and them"....we are WE. Our Leaders. Our Problem.

and

I hear the word "card" all the time....Gay Card, Sex Card, Race Card.....Everyone here knows there is no "Card" right?

[dreadgeek]

Wow, I was once agaon going to mention that by boycotting Arizona we are hurting the workers themselves more than the State. The waiters, taxi driversm sheet ironers, factory workers.

But it seems way more in going on here than my brain can handle today.

OK, maybe a little. :)

There is no "us and them"....we are WE. Our Leaders. Our Problem.

and

I hear the word "card" all the time....Gay Card, Sex Card, Race Card.....Everyone here knows there is no "Card" right?

Apparently not.

[SuperFemme]

With all due respect that is bullshit.

When I state my views and someone calls me a racist, I am not the one who pulled the race card out, they did.

And it is not even the race card, it is anyone who disagrees with you must just be squelched just for disagreeing and the easiest way to shut them up, some think, up is to call them racist.

These are complex issues that cannot be watered down to just one aspect if we expect to solve them. Making it a one aspect agrument is the quickest way to stop it dead in its tracks. It makes a mockery out of the complexity of trying to balance many aspects of any issues and how it impacts millions of people ...not just one group or race.

And I love again, how you dismiss the entire gist of my post and turn it to the race issue again. That is critical thinking? And you have the audacity to question how I develop my views?

And what, now you have a problem with Obama being an educated man?

And again, you want me to see how my statements are hurtful to brown people but it is ok for brown people to belittle me and call me names? Yeah that is sure fighting fair...uh huh sign me up for more of that logic.

And again, it is how I ME say something. Of course you all dont have the same requirement. You can say whatever you feel, however you feel like, and call anybody anything and its ok? Not in my world. Its a give and take. You show respect you get respect. And maybe sometimes people come across as caustic and abrasive because they know damn well that disagreeing is going to lead to a slaughter of character under the guise of misplaced righteous indignation. But noooo we cant deal with that behavior cuz it runs contrary to our motives, we must regain control.

The TOS say respectful to all not just to those who agree with you.

That is the kind of thinking that leads to laws like Arizonas, and the rise of the new right and its ultraconservatism, and others nonesense.

Life is complex. Balancing the needs of all is complex because there are many factors to consider to do the best for the most while trying to piss off the fewest.

It would really be nice if WE could take the higher road here and say yeah this group has a point and this group has another point and that group makes a little sense too. How can we put this all together so everyone wins even if we dont all get everything we want without having to call people names?



Kobi,

First of all, I am so NOT calling you names. Not at all.

If I have angered and/or insulted you, that was not my intent.

My post was a plea to you to maybe think about how what you are saying sometimes can perhaps be interpreted as having racial overtones/undertones.

I'm not calling you a racist, what I *am* asking of you is that you hear how your words can be hurtful to those of us who have parents who came here illegally, those of us that have green cards, those of us that are scared to drive through AZ and that is all.

I understand that you can agree with the law in AZ, and I am not going to try to change your mind. It is your right. I'm not trying to say to you "boycott or bust". I promise.

What I *was* hoping to convey was how sweeping generalizations can be very hurtful.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

Again, I apologize if you feel I was calling you names, or attacking you.

SF

[Dylan]

With all due respect that is bullshit.

When I state my views and someone calls me a racist, blah blah blah



Unless, of course, what you've said is actually racist.


Then It Is What It Is, And No One's Playing Cards...Bingo Maybe, But Definitely Not Cards,
Dylan

[Apocalipstic]

So at what point, historically speaking, did it become OK to not let people from Mexico enter Arizona, land the US decided belongs to the US and just took from Mexico?

The place in my heart/head that helps me decide what is right and wrong says Geopolitical Borders that keep people out is not the right thing to do/have....EVER.

But....

ESPECIALLY when the land in question belonged to the people we are trying to keep out.

[dreadgeek]

A couple of folks have said things to me privately since my last response to Kobi about my patience. Thank you. I'm glad it's noticed. However, I have no other real choice. Without getting anywhere *near* saying anything like "white people are to blame..." Kobi tried to give me the "you have to not blame white people for your life" lecture to put me on the right path. Now imagine if I had lost my nut and just turned on the flames. I would have fully validated the whole "you're just an angry black woman" meme that the "your leaders..." comment was symptomatic of. This preternatural calm comes hard and it has taken years and years of practice for it to become second nature but it is the only choice. Those of you who know me in the hard-world know what I do for a living--there is no way in *hell* anyone would ever have hired me for my first gig if I had come off as an angry black woman and there's no way I would have had a second gig if I did.

Kobi you made one more mistake that I think you might need pointed out to you. Of the men you mentioned--DuBois, Washington, Garvey, Farrakhan and Malcolm X, only two of them do I agree with substantially (the first two) and only one of whom I would take as a role model (DuBois). My 'leaders', my role models--my parents and grandparents notwithstanding--are largely not black men or women. If I am trying to style my life after anyone it is these people:

Charles Darwin
Albert Einstein
Paul Dirac
Steven Weinberg
Rachel Carson
Rosalyn Franklin
Richard Dawkins
E. O. Wilson
Lynn Margulis
Steven Hawking
Ed Witten
Carl Sagan
Richard Feynman
Michio Kaku
Lee Smolin
Terry Pratchett
Douglas Adams
Martin Luther King
Mark Knopfler
Susan Jacoby
Mae Jameson
Richard Hofstadter


Those are people I look up to. They are the ones who (at least the living ones) if I met I would be dumbfounded, starstruck and humbled to be in their very presence. These are MY leaders. DuBois, Washington, Malcolm X, Farrakhan, Garvey and the Obamas all share a phenotype with me (within a certain range) but that does not make them my heroes or my role models. I am a scientist and a writer, my heroes and role models are largely scientists and writers.

As a rule, it's a mistake to assume that because someone is, say, black their heroes, role models, guiding stars will all be black.

Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

With all due respect that is bullshit.

When I state my views and someone calls me a racist, I am not the one who pulled the race card out, they did.

And it is not even the race card, it is anyone who disagrees with you must just be squelched just for disagreeing and the easiest way to shut them up, some think, up is to call them racist.

These are complex issues that cannot be watered down to just one aspect if we expect to solve them. Making it a one aspect agrument is the quickest way to stop it dead in its tracks. It makes a mockery out of the complexity of trying to balance many aspects of any issues and how it impacts millions of people ...not just one group or race.

And I love again, how you dismiss the entire gist of my post and turn it to the race issue again. That is critical thinking? And you have the audacity to question how I develop my views?

And what, now you have a problem with Obama being an educated man?

And again, you want me to see how my statements are hurtful to brown people but it is ok for brown people to belittle me and call me names? Yeah that is sure fighting fair...uh huh sign me up for more of that logic.

And again, it is how I ME say something. Of course you all dont have the same requirement. You can say whatever you feel, however you feel like, and call anybody anything and its ok? Not in my world. Its a give and take. You show respect you get respect. And maybe sometimes people come across as caustic and abrasive because they know damn well that disagreeing is going to lead to a slaughter of character under the guise of misplaced righteous indignation. But noooo we cant deal with that behavior cuz it runs contrary to our motives, we must regain control.

The TOS say respectful to all not just to those who agree with you.

That is the kind of thinking that leads to laws like Arizonas, and the rise of the new right and its ultraconservatism, and others nonesense.

Life is complex. Balancing the needs of all is complex because there are many factors to consider to do the best for the most while trying to piss off the fewest.

It would really be nice if WE could take the higher road here and say yeah this group has a point and this group has another point and that group makes a little sense too. How can we put this all together so everyone wins even if we dont all get everything we want without having to call people names?









I am going to address you about this since it is I you called out as using a race card..

Allow me to say I am not some fucking Pokemon creature or collector and I am surely not *throwing* my race around. I tried and tried to get across to you via my life experiences, my familiy's experiences but you *chose* to see it as something else. That's on you and well it tells me A LOT about you. Is that harsh?

No.

You wonder why we (speaking for me and those around me who have read this over my shoulder) you come off as racist and I will take the time to show you why...

Underhanded racist comments such as...

"Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you."( are we now dividing leaders according to color and race?)

"When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows. " (really? you think that this was a solution, cause that is downright scary being caged up
like some animal cause of your race)

"it is easier to just pull out the race card and feed on emotions than it is to deal with the people deliberately and willfully breaking the law." ( I don't remember being there when they handed out these cards lemme know where I can get one since you know so much about them)

"I hear what you are saying. I could respond in kind i.e. saying people are undocumented rather than illegal is just a marketing ploy to take legal immigration out of the picture and make ilegal immigration more palatable." (I know there have been many times on this site where we have all used or have asked that people use undocumented)

"How incredibly racist and presumptuous of you. " (directed at me since I am choosing to talk about my experience and not fall for the bullshit that this law is really masking)

"Lady Snow,

This isnt even worth responding to. Obviously you have some issue which I have no intention of making mine." (cause me talking about my experience and how I feel about this law in a thread that is ABOUT BOYCOTTING NOT PRO THIS LAW means I have *issues*)

"my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting." ( the proof is in the puddin;)

"One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others." (mad applause for referring to us as those people)

So you wonder why people see you this way

Above is why.

It's covert racism, is privileged, ugly and you got called on it.

Would I hang with you? Not at this point, why?

Cause I am one of those fucking people, and these people you speak of they are my people, and you may think I am a bleeding heart, well guess fucking what I am. I know what it's like to be constantly looked upon like we are some disease, is that me using my race card? You may think so, I on the other hand would hope that maybe you can open your pretty lil eyes and see outside of your soft, pretty, priveleged world.

[Apocalipstic]

Seriously, the USA TOOK Arizona from Mexico.

[Corkey]

Seriously, the USA TOOK Arizona from Mexico.

And California, and New Mexico.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Seriously, the USA TOOK Arizona from Mexico.



http://0.tqn.com/d/gomexico/1/7/Z/5/-/-/historical_mexico.jpg

[Apocalipstic]

And California, and New Mexico.

Yep! and now, anyone suspected of mayyybe being Mexican must be kept out? How can this be right?

Undocumented rather that illegal a marketing ploy???? I would say it is more of a cover up of land theft.

"Manifest Destiny" still alive and well.

[The_Lady_Snow]

And again, you want me to see how my statements are hurtful to brown people but it is ok for brown people to belittle me and call me names? Yeah that is sure fighting fair...uh huh sign me up for more of that logic.


We are not that kinda homies, that you get to go around and refer to us

as brown people..

I got a fucking name.

It's shit like this that keeps POC out of the sites, cause really we have enough going on and then to come on here and read this kinda shit, isn't worth it...

We got fucking names that cover that, like Latino, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Nicaraguan etc etc.

It's like I can call my mom a dick, can you? No......

[Corkey]

I think it would be a grand idea to pull over every white driver that happens to use Native Lands to get to say, Flagstaff, or Phoenix. Put them in jail on the Rez and throw away the keys. Now do you see Kobi how this law is racist?

[Kobi]

dread,

I have always respected you for the way you communicate ideas and provide history. I did not in any way intend to say anything about you being an angry black person. I apologize for anything that could have been interpreted this way.

We are back to standards... and can you go back in time and apply todays standards to yesterdays reality. Kind of difficult to do. What people believe changes over time thru experiences and new thoughts. What is appropriate today wasnt seen as totally acceptable at the time of the civil war. Can we apply todays standards and judge people for having adhered to the prevailing thought? It is counterproductive.


[At any rate does this have to do with ANYTHING? I was using race as an example of an idea because you claimed that the diversity of ideas--without qualification--is what makes America strong. I was asking--and you have avoided answering--what about racist ideas made America stronger such that now that those ideas are (or were) in attenuation the nation is less strong than when racist ideas were widespread and socially acceptable? So are you saying that my using the history of race in America to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the idea that any idea is something that should be accepted no matter how sound it is or isn't, I am somehow saying that white people are responsible for the conditions of my life? ]

I will answer you tho I am not sure what you are truly asking here. And let me finish before you jump on me cuz what I am saying and what you might think I am saying are two different things. Hatred of any kind does make us stronger people. Why? Because it gives us room to grow and develop and see things differently. If we were all purple and all thought the same and did the same and had the same, we would be a pretty boring species. But we are different. And as times change, thoughts and behaviors and beliefs change as well. What we believed 10 years ago is not what we believe today nor is today what we will believe tomorrow. This is a philosophical discussion best suited elsewhere...suffice to say that conflict leads to new thoughts and ways of being.....how can the potential for growth and development be a bad thing?

I might be misreading you but I hear you saying I think immigration is a bad thing. I dont. My family was immigrated here and we Italians in Providence were not allowed to walk on the sidewalks or the Irish would kick our asses.

Controlled immigration is done for a reason...the least of which is to allow in numbers which can be absorbed into a society, an economic system, a socal structure, the fabric of American life. Uncontrolled immigration poses many problems...you know that. If it didnt, all countries would throw open their borders and say come one, come all. They dont, and they dont for reasons.
How many times have we heard of American towns not cities towns having their population double almost overnight from legal immigration? And how they struggled to deal with it to the point of asking this particular group of peoples to stagger their arrivals because they didnt have the jobs, housing or other services to accomodate them? It is not a simple issue.

I still find it hard to believe that the aclu and the feds require months and months to get an injunction. Maybe I am naive but it seems there might be another reason for the delay.

[I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.] dread, again, who is saying it is a racist law? A legislature passed it, a governor signed it. Who's perspective makes it racist? Yours? Mine? Without judgement, it is just a law. With judgement applied by differing groups of people, it is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. Does this make you right and me wrong or me right or you wrong? Or does it mean we just are looking at something given our respective experiences and coming to somewhat different conclusions?

Isnt that what this country is about? We, as a people, cannot even agree on "all men are created equal" means. When it was written it meant alll white men. Then it meant white and other men. People can fall back on that tidbit and say constitution says nothing about women so what are women?

Absolutes are problematical in anything because knowledge and values and beliefs change. All I ask for is to not be belittled or called names because I state a reality different from someone elses reality.

I dont think it is too much to ask.



[/FONT]Well, let's see--by what standard? Let's start here. Black people in the 19th century were not considered fully human enough to be citizens. Now either black people WERE human enough to be considered citizens but weren't, in which case an injustice was done or we were not, in which case, Jim Crow was no worse than we deserved. I would argue that it was the former and that there was an injustice. Your mileage, of course, may vary.



Kobi, I'm going to say this once and hopefully I'll never have to say this to you again because the next time I have to say it I won't be anywhere near as polite. It is an extraordinarily bad idea to attempt to plug me into the slot labeled "angry black woman who tries to blame white people for all the conditions of her life". I'm not that woman. No one who has ever read anything I've posted on the Internet can justifiably put me in that slot. You haven't read a lot of my posts so perhaps you don't realize this but I hold only myself responsible for the conditions of my life and, as my local friends and my wife will tell you, I push myself extraordinarily hard. One of the things I use to do so is the following: "to be a successful black person in America you have to strive to be the smartest person in the room--every room, every time. Not pretend to be, not puff yourself up to be, but to ACTUALLY be. You show up early, you stay late. If the average for your field is a bachelor's get a masters. If a master's get a doctorate. If you do ALL of that and still don't get the goodies--then and only then can you call it racism". If you are going to try to put me in the category of 'angry black woman who blames white people for the conditions of her life' you are going to look quite the fool and so take this as a friendly warning against such a doom-ridden path. I don't take insult at much that is said on these boards, the sentence I quoted from you above I take as an insult.

Being brutally honest about the history of race in America isn't espousing racism. Pointing out racial injustice isn't espousing racism. If it is then that list of black men you just pulled out of the hat to try to bolster a point that is flailing about ALL espoused racism. If battling injustice or pointing it out is espousing racism, then MLK also espoused racism. You don't get to have it both ways and invoke black people you've never read in depth to try to prop up a point while simultaneously claim that other blacks (or other non-whites) are 'playing the race card' when those blacks you invoke would ALSO be playing that same card. Secondly, just because a black person brings up the history of race in America does not mean that she is 'relying on the white race to solve racism'. I do not now, nor have I ever, posted anything on this or any other message board that could be read as blaming white people for the condition of my life in even the most wild-eyed interpretation. You will never read anything from me along those lines because it is not how I think. However, I am not going to do you or any other white person the favor of developing convenient historical amnesia and pretend that Jim Crow wasn't profoundly unjust nor am I going to do you the favor of pretending that perhaps there was a point to Jim Crow and maybe it wasn't a bad thing.

I KNOW it was a bad thing, Kobi because black people are human and human beings should not be treated in the way blacks were under segregation. By whose standards? By ANY standard that recognizes that all people are human beings and deserving of some baseline amount of justice, equality and respect. You may not hold to that standard, you may want to play games and say "who is to say if it was wrong to say black people aren't fully human and by what standard" but I'm not in the least bit obliged to go along with it. Until such time as you can demonstrate that I and the people I am genetically related to are not exactly members of Homo sapiens sapiens then segregation was wrong--by any standard that recognizes human beings as human beings and deserving to those things we hold to be self-evidently true.



At any rate does this have to do with ANYTHING? I was using race as an example of an idea because you claimed that the diversity of ideas--without qualification--is what makes America strong. I was asking--and you have avoided answering--what about racist ideas made America stronger such that now that those ideas are (or were) in attenuation the nation is less strong than when racist ideas were widespread and socially acceptable? So are you saying that my using the history of race in America to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the idea that any idea is something that should be accepted no matter how sound it is or isn't, I am somehow saying that white people are responsible for the conditions of my life?

I'm curious, have you actually read either Washington or DuBois? Farrakhan is a clown and a charlatan at best.



Kobi, not to put too fine a point on the matter but I have forgotten more about what it takes for a black person to be successful in America than you will ever realize that there is to learn. If you were to live as long as Methuselah you would still never know half of what I know about what it takes to be successful in America if you are black.



You know what's really interesting to me? When we were a growing industrial economy CERTAIN immigrants were okay but certain other ones were not. The Irish weren't okay--when we were a growing industrial economy and then they became okay. The Italians weren't okay when we were a growing industrial economy--and then they became okay. Then it was the Chinese and the Japanese and it took a tad bit longer for them to become okay. And the Jews, of course, had their turn of not being okay. This isn't the first time America has had one of these paroxysms of anti-immigration hysteria and the language has always been precisely the same and in a couple of generations everyone will once again be claiming how immigration makes America stronger and pretending that 20 years earlier, they weren't screaming at the top of their lungs about the latest group to come over the border.



So, Kobi, do you like the idea of American citizens being subjected to humiliation because they happen to share a phenotypic trait with someone who was born in Mexico and is here picking strawberries? Are you okay with that?



Actually, people did think twice about it. They thought twice about it so much that eventually the United States government apologized for violating the civil rights of US citizens. And if you read ANYTHING about the period, you realize that, in fact, it wasn't necessary.



When I hear about Seamus who overstayed his visa being stopped for driving while Irish I'll give that some credence. However, here in the real world the people who need to be careful to have their ID on them--including a birth certificate--when they are out walking the dog are all brown-skinned. Like I said, when I hear about it happening to a white person who some cop thinks looks like he or she overstayed their visa from Ireland, I'll change my tune.



The ACLU HAS sought in injunction and it is working its way through the courts (it's amazing what happens when you pay attention to these things) and the Feds have *also* said that they will challenge the law (again, fascinating what you learn when you actually look into an issue).



I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.

Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

. And let me finish before you jump on me cuz . If



[I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.] dread, again, who is saying it is a racist law? A legislature passed it, a governor signed it. Who's perspective makes it racist? Yours? Mine? Without judgement, it is just a law. With judgement applied by differing groups of people, it is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. Does this make you right and me wrong or me right or you wrong? Or does it mean we just are looking at something given our respective experiences and coming to somewhat different conclusions?




[/FONT]


Once again, this law is targeting a specific group of people by HOW THEY LOOK AND THEIR SKIN COLOR....

How you can not see this is beyond my comprehension.

American citizens HAVE been affected and detained BECAUSE of this law.

It's a sneaky way to target a group of people...

It's not really that hard to see.

Well unless you don't want to and are comfy with anything other than white being tagged with a bullet on your back.

Just sayin

[Dylan]

I think it would be a grand idea to pull over every white driver that happens to use Native Lands to get to say, Flagstaff, or Phoenix. Put them in jail on the Rez and throw away the keys. Now do you see Kobi how this law is racist?

Or perhaps we should be pulling over white women who look too masculine, because we all know they are taking everyone's jobs and causing the collapse of the economy and sucking up social benefits which are putting this country into bankruptcy...oh, and molesting children and trying to be men.


Oh, Wait, They Tried That In The 50s and 60s And The Queers Took It To The Streets And Rioted,
Dylan

It's probably just a perspective thing though. I mean, I'm sure the straight people who made those laws were right in their perspectives and propaganda too

[Kobi]

Lady Snow,

In the few months I have been here, you have called me a racist, a sexist, a misogynist when I do or say something you dont agree with.

And when I say something you agree with, you send me cutesy little notes.

Hm, what might that indicate...agree with me and I will treat you well. Disagree with me and I will call you names just cuz I can.

You tend to misinterpret what I say, sadly. Perfect example.....Japanese confinement. I didnt say anything about how I felt about it. You PRESUMED the way it was written that I agreed with it. Just as you presume about many things.

I for one do not appreciate it. Just not agreeing with you makes everything something....real or not.

I am going to address you about this since it is I you called out as using a race card..

Allow me to say I am not some fucking Pokemon creature or collector and I am surely not *throwing* my race around. I tried and tried to get across to you via my life experiences, my familiy's experiences but you *chose* to see it as something else. That's on you and well it tells me A LOT about you. Is that harsh?

No.

You wonder why we (speaking for me and those around me who have read this over my shoulder) you come off as racist and I will take the time to show you why...

Underhanded racist comments such as...

"Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you."( are we now dividing leaders according to color and race?)

"When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows. " (really? you think that this was a solution, cause that is downright scary being caged up
like some animal cause of your race)

"it is easier to just pull out the race card and feed on emotions than it is to deal with the people deliberately and willfully breaking the law." ( I don't remember being there when they handed out these cards lemme know where I can get one since you know so much about them)

"I hear what you are saying. I could respond in kind i.e. saying people are undocumented rather than illegal is just a marketing ploy to take legal immigration out of the picture and make ilegal immigration more palatable." (I know there have been many times on this site where we have all used or have asked that people use undocumented)

"How incredibly racist and presumptuous of you. " (directed at me since I am choosing to talk about my experience and not fall for the bullshit that this law is really masking)

"Lady Snow,

This isnt even worth responding to. Obviously you have some issue which I have no intention of making mine." (cause me talking about my experience and how I feel about this law in a thread that is ABOUT BOYCOTTING NOT PRO THIS LAW means I have *issues*)

"my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting." ( the proof is in the puddin;)

"One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others." (mad applause for referring to us as those people)

So you wonder why people see you this way

Above is why.

It's covert racism, is privileged, ugly and you got called on it.

Would I hang with you? Not at this point, why?

Cause I am one of those fucking people, and these people you speak of they are my people, and you may think I am a bleeding heart, well guess fucking what I am. I know what it's like to be constantly looked upon like we are some disease, is that me using my race card? You may think so, I on the other hand would hope that maybe you can open your pretty lil eyes and see outside of your soft, pretty, priveleged world.

[Kobi]

Again Lady Snow, you take something out of context and make it something it is not.

Superfemme made the reference to "brown people" re read it. I replied in kind. But noooooooo, lets just fly off the handle so you can continue the mad on you have.

Seriously, grow up.We are not that kinda homies, that you get to go around and refer to us

as brown people..

I got a fucking name.

It's shit like this that keeps POC out of the sites, cause really we have enough going on and then to come on here and read this kinda shit, isn't worth it...

We got fucking names that cover that, like Latino, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Nicaraguan etc etc.

It's like I can call my mom a dick, can you? No......

[SuperFemme]

If the AZ law is not racist? Then how do the police come to a reasonable suspicion that a person is here without permission? The only way is by skin color. Perhaps accent?

What about HB 2281?

While HB 2281 includes an exemption for the Holocaust, it makes it illegal to promote class resentment of any race or class of people. So how are teachers supposed to instruct African-American students about slavery? Or Asian-American students about the internment camps? Many great authors, including Dickens, Wharton, and Dostoyevsky, delve deeply into themes of class resentment. Does teaching them add up to “promoting race resentment?” Are their books to be stricken from curriculums in the Grand Canyon State?

I also question Governor Brewer’s motives. According to the National Education Association, Arizona ranks 50th in expenditure per pupil in grades K-12.

Ethnic studies courses are important because mainstream curriculums often overlook the contributions of minorities. They help put the salad bowl that is the United States into perspective.



Ideally, all students would learn about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and César Chávez along with other great Americans. But until that day comes, niche classes fill the void. On top of that, researchers have found that minority kids are more likely to succeed academically as a result of a multicultural course of study.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Lady Snow,

In the few months I have been here, you have called me a racist, a sexist, a misogynist when I do or say something you dont agree with.

And when I say something you agree with, you send me cutesy little notes.

Hm, what might that indicate...agree with me and I will treat you well. Disagree with me and I will call you names just cuz I can.

You tend to misinterpret what I say, sadly. Perfect example.....Japanese confinement. I didnt say anything about how I felt about it. You PRESUMED the way it was written that I agreed with it. Just as you presume about many things.

I for one do not appreciate it. Just not agreeing with you makes everything something....real or not.




Um.

Kobi.

I don't send cutesy lil notes.. nice try insinuating though ;)

Have I agreed with you on some of your posts oh yes.

Have I called you out on sexism, yes

Have I called you out on your underlined racism? yes

Does this feel like maybe *YOU* have an issue with me

yes it's pretty clear now.


I don't agree with you on your points of view on this law that you seem to think is A-OK.

if you would like we can take this private since now you seem to have made it personal.

Is my point of view going to change on how I feel about Arizona's new law.

NO.

Will I keep quiet?

NO...

Will that continue to piss you off

I believe so.

[Corkey]

Again Lady Snow, you take something out of context and make it something it is not.

Superfemme made the reference to "brown people" re read it. I replied in kind. But noooooooo, lets just fly off the handle so you can continue the mad on you have.

Seriously, grow up.

Kobi a hint, Brown people are allowed to call each other Brown people. White people aren't, that is racist.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Again Lady Snow, you take something out of context and make it something it is not.

Superfemme made the reference to "brown people" re read it. I replied in kind. But noooooooo, lets just fly off the handle so you can continue the mad on you have.

Seriously, grow up.

FYI..

Superfemme

IS brown so she can use it

She is a latina

[Kobi]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]Medusa,

With all due respect, I have a real problem when differing standards are applied to people based on skin color.

You just said Kobi is a bad white person who must examine her presumed racism and privelege.

But people of color because of their unique life experience have free reign to call me names and belittle me?

This makes sense. Again, I have to allow for them but they dont have to treat me with any respect simply because of the color of their skin.

Thats bizarre.
Kobi,

I'm always incredibly dismayed when someone says that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card". Especially since you seem to be intelligent.

I have seen more than one person in these forums resort to saying that a Person of Color "pulled out the race card", so what Im about to say isn't solely directed at you but I hope that you can hear what I'm about to say with an open mind.

Race is not a "card" that a person can whip out. Race is a part of a person's LIVED experience, a part of their lives, and unfortunately, oftentimes is a huge part of unfair, ignorant, and biggoted treatment that they receive from people who view their race as a "thing" that they whip out when they are trying to be "uppity" or "arrogant" or "overpowering" or (gasp) "too loud".

It is also incredibly disrespectful.

Sadly too, any argument you make using the "race card being pulled out" will get lost with folks like me who translate that as "white person who refuses to examine their racism or privilege".


M

[SuperFemme]

Who is calling you names? Please show me, because I don't see it.

[Kobi]

I see, you call me racist and sexist and now its personal because it affects you. Okie dokie. Are we supposed to exchange recipes or something?

Will I change my mind on the law...NO.

Will I keep my mouth shut....NO.

Will it piss you off......yep.

Life's a bitch sometimes.


Um.

Kobi.

I don't send cutesy lil notes.. nice try insinuating though ;)

Have I agreed with you on some of your posts oh yes.

Have I called you out on sexism, yes

Have I called you out on your underlined racism? yes

Does this feel like maybe *YOU* have an issue with me

yes it's pretty clear now.


I don't agree with you on your points of view on this law that you seem to think is A-OK.

if you would like we can take this private since now you seem to have made it personal.

Is my point of view going to change on how I feel about Arizona's new law.

NO.

Will I keep quiet?

NO...

Will that continue to piss you off

I believe so.

[Dylan]

With all due respect, I have a real problem when differing standards are applied to people based on skin color.



And amazingly that's just what this law is all about

So, from all of your previous posts in this thread, and now this post, I'm assuming you only have a problem when differing standards are applied to white people based on skin color, but not when those differing standards (based on skin color) are applied to a group to which you don't belong. Or really when equality is administered on differing levels based on skin color.

Also, no one called you A racist. They said the things you've said are racist. If you dropped the defensiveness and listened (instead of defending), you might hear *why* what you've said is racist (including 'pulling the race card'). But no, no one said, "Kobi's A racist".


Dylan

[Kobi]

Ohhhh I get it. Differing standards again. Does this mean people of color cant call me white?Kobi a hint, Brown people are allowed to call each other Brown people. White people aren't, that is racist.

[Corkey]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"]Medusa,

With all due respect, I have a real problem when differing standards are applied to people based on skin color.

You just said Kobi is a bad white person who must examine her presumed racism and privelege.

But people of color because of their unique life experience have free reign to call me names and belittle me?

This makes sense. Again, I have to allow for them but they dont have to treat me with any respect simply because of the color of their skin.

Thats bizarre.

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Kobi no one is calling you names, you are saying racist things, that does not mean you are a racist. Racist is not the same as calling someone Brown when you are white, it is not the same as calling someone N* when you are white, all of those things are racist speech. It implies you are saying racist things. To be a racist you must firmly believe these racist things, if you believe them then yes (you) are a racist.

[Corkey]

Ohhhh I get it. Differing standards again. Does this mean people of color cant call me white?

No because you have privilege, you don't see it but you espouse it.

[SuperFemme]

I see, you call me racist and sexist and now its personal because it affects you. Okie dokie. Are we supposed to exchange recipes or something?

Will I change my mind on the law...NO.

Will I keep my mouth shut....NO.

Will it piss you off......yep.

Life's a bitch sometimes.


She didn't say that you Kobi are a sexist racist.

She said that she has called out some things you've said as sounding racist or sexist.

Nobody is calling names.

[Kobi]

SuperFemme,

Thank you. For the first time in days I feel heard instead of attacked.

You are right, it is easier to hear something when it is not couched in anger or in slurs. I am more than open to hearing when someone feels I have said something that might be offensive. Send me a private message. Lets dialogue.

Do not call me names. It is counterproductive and accomplishes nothing except for pissing us both off.Kobi,

First of all, I am so NOT calling you names. Not at all.

If I have angered and/or insulted you, that was not my intent.

My post was a plea to you to maybe think about how what you are saying sometimes can perhaps be interpreted as having racial overtones/undertones.

I'm not calling you a racist, what I *am* asking of you is that you hear how your words can be hurtful to those of us who have parents who came here illegally, those of us that have green cards, those of us that are scared to drive through AZ and that is all.

I understand that you can agree with the law in AZ, and I am not going to try to change your mind. It is your right. I'm not trying to say to you "boycott or bust". I promise.

What I *was* hoping to convey was how sweeping generalizations can be very hurtful.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

Again, I apologize if you feel I was calling you names, or attacking you.

SF

[dreadgeek]

dread,

I have always respected you for the way you communicate ideas and provide history. I did not in any way intend to say anything about you being an angry black person. I apologize for anything that could have been interpreted this way.

Thank you. Apology accepted.


We are back to standards... and can you go back in time and apply todays standards to yesterdays reality. Kind of difficult to do. What people believe changes over time thru experiences and new thoughts. What is appropriate today wasnt seen as totally acceptable at the time of the civil war. Can we apply todays standards and judge people for having adhered to the prevailing thought? It is counterproductive.

I think that there are times we can. If, for instance, someone asked me if I thought that the Nazi take on Jews was at all correct, had any basis in fact, I would say no it didn't and that what happened in Germany between 1932 and 1945 was immoral. In the same vein, I would say that the idea that, say, my grandmother (born in 1903) wasn't really a full human being such that she was capable of the full range of thought and ability and that therefore, her constrained choices were no worse than she deserved was wrong. I understand that you do not think that we can say that it was wrong and therefore cannot say that what happened to her was unjust but I disagree. So, okay--to you segregation wasn't an injustice but my family experienced it as an injustice and we were fully human back in 1903 and in 1922 and in 1963 and in 1967. I get it that you think that maybe those folks in those years who said we weren't might have had a point, again I disagree. I didn't become human because the mores changed, the mores changed because enough people finally started to internalize the idea that blacks were human.
I understand that, to you, expressing absolutes--even the absolute that I am a human being--is problematic but I disagree.


[At any rate does this have to do with ANYTHING? I was using race as an example of an idea because you claimed that the diversity of ideas--without qualification--is what makes America strong. I was asking--and you have avoided answering--what about racist ideas made America stronger such that now that those ideas are (or were) in attenuation the nation is less strong than when racist ideas were widespread and socially acceptable? So are you saying that my using the history of race in America to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the idea that any idea is something that should be accepted no matter how sound it is or isn't, I am somehow saying that white people are responsible for the conditions of my life?

I will answer you tho I am not sure what you are truly asking here. And let me finish before you jump on me cuz what I am saying and what you might think I am saying are two different things. Hatred of any kind does make us stronger people. Why? Because it gives us room to grow and develop and see things differently. If we were all purple and all thought the same and did the same and had the same, we would be a pretty boring species. But we are different.

I'm going to tell you something about my family. My father grew up without a father because some white folks decided to hang his father from a tree. My mother lost one of her brothers because some *other* white folks decided to hang him from a tree. My father's brother wasn't able to go to college because he couldn’t serve in WW II because some white man ran him down and his leg never fully recovered and he never was able to walk right again. Now I want you to keep this in mind as I tell you what I am reading here.

Translated what you are saying is that the lynching of my grandfather and uncle and the wounding of another uncle, as well as my parents being beaten with sticks, having dogs set upon them and being sprayed with fire hoses is all just so many broken eggs necessary so that we can all sit back now and be smug. Pardon me for not wanting you or anyone else to be able to feel quite so smug because we overcame it but I would just as soon have met my grandfather and my uncle thank you very much. To you, perhaps this was worth it, the unfortunate cost of doing business. To me, if the benefit was that we could be stronger, I think we could have done with a little less strength and a little more justice.

Now, you had no way of knowing that relatives in my family had been lynched and I do not blame you for not knowing. However, when I read what I quoted above it appears, to me, that you are saying that all the horrors that were visited upon black people were justified or at least made okay by the fact that we were able to grow. Well, not my uncle and not my grandfather. They weren't able to grow because they were dead. Death has a way of reducing ones reproductive fitness and learning ability to zero.


I might be misreading you but I hear you saying I think immigration is a bad thing. I dont. My family was immigrated here and we Italians in Providence were not allowed to walk on the sidewalks or the Irish would kick our asses.


You are misreading me. You said that immigration was what made us strong as a growing industrial society. I was saying to you that true as that was, when the Irish got here they were discriminated against--and then they became okay. When the Italians got here they were discriminated against--and then they became okay. What I was saying is that America has been down this road before, the rhetoric being used today could be lifted straight out of the 19th century and applied to the Irish or the Italians when they got here. The justifications could be lifted right from the 19th century anti-immigration paroxysms. This is nothing new.


I still find it hard to believe that the aclu and the feds require months and months to get an injunction. Maybe I am naive but it seems there might be another reason for the delay.

Okay, but that doesn't mean the ACLU hasn't filed for one and it doesn't mean that the Justice department isn't figuring out the best way to attack the problem. I suspect that what Justice is waiting for is for the inevitable test case to go before the SCOTUS (it's what I would do) and then they will file an amicus brief. Citizens are going to be stopped and they are going to sue on 4th and 14th Amendment grounds because this law really DOES make US citizens strangers to the laws of their homeland.


[I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.]

dread, again, who is saying it is a racist law? A legislature passed it, a governor signed it.

So? The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision said this:

A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

Now, I would say that those two passages are pretty unambiguously racist. I recognize that you do not. I recognize that you think that, perhaps, blacks had no rights to which a white man was at all obliged to respect. That does not change the fact that it is racist.


Who's perspective makes it racist? Yours? Mine? Without judgement, it is just a law. With judgement applied by differing groups of people, it is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. Does this make you right and me wrong or me right or you wrong? Or does it mean we just are looking at something given our respective experiences and coming to somewhat different conclusions?

I am starting here--all human beings are human beings. Whether or not the majority thinks they are human beings at any given locus in history is *entirely* irrelevant to the question of their humanity. Where there is a conflict between the claims of humanness by one group and the disavowal of that claim by another group, I will ALWAYS fall on the side of the group claiming humanness. The group disavowing the humanity of another group is always wrong. Always. This law is racist because it targets a group of people based on ethnicity. This law is taking place in a context where OTHER events are occurring that also target this same group. It is racist because it takes a group of people, separates them out from the community and then says that they will be treated differently because they look different. From the logic you are deploying here, George Wallace might have been right when he said "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and Martin Luther King, Jr. was wrong. I reject that premise on its face.


Isnt that what this country is about? We, as a people, cannot even agree on "all men are created equal" means. When it was written it meant alll white men. Then it meant white and other men. People can fall back on that tidbit and say constitution says nothing about women so what are women?

Deploying your logic, women are only as human as the society says that they are in any given historical period and, as such, only have a legitimate claim to justice AFTER the society has decided that they are human enough to be deserve justice. I disagree. And, in fact, all men are created equal seems pretty straightforward to me. Again, I understand, that to you it isn't and who has a claim on equality depends upon when we are talking about. I reject that idea as well because--not to be insulting--I don't EVER want it to be left to someone with your ideas as you have expressed them here to have to decide whether or not I am human enough to be deserving of justice. Given what you have said in this discussion and your utter unwillingness to call a moral evil by what it is, I think that you could very well happily support the idea that I am not human enough to be covered by justice. Am I calling you a racist? Not at all. I am saying that I don't trust your moral compass as you have expressed it here because I am unconvinced that you would say that my grandmother was fully a human being in the year of her birth (1903) simply because in 1903 the prevailing zeitgeist in America was that she wasn't.


Absolutes are problematical in anything because knowledge and values and beliefs change. All I ask for is to not be belittled or called names because I state a reality different from someone elses reality.

I'm not going to call you names and I'm not going to belittle you. But I am going to say that I think you are wrong. However, you prove a point that I have been making here and on the dash-site for going on five years now. That point has to do with this 'who is to say what is right or wrong'. I have maintained that this view is wrong because, taken to its logical conclusion, it renders us UTTERLY mute on the subject of justice. Given your stated beliefs I'm not sure you can even say *TODAY* whether or not I am a human being simply because there are people (Nazi's for instance) who deny my humanity and therefore it might be possible that they are right and I am wrong. Any ideology, philosophy or worldview that cannot look at, say, the Holocaust and given the facts *inevitably* arrive at the conclusion that it was unambiguously evil is not one I will trust at all.


I dont think it is too much to ask.


It's not too much to ask.


[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[dreadgeek]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]Medusa,

With all due respect, I have a real problem when differing standards are applied to people based on skin color.


Kobi;

Not to put too fine a point on the matter but I don't think that's true. I think you don't have a problem with differing standards applied to skin color provided one of two conditions are met:

1) It's not happening to you
2) It's not happening in a time contemporaneous to yours.

Based upon your OWN posts, Kobi, I would say that you would, for instance, have no problem at all with racist standards being applied to blacks in any year before you were born. This is based upon YOUR posts and YOUR statements that we can't say who was right and who was wrong about issues that happened in the 19th century or the early part of the 20th century. So, depending upon when you were born, the year before that I see no reason--based upon your philosophy as you have expressed it--to believe that you would have ANY problem with differing standards applied to blacks and whites because neither condition is met. After the year you are born you would have a problem--at least in theory--because condition 2 was met.

Now, you can correct me if I'm reading your philosophy incorrectly but it certainly appears to be what you are saying. Again, this is NOT calling you a racist. When I think you are a racist, I'll let you know. I am saying that the real-world consequences of your philosophy are very disturbing to me.

[Medusa]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]Medusa,

With all due respect, I have a real problem when differing standards are applied to people based on skin color.

You just said Kobi is a bad white person who must examine her presumed racism and privelege.

But people of color because of their unique life experience have free reign to call me names and belittle me?

This makes sense. Again, I have to allow for them but they dont have to treat me with any respect simply because of the color of their skin.

Thats bizarre.


Kobi,

I think you missed the point of my entire post. Im not saying that you are a bad white person. I think you probably have some examination to do around race (like most all of the white people that I know, myself included). That becomes especially apparent to me when you say things like "someone pulled out the race card."
You (apparently) haven't even examined race enough to know that saying someone "pulled the race card" is a red herring. I don't think it makes you a bad person, I think that it makes you in need of education and a deeper thought process around race. It's fine if you don't want to do that or don't think you need to do that, but I'm telling you from one white person to another that you will keep encountering angry reactions, irritated people, and people who think you are ignorant as long as you keep making that statement. People will (mostly) automatically dismiss what you say as racist when you couch it in a "race card" conversation.

Why will people do that? Because it IS offensive, racist, and dismissive.

You keep asking "by who's standards?" and I'm willing to answer that for you.

By the standards of thoughtful, enlightened people. By the standards of people who do not want to add another layer to the ugly and oppressive weight of living in a racist society to people like The_Lady_Snow, and AJ, and Corkey and Adele. And hopefully one day, by the standards of the world at large as we move toward a more evolved society. One where AJ can make a very thoughtful post about historical racism, give examples, and be absolutely present and patient in a conversation with someone who says she is playing the race card. Where one day People of Color will no longer have to stretch their willingness to educate people who do not want to be educated into unimagineable, contorted acrobatics in order to be heard over the drone of such heavily ingrained privilege.

You mentioned that you feel like People of Color have free reighn to call you names and belittle you and yet you are willing to keep saying things to People of Color when they have told you that they feel belittled and name-called. There is no double-standard there, except that you want to be able to say racist and privileged things without the people whom it hurts coming back at you with anything other than acceptance. Even AJ's incredibly measured patience was not enough?

Again, I don't think you are a bad person. I have seen you say things that are smart and enlightened and hope that you will consider the things that are said here with levity. It is a painful and embarrassing process to try to do the work to unlearn all of the racism and privilege that will come pre-packaged with white skin in this world but you must take the first step in order to do that.

The first step is listening. HEAR the pain, the anger, the information, the stories, the words, the lives. Hear those things without creating a soft bed of denial or anger for them to land on. Listen and hear.

I can tell you are defensive right now. Just listen. Don't defend. Listen.

M

[waxnrope]

Kobi,

Proof texting is a process whereby preachers take a verse of Scripture from here, a verse from there, pluck another from over yonder, etc. with the purpose of "proving" a point. Of saying what "G-d" says. It is a poisonous process insofar as it takes out of context, out of culture, out of history, and out of a particular people's society and twists it so that it suits the ideology of the preacher. Prooftexting "legitimates" the words from the pulpit because it came from Scripture. And, oh yes, it is of course used to dehumanize and condemn GLBTQI people as well as POC, and to justify the superiority of humans over nature, among other things. Prooftexting is often used by those who are ignorant of the historical, social, cultural and literary conditions which signified the need for the text in the first place.

Now, I bring this up because you have taken a web link as well as claimed specific ideas originated by African American leaders. As a person of mixed race, who puts down African American in the check box because I'm older and used to doing so, I have a stake in your argument. Moreover, I state that in your examples, you have prooftexted great African American leaders. For instance, Malcolm X in addition to saying not to blame the white man for everything, also critically discussed the "white man" as being the most murderous, warmongering people on the face of the earth. He also uttered the famous line, " ... by any means necessary" as a position of force to get the white man off our necks. You forgot that?

So, you have played your own card ~ in arrogance, in prooftexting, and displayed a certain lack of historicity with regards to racism in America. That is your privileged, WHITE opinion. But the African Americans that you cited, and any other person of color that you even think about citing ... I ask that you do not do so by way of prooftexting. Read all of it, CRITICALLy (and I see that you dislike this word ..), from its context. That is, the history, AND CULTURE. The words inscribed by our great leaders are SACRED to many of us. Whether they be Du Bois, Malcolm, King. Or, Cesar Chavez and Oscar Romero. These are sacred people to us and you do them a disservice by prooftexting and by your patent lack of comprehension ... that is what I call showing your white card.

[Corkey]

Kobi, I'm going to post something here and I hope you will take it in the manner it is ment.

"We forget so we consider ourselves superior. But we are, after all, a mere part of the creation and we must consider to understand where we are and we stand somewhere between the mountain and the Ant. Somewhere and only there is a part and parcel of the creation."
--Chief Oren Lyons, ONONDAGA
Every human being gathers information from the center of a circle. If we are not careful, we soon think we are the center of all things. Therefore, it is easy to become self centered. Once we become self centered we start to think we are above all things and therefore superior. But we are really only one part of a great whole. The universe is all connected. Each part is here to do something special and according to its design. We are here to honor and respect the job of each part. We are neither above nor below anything. We need not be ruler over anything, we need only to live in honor and harmony with the system.

[Kobi]

Medusa,

You are right, I need to take a break from this. I still stand by I am happy to hear as long as I am allowed to be heard. One without the other is unfair.

Wax....interesting. People seem to forget about the tranformation in Malcolm X after his trip to Mecca. He was still fiery but his focus a little different.

"In Saudi Arabia, he’d experienced what amounted to the second life-changing epiphany in his life as he accomplished the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, and discovered an authentic Islam of universal respect and brotherhood. The experience changed Malcolm’s world view. Gone was the belief in whites as exclusively evil. Gone was the call for black separatism. His voyage to Mecca helped him discover the atoning power of Islam as a means to unity as well as self-respect: “In my thirty-nine years on this earth,” he would write in his autobiography, “the Holy City of Mecca had been the first time I had ever stood before the Creator of All and felt like a complete human being.”

"...easy to overly romanticize Malcolm’s last period of his life, to misinterpret it as gentler, more amenable to white tastes then (and to some extent still now) so hostile to Malcolm. In reality, he returned to the United States as fiery as ever. His philosophy was taking a new direction. But his critique of liberalism went on unabated. He was willing to take the help of “sincere whites,” but he was under no illusion that the solution for black Americans would not begin with whites. It would begin and end with blacks. In that regard, whites were better off busying themselves with confronting their own pathological racism. “Let sincere whites go and teach non-violence to white people,” he said.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/a/me080220b.htm



But then again, I am just one of those uneducated, uninformed white people.

Kobi,

Proof texting is a process whereby preachers take a verse of Scripture from here, a verse from there, pluck another from over yonder, etc. with the purpose of "proving" a point. Of saying what "G-d" says. It is a poisonous process insofar as it takes out of context, out of culture, out of history, and out of a particular people's society and twists it so that it suits the ideology of the preacher. Prooftexting "legitimates" the words from the pulpit because it came from Scripture. And, oh yes, it is of course used to dehumanize and condemn GLBTQI people as well as POC, and to justify the superiority of humans over nature, among other things. Prooftexting is often used by those who are ignorant of the historical, social, cultural and literary conditions which signified the need for the text in the first place.

Now, I bring this up because you have taken a web link as well as claimed specific ideas originated by African American leaders. As a person of mixed race, who puts down African American in the check box because I'm older and used to doing so, I have a stake in your argument. Moreover, I state that in your examples, you have prooftexted great African American leaders. For instance, Malcolm X in addition to saying not to blame the white man for everything, also critically discussed the "white man" as being the most murderous, warmongering people on the face of the earth. He also uttered the famous line, " ... by any means necessary" as a position of force to get the white man off our necks. You forgot that?

So, you have played your own card ~ in arrogance, in prooftexting, and displayed a certain lack of historicity with regards to racism in America. That is your privileged, WHITE opinion. But the African Americans that you cited, and any other person of color that you even think about citing ... I ask that you do not do so by way of prooftexting. Read all of it, CRITICALLy (and I see that you dislike this word ..), from its context. That is, the history, AND CULTURE. The words inscribed by our great leaders are SACRED to many of us. Whether they be Du Bois, Malcolm, King. Or, Cesar Chavez and Oscar Romero. These are sacred people to us and you do them a disservice by prooftexting and by your patent lack of comprehension ... that is what I call showing your white card.

[Corkey]

Ugh. I find it offensive when a white person uses a black mans voice. What point were you trying to make in using Malcolm's voice?

[The_Lady_Snow]

I thanked you because I do hope you take some time out to read us, to hear us and to *listen* to us..

Maybe when you come back and re read the things you said and how you said them, you will get why some of us are upset and seem angry as you so put it.

Good luck!

You should read some Tim Wise if you have not already.



Medusa,

You are right, I need to take a break from this. I still stand by I am happy to hear as long as I am allowed to be heard. One without the other is unfair.

Wax....interesting. People seem to forget about the tranformation in Malcolm X after his trip to Mecca. He was still fiery but his focus a little different.

"In Saudi Arabia, he’d experienced what amounted to the second life-changing epiphany in his life as he accomplished the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, and discovered an authentic Islam of universal respect and brotherhood. The experience changed Malcolm’s world view. Gone was the belief in whites as exclusively evil. Gone was the call for black separatism. His voyage to Mecca helped him discover the atoning power of Islam as a means to unity as well as self-respect: “In my thirty-nine years on this earth,” he would write in his autobiography, “the Holy City of Mecca had been the first time I had ever stood before the Creator of All and felt like a complete human being.”

"...easy to overly romanticize Malcolm’s last period of his life, to misinterpret it as gentler, more amenable to white tastes then (and to some extent still now) so hostile to Malcolm. In reality, he returned to the United States as fiery as ever. His philosophy was taking a new direction. But his critique of liberalism went on unabated. He was willing to take the help of “sincere whites,” but he was under no illusion that the solution for black Americans would not begin with whites. It would begin and end with blacks. In that regard, whites were better off busying themselves with confronting their own pathological racism. “Let sincere whites go and teach non-violence to white people,” he said.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/a/me080220b.htm



But then again, I am just one of those uneducated, uninformed white people.

[Liam]

When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows.


The majority of those "Japanese," relocated and interned in camps were citizens of the United States. Actually there were people, who thought twice, and some of them, have dedicated their lives to reminding others, of what happened.

http://www.heartmountain.us/

[dreadgeek]

Wax:

Thank you for this. Prooftexting is a perfect phrase and I wish I had thought to invoke it here. In the same general area is the invocation of MLK, Jr. If one more white politician says "I marched with Dr. King" when the reality is that they were alive and walking circa 1962 and since King held marches in '62 they were walking at the same time as him therefore they marched with him, I'm going to scream. Any of you who have started a pool to see if there is anything that can make me loose my cool--put your money there, it's a sure winner. :)

Along the same lines, is quoting the "content of our character" line. I find it somewhere on the spectrum of infuriating to hilarious that people who couldn't quote anything else King ever uttered will repeat the character line time and time again as if over the course of his life the only words the man ever spoke were those. I'm reasonably certain--based upon what my parents have told me (King died when I was a year old so the one time I got to meet him, I don't remember)--that his first words were NOT "will be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin..." Yet, a lot of very conservative people treat that phrase sort of like Rev. Wright's "God damn America" in reverse. Reverend Wright preached for some 40 years and as far as the American media would have us believe every sermon he ever gave can be written as follows:

"The lesson this morning is taken from the book of Damn America. "And then the people did speak saying unto all, God damn America! Thus endeth the lesson.

Beloved, when I woke up this morning I said God damn America. When Jesus was on the cross, God damn America. If you are struggling today, not sure how you going to make a way out of no way, God damn America. Now will the congregation rise while we sing God damn America.

Singing: "God damn America. God damn America! God damn America! God damn America."

In the same way King's *entire* career has been reduced to:

"I have a dream...judged by the content of our character." Again, to take the media's spin on his life everywhere he went he said "I have a dream...judged by the content of our character."

People who would never even think to read something as short as Letter from Birmingham Jail think nothing of quoting those lines to burnish their "see, I was there with the civil rights marchers" cred.

Aj

Kobi,

Proof texting is a process whereby preachers take a verse of Scripture from here, a verse from there, pluck another from over yonder, etc. with the purpose of "proving" a point. Of saying what "G-d" says. It is a poisonous process insofar as it takes out of context, out of culture, out of history, and out of a particular people's society and twists it so that it suits the ideology of the preacher. Prooftexting "legitimates" the words from the pulpit because it came from Scripture. And, oh yes, it is of course used to dehumanize and condemn GLBTQI people as well as POC, and to justify the superiority of humans over nature, among other things. Prooftexting is often used by those who are ignorant of the historical, social, cultural and literary conditions which signified the need for the text in the first place.

Now, I bring this up because you have taken a web link as well as claimed specific ideas originated by African American leaders. As a person of mixed race, who puts down African American in the check box because I'm older and used to doing so, I have a stake in your argument. Moreover, I state that in your examples, you have prooftexted great African American leaders. For instance, Malcolm X in addition to saying not to blame the white man for everything, also critically discussed the "white man" as being the most murderous, warmongering people on the face of the earth. He also uttered the famous line, " ... by any means necessary" as a position of force to get the white man off our necks. You forgot that?

So, you have played your own card ~ in arrogance, in prooftexting, and displayed a certain lack of historicity with regards to racism in America. That is your privileged, WHITE opinion. But the African Americans that you cited, and any other person of color that you even think about citing ... I ask that you do not do so by way of prooftexting. Read all of it, CRITICALLy (and I see that you dislike this word ..), from its context. That is, the history, AND CULTURE. The words inscribed by our great leaders are SACRED to many of us. Whether they be Du Bois, Malcolm, King. Or, Cesar Chavez and Oscar Romero. These are sacred people to us and you do them a disservice by prooftexting and by your patent lack of comprehension ... that is what I call showing your white card.

[Toughy]

Unexamined white privilege..........shaking my head.........

Aside from the obvious (to any thinking human being) racism in all the AZ laws around immigration and ethnic education, let me just say this:

The AZ law bringing huge sanctions against employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers is flat out unconstitutional......period. full stop.

The AZ 'papers please' law is flat out unconstitutional.....period. full stop.

Immigration is the responsibility of the federal government. States have no authority or right to make immigration laws. If the states have issues with immigration enforcement and laws then they need to take it up with their federal representatives in Congress and with the President.

---------and one other thing..........to suggest that all ideas have equal worth is just ludicrous, no matter the time period the idea was hatched.

[Kobi]

The would be kind of amusing if it wasnt so sad.

So I have to be careful what I say and how I say it, I have to be careful what I call people people of color, how dare I have the audacity to quote a famous person of color .....more people reading the Japanese internment incorrectly.....let me make this clear....it was a freakin example on prevailing thought at a time of crisis.....it was a philosophical concept of was it right or was it wrong......and on what basis would a decision be made and by whom.....I did not agree or disagree or offer any freakin opinion on it....I stated a fact and asked a freakin question....

Sorry Medusa, this is freakin sad and again I know everyone thinks it is me. But this is freakin bizarre. A white person cant quote a person of color....omg this is just nuts. But I am supposed to sit here and weed thru the crap for insight.....thank god mom is coming for a visit tomorrow.

Wax:

Thank you for this. Prooftexting is a perfect phrase and I wish I had thought to invoke it here. In the same general area is the invocation of MLK, Jr. If one more white politician says "I marched with Dr. King" when the reality is that they were alive and walking circa 1962 and since King held marches in '62 they were walking at the same time as him therefore they marched with him, I'm going to scream. Any of you who have started a pool to see if there is anything that can make me loose my cool--put your money there, it's a sure winner. :)

Along the same lines, is quoting the "content of our character" line. I find it somewhere on the spectrum of infuriating to hilarious that people who couldn't quote anything else King ever uttered will repeat the character line time and time again as if over the course of his life the only words the man ever spoke were those. I'm reasonably certain--based upon what my parents have told me (King died when I was a year old so the one time I got to meet him, I don't remember)--that his first words were NOT "will be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin..." Yet, a lot of very conservative people treat that phrase sort of like Rev. Wright's "God damn America" in reverse. Reverend Wright preached for some 40 years and as far as the American media would have us believe every sermon he ever gave can be written as follows:

"The lesson this morning is taken from the book of Damn America. "And then the people did speak saying unto all, God damn America! Thus endeth the lesson.

Beloved, when I woke up this morning I said God damn America. When Jesus was on the cross, God damn America. If you are struggling today, not sure how you going to make a way out of no way, God damn America. Now will the congregation rise while we sing God damn America.

Singing: "God damn America. God damn America! God damn America! God damn America."

In the same way King's *entire* career has been reduced to:

"I have a dream...judged by the content of our character." Again, to take the media's spin on his life everywhere he went he said "I have a dream...judged by the content of our character."

People who would never even think to read something as short as Letter from Birmingham Jail think nothing of quoting those lines to burnish their "see, I was there with the civil rights marchers" cred.

Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

The would be kind of amusing if it wasnt so sad.

So I have to be careful what I say and how I say it, I have to be careful what I call people people of color, how dare I have the audacity to quote a famous person of color .....more people reading the Japanese internment incorrectly.....let me make this clear....it was a freakin example on prevailing thought at a time of crisis.....it was a philosophical concept of was it right or was it wrong......and on what basis would a decision be made and by whom.....I did not agree or disagree or offer any freakin opinion on it....I stated a fact and asked a freakin question....

Sorry Medusa, this is freakin sad and again I know everyone thinks it is me. But this is freakin bizarre. A white person cant quote a person of color....omg this is just nuts. But I am supposed to sit here and weed thru the crap for insight.....thank god mom is coming for a visit tomorrow.




Wow.

You really are clueless, I feel sorry for you at this point...

No matter how people explain it, no matter how much patience is used, you just don't see it..

[Corkey]

The would be kind of amusing if it wasnt so sad.

So I have to be careful what I say and how I say it, I have to be careful what I call people people of color, how dare I have the audacity to quote a famous person of color .....more people reading the Japanese internment incorrectly.....let me make this clear....it was a freakin example on prevailing thought at a time of crisis.....it was a philosophical concept of was it right or was it wrong......and on what basis would a decision be made and by whom.....I did not agree or disagree or offer any freakin opinion on it....I stated a fact and asked a freakin question....

Sorry Medusa, this is freakin sad and again I know everyone thinks it is me. But this is freakin bizarre. A white person cant quote a person of color....omg this is just nuts. But I am supposed to sit here and weed thru the crap for insight.....thank god mom is coming for a visit tomorrow.



Yes Kobi, you have to watch your words, for they have meaning. Bringing up history is one thing, using people who aren't white like you as an example is racist, it is privileged. You as a white person don't get to say to a Brown, Black, Asian or Native how they react to your words. We get to be offended, we get to say so, because we aren't going to be under the white empirical thumb anymore. We are Human Beings with human emotions and human thoughts.

[Kobi]

Using people of color as an example is racist when said by a white person? So the reverse would be when a person of color uses any white person as an example it is what?

Sorry, this has gone from bad to worse in my book.

Yes Kobi, you have to watch your words, for they have meaning. Bringing up history is one thing, using people who aren't white like you as an example is racist, it is privileged. You as a white person don't get to say to a Brown, Black, Asian or Native how they react to your words. We get to be offended, we get to say so, because we aren't going to be under the white empirical thumb anymore. We are Human Beings with human emotions and human thoughts.

[Corkey]

Using people of color as an example is racist when said by a white person? So the reverse would be when a person of color uses any white person as an example it is what?

Sorry, this has gone from bad to worse in my book.

Because you are coming from a position of privilege, that is why you are having a hard time with this discussion.

[Kobi]

This has gone from bad to worse. As a white person, my using the words of a person of color is racist?

Well, obviously ya'll are going to have to tell me what is ok for me as a white person to say, who I can quote, what I am supposed to read that gives me the real truth, cuz I am just baffled at this.

Seriously, send me a list of what is ok and what isnt cuz I just dont get this at all.

[Corkey]

You know Kobi, people have been trying to help you, but you just are too defensive to listen. Let me try this again, you as a white person, used a black mans words to make your white point of view valid. That is offensive, that is racist. You are too hung up on what you feel to even consider what others of color are saying to you, that is privileged. Maybe you should consider taking a course or two on race relations at one of the many Mass higher learning centers. You may be surprised if one of the white professors calls you out, it would be my hope that you'd listen.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Please contact the racist, successor Arizona governor and demand that she provide the data to substantiate her ignorant rhetoric in reference to her recent claim that all "illegal aliens" that come here are connected to criminal and drug activity, even calling them drug mules!! Stand up or shut up!!! Contact her at http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp - it only takes a few seconds to add your grain of salt to this fight against ignorance and division!!!!


http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp

[Kobi]

Sorry Corkey, I just dont buy into this because it is bizarre.

I could send you copies of papers I did in grad school on racism but I quote a lot of people of color so I know it would offend you for me to do so.

Personally, I think ya'll just want to shut the white person up by adding more and more absolutely outrageous demands on what is appropriate and inappropriate for me as a white person to say and do.



You know Kobi, people have been trying to help you, but you just are too defensive to listen. Let me try this again, you as a white person, used a black mans words to make your white point of view valid. That is offensive, that is racist. You are too hung up on what you feel to even consider what others of color are saying to you, that is privileged. Maybe you should consider taking a course or two on race relations at one of the many Mass higher learning centers. You may be surprised if one of the white professors calls you out, it would be my hope that you'd listen.

[dreadgeek]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]The would be kind of amusing if it wasnt so sad.

Very true, but not in the direction you necessarily think.


So I have to be careful what I say and how I say it, I have to be careful what I call people people of color,

Welcome to my world, Kobi. I have to be careful what I say and how I say it everywhere I go, every day of my life.

I have had to sit there and TAKE IT when a colleague at work asked me "were you raised by a white family". Why would they ask me that? Because of the way I speak. I sound educated and therefore I must have been raised by a white family. Now, of course, you're going to ask "why didn't I report that person to HR". I'll tell you why. Because the minute I do that, I'm a troublemaker, I'm whining, I'm trying to blame white people, I'm doing everything BUT making a report of a racist statement.

During hurricane Katrina I had to endure my co-workers making some of the most racist statements about "those people" who were "living like animals". I can't get angry, Kobi. I simply do not get to do that. Oh, at home I can but, just for instance, I have a buddy at work we call Ogre who will get frustrated and pound his fist on his desk. If I did that I would be an 'angry black woman' he does it and he's this big, overgrown frat boy with a heart of gold.
So, again, Kobi welcome to my world--except that here, if you say something impolitic nothing happens to your paycheque. If I say something impolitic I can forget the concept of raises or promotions because once 'angry black woman' is established, there's no getting out from under that label.


how dare I have the audacity to quote a famous person of color

I'm curious, Kobi, have you read any Malcolm X OTHER than what you quoted here? Have you ever read DuBois in depth? The problem isn't you quoting a person of color, Kobi, the problem is you quoting a person of color in an attempt to try to tell other people of color how we should live in America. I said it before and I'll repeat it now--every single person of color participating in this discussion has forgotten more about what it is like to be a person of color in America then you will ever realize there is to know.


.....more people reading the Japanese internment incorrectly.....let me make this clear....it was a freakin example on prevailing thought at a time of crisis.....it was a philosophical concept of was it right or was it wrong......and on what basis would a decision be made and by whom.....I did not agree or disagree or offer any freakin opinion on it....I stated a fact and asked a freakin question....

Don't you see that your inability to condemn something that was so manifestly wrong that the US Government (not known for being the first in line to say mea culpa) apologized is deeply problematic? It makes me--and perhaps others--wonder what you WOULD condemn. You have said, on a number of occasions, that it would be wrong to judge the prevailing ideas of, say, early 20th century America by early 21st century standards. You have said, in making this argument, that it is impossible to say if the pervasive racism that early 20th century blacks had to endure was wrong, or unjust or evil. You have even said that we cannot even say that the idea that blacks were inherently inferior was wrong because we don't know by whose standard to judge. I'm sorry Kobi, but I find that absolutely shocking. I have had a lot of conversations about race and I have to say that this is the only time I have had a conversation with someone who claims to not be a racist, who was not willing and able to say that the lynchings, the beatings, the daily humiliations, the fear, the terrorizing, the unequal treatment, the segregation, the exclusion were wrong, unjustified and a moral blemish on this nation. The only one. In, perhaps, three *decades* of talking to white people about race. Every other person who was unwilling to say so was a racist and wasn't going to condemn it. The truly astonishing thing to me is that you don't see that as at all problematic. You see this refusal to take a stand as somehow admirable or noble. I don't know what metric you are using but it is not one I would want to use.


Sorry Medusa, this is freakin sad and again I know everyone thinks it is me. But this is freakin bizarre. A white person cant quote a person of color....omg this is just nuts. But I am supposed to sit here and weed thru the crap for insight.....thank god mom is coming for a visit tomorrow.

No, Kobi, no one is saying a white person can't quote a person of color. You are, of course, free to interpret it that way but that's not what people are saying. It's not that you quoted a black man, it's that you deployed that quotation as some means of lecturing people of color about what it is like to be people of color as if you knew something about the subject we don't.
You invoked Malcolm X in a ham-handed fashion and you got called out on it.
You were trying to put me 'in my place' and tell me how I should think about being black in America. You did so by invoking black men because they are, as you put it, 'my leaders'. It is not quoting black men it is the way you went about deploying this as a means of putting a black woman in her place.

It backfired, of course, because this image that people have about black women is not even remotely related to my life. You've learned that now.

Aj

[dreadgeek]

Sorry Corkey, I just dont buy into this because it is bizarre.

I could send you copies of papers I did in grad school on racism but I quote a lot of people of color so I know it would offend you for me to do so.

Personally, I think ya'll just want to shut the white person up by adding more and more absolutely outrageous demands on what is appropriate and inappropriate for me as a white person to say and do.



I, for one, would be fascinated to see this paper because I'm curious what you have to say about racism. Some of us have bent over *backward* in this conversation, Kobi, you just don't see it.

[Corkey]

I would very much appreciate proof of your recent announcement that all undocumented immigrants are mules for the drug cartels. I would also like to understand why you are targeting a portion of US citizens in your attempt at immigration reform, which as I read the Constitution correctly, and I do is the purview of the United States Congress and not a States right.
Thank you for your time.
A Citizen of the United States of America

My letter to the Governor of AZ

[Corkey]

Sorry Corkey, I just dont buy into this because it is bizarre.

I could send you copies of papers I did in grad school on racism but I quote a lot of people of color so I know it would offend you for me to do so.

Personally, I think ya'll just want to shut the white person up by adding more and more absolutely outrageous demands on what is appropriate and inappropriate for me as a white person to say and do.



Is it bizarre because someone is not agreeing with your positions, or bizarre because you think it's ok to use a different cultures history to your advantage? If you used some critical thinking to your own view point and not use say Malcolm's words to your advantage I might have agreed with your view point, I however can't because that is not what you said.

I would hope that using your own words to state your opinion would be sufficient. Now as far as what you as a white person can say, almost anything, the almost part is the racist stuff you have currently used.

[Dylan]

Sorry Corkey, I just dont buy into this because it is bizarre.

I could send you copies of papers I did in grad school on racism but I quote a lot of people of color so I know it would offend you for me to do so.

Personally, I think ya'll just want to shut the white person up by adding more and more absolutely outrageous demands on what is appropriate and inappropriate for me as a white person to say and do.



I find it bizarre that you wrote a paper on racism and managed to completely overlook how white privilege contributes to racism...especially in dialogues.


But Then, I'm Assuming You Have A Lot Of POC Friends Too,
Dylan

You might want to check out the Racism thread

[Toughy]

Sorry Corkey, I just dont buy into this because it is bizarre.

I could send you copies of papers I did in grad school on racism but I quote a lot of people of color so I know it would offend you for me to do so.

Personally, I think ya'll just want to shut the white person up by adding more and more absolutely outrageous demands on what is appropriate and inappropriate for me as a white person to say and do.



This is one of the best examples of unexamined white privilege and racism I have read on b/f websites.

[Liam]

When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows.



.....more people reading the Japanese internment incorrectly.....let me make this clear....it was a freakin example on prevailing thought at a time of crisis.....it was a philosophical concept of was it right or was it wrong......and on what basis would a decision be made and by whom.....I did not agree or disagree or offer any freakin opinion on it....I stated a fact and asked a freakin question....



I believe that I read what you wrote correctly, Kobi. I am disappointed to see that your second post regarding the relocation and internment of citizens of the United States, of Japanese descent, was written incorrectly a second time. They were NOT Japanese, they were citizens of this country, and their constitutional rights were violated. It was wrong, just in case you are unsure, wrong on so many levels, and definitely not a good idea. Heart Mountain was built in Wyoming in order to provide labour for the sugar beet harvest, and that is not my opinion, but a fact.

[SuperFemme]

I believe that I read what you wrote correctly, Kobi. I am disappointed to see that your second post regarding the relocation and internment of citizens of the United States, of Japanese descent, was written incorrectly a second time. They were NOT Japanese, they were citizens of this country, and their constitutional rights were violated. It was wrong, just in case you are unsure, wrong on so many levels, and definitely not a good idea. Heart Mountain was built in Wyoming in order to provide labour for the sugar beet harvest, and that is not my opinion, but a fact.

I just perused the site for Heart Mountain. I am going to post a picture here, and give you the opinion that it was most definitely NOT a good idea at the time.

http://www.heartmountain.us/images/JapsMoving.jpg

I don't think you can get any more overtly racist than this.

[AtLast]

When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows.





Full historical facts about the internment.... other racial and ethnic groups such as Italian Americans were relocated. At that time in US history, Italians had not been racialized and were viewed as non-white.
Many were from the SF Bay Area, including relatives and family friends of mine. ALL WERE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY!

The Enemy Alien Acts as well as Chinese Exclusionary Laws in the US are birds of a feather... along with post-Civil War Jim Crowe legislation were quite racist! There are other examples of these kinds of legislation in our history that are eerily like the AZ law. Shall we go over the Native American experience? Or is that perspective as lost as their forgotten and unmarked graves behind almost every single California Mission as it is left out of CA history books for students? Gee, it seems Texas has this idea in mind....

Why do you think that Holocaust survivors as well as decedents of Black Slavery cry- We must never forget!??? I would settle for more factual historical research and understanding….

[Kobi]

dread,

We were having a discussion about the development of ethics and of philosophy. You used race as an example. I kept the discussion to a level of the development of ethics and philosophy using the example you set forth. I did not offer any judgements, nor will I. It is not for me to judge what was appropriate or not appropriate in a different era with different prevailing truths when discussing the development of ethics and philosophy. It was not a discussion about race. Forgive me if sticking to the topic was offensive. It was perhaps, your interpretation of why I didnt say something as opposed to why I didnt.

You dont know me dread or my life or who my friends and lovers have been. I can tell you I am and have been involved with people of color and no one has ever spoken to me the way people here feel they can. Never. Ever.












Very true, but not in the direction you necessarily think.



Welcome to my world, Kobi. I have to be careful what I say and how I say it everywhere I go, every day of my life.

I have had to sit there and TAKE IT when a colleague at work asked me "were you raised by a white family". Why would they ask me that? Because of the way I speak. I sound educated and therefore I must have been raised by a white family. Now, of course, you're going to ask "why didn't I report that person to HR". I'll tell you why. Because the minute I do that, I'm a troublemaker, I'm whining, I'm trying to blame white people, I'm doing everything BUT making a report of a racist statement.

During hurricane Katrina I had to endure my co-workers making some of the most racist statements about "those people" who were "living like animals". I can't get angry, Kobi. I simply do not get to do that. Oh, at home I can but, just for instance, I have a buddy at work we call Ogre who will get frustrated and pound his fist on his desk. If I did that I would be an 'angry black woman' he does it and he's this big, overgrown frat boy with a heart of gold.
So, again, Kobi welcome to my world--except that here, if you say something impolitic nothing happens to your paycheque. If I say something impolitic I can forget the concept of raises or promotions because once 'angry black woman' is established, there's no getting out from under that label.



I'm curious, Kobi, have you read any Malcolm X OTHER than what you quoted here? Have you ever read DuBois in depth? The problem isn't you quoting a person of color, Kobi, the problem is you quoting a person of color in an attempt to try to tell other people of color how we should live in America. I said it before and I'll repeat it now--every single person of color participating in this discussion has forgotten more about what it is like to be a person of color in America then you will ever realize there is to know.



Don't you see that your inability to condemn something that was so manifestly wrong that the US Government (not known for being the first in line to say mea culpa) apologized is deeply problematic? It makes me--and perhaps others--wonder what you WOULD condemn. You have said, on a number of occasions, that it would be wrong to judge the prevailing ideas of, say, early 20th century America by early 21st century standards. You have said, in making this argument, that it is impossible to say if the pervasive racism that early 20th century blacks had to endure was wrong, or unjust or evil. You have even said that we cannot even say that the idea that blacks were inherently inferior was wrong because we don't know by whose standard to judge. I'm sorry Kobi, but I find that absolutely shocking. I have had a lot of conversations about race and I have to say that this is the only time I have had a conversation with someone who claims to not be a racist, who was not willing and able to say that the lynchings, the beatings, the daily humiliations, the fear, the terrorizing, the unequal treatment, the segregation, the exclusion were wrong, unjustified and a moral blemish on this nation. The only one. In, perhaps, three *decades* of talking to white people about race. Every other person who was unwilling to say so was a racist and wasn't going to condemn it. The truly astonishing thing to me is that you don't see that as at all problematic. You see this refusal to take a stand as somehow admirable or noble. I don't know what metric you are using but it is not one I would want to use.



No, Kobi, no one is saying a white person can't quote a person of color. You are, of course, free to interpret it that way but that's not what people are saying. It's not that you quoted a black man, it's that you deployed that quotation as some means of lecturing people of color about what it is like to be people of color as if you knew something about the subject we don't.
You invoked Malcolm X in a ham-handed fashion and you got called out on it.
You were trying to put me 'in my place' and tell me how I should think about being black in America. You did so by invoking black men because they are, as you put it, 'my leaders'. It is not quoting black men it is the way you went about deploying this as a means of putting a black woman in her place.

It backfired, of course, because this image that people have about black women is not even remotely related to my life. You've learned that now.

Aj

[Corkey]

And there it is, the privilege yet again, and you don't even know you are doing it. Saying you have lovers, friends, who are POC to try to deflect. Kobi, open your eyes, Please. I have a daughter who is black, and Puerto Rican, does that mean I know her struggles, NO.

[Dylan]

Kobi,

Really

You really should just step back

Each post is more offensive than the last

You've finally landed on the, "I have POC friends/partners" trope


Dylan...selectively on ignore

[SuperFemme]

With the downturn in the economy and Americans struggling to find work, my allegiance is with the people who belong here, not with those who deliberately circumvented the laws because they wanted to do so. That type of selfish, self serving behavior is insulting.

One can only wonder what these people might be able to achieve if they put their energy to work in changing the conditions in their own countries rather than invading others.




I am quoting your post from way back there to maybe have a conversation with you about Undocumented Workers being selfish and self serving.

About the idea that they should stay put and pull themselves up by the boot straps in their own countries.

So I say to you: My grandpa came here to work a ranch in order to send money home to feed his family. The level of poverty in his country is something I doubt you have seen. No plumbing, electricity, jobs, or food. Living scared of the government.

One human being wanting to keep their family alive is not selfish. It's certainly not self serving. Coming here and doing jobs that truly, nobody else wants to do and living in conditions that you or I would never live in all to support their families at home.

They risk their life and limb to come here, usually assisted by Coyotes who are American and who have no problem taking large amounts of cash and leaving bodies in their wake.

Once here they work so hard. From sun up to sun down in triple digit weather with no breaks for less than minimum wage. Taxes taken out never to be filed for or returned.

They use American Services such as Western Union and American Express Moneygram and pay them money to send money home. They pay crazy prices for calling cards to maybe if they are lucky make a call. They buy food, and other things that require they pay sales tax. For the most part these are a good people who only want to keep their family alive.

Not every country is like America. You can't really pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you live in most South American Countries.

I won't even go into places like the Congo, Nigeria, Rhwanda....

So it is hard for me to make villains out of good people with no options who only want to feed their families. These are not greedy or selfish people. They are human beings. Who want the simplest things.

There is not even really a process in place to get here legally, other that the lottery system they have going on now. Meanwhile, families are dying and living in abject poverty. So their brain stem fires up and fight or flight mechanisms take over. Survival is one of the most basic human conditions.

Dollar bills are never more important than human lives, are they?

[The_Lady_Snow]

dread,

We were having a discussion about the development of ethics and of philosophy. You used race as an example. I kept the discussion to a level of the development of ethics and philosophy using the example you set forth. I did not offer any judgements, nor will I. It is not for me to judge what was appropriate or not appropriate in a different era with different prevailing truths when discussing the development of ethics and philosophy. It was not a discussion about race. Forgive me if sticking to the topic was offensive. It was perhaps, your interpretation of why I didnt say something as opposed to why I didnt.

You dont know me dread or my life or who my friends and lovers have been. I can tell you I am and have been involved with people of color and no one has ever spoken to me the way people here feel they can. Never. Ever.













I think if any of my lovers spoke of me this way... I would have to punch them in the throat....

How belittling is this.....

"I am and have been involved with people of color"

Goody goody gum drops for you to speak of our experience because of who you fuck and share coffee with!!

Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

Damn, you just don't know when to stop do ya?

[dreadgeek]

dread,

We were having a discussion about the development of ethics and of philosophy. You used race as an example. I kept the discussion to a level of the development of ethics and philosophy using the example you set forth. I did not offer any judgements, nor will I. It is not for me to judge what was appropriate or not appropriate in a different era with different prevailing truths when discussing the development of ethics and philosophy. It was not a discussion about race. Forgive me if sticking to the topic was offensive. It was perhaps, your interpretation of why I didnt say something as opposed to why I didnt.

You dont know me dread or my life or who my friends and lovers have been. I can tell you I am and have been involved with people of color and no one has ever spoken to me the way people here feel they can. Never. Ever.




No, Kobi, I don't know you. You don't know me. Well, it may not be for you to judge, Kobi, but *I* will judge what happened in a different era. My grandparents were born, lived and died as human beings--while the prevailing ethics of the era was that they weren't really human beings or if they were they were inferior sorts of same, I say that was wrong. I understand, to you maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But to me--my grandparents, my parents, my sibling, myself, my son and my granddaughter were all born human beings in every sense of that word. That is not negotiable, Kobi--not now. Not 100 years ago and not 100 years hence.

I'm glad, Kobi, that you have never had anyone speak to you the way you have been spoken to here. I would love to say the same but I can't. I have had white people tell me what I needed to do in order to deal with racism--and their sentences sounded very much like yours. I have had white people insist that 'you're really smart for a black girl' isn't a racist statement. The one thing you have done that has surprised me is your inability to condemn racism because you are unclear about whether or not the people who were harmed by racism were--I don't know what--human enough by the standards of the day to BE harmed by it. I have to say I've never had anyone take that stance. Other than that, nothing in this dialog has really been surprising or shocking to me. You see people do feel that they can speak to me the way you did earlier, Kobi. People do feel that they can dismiss racism--past and present--and that blacks just need to 'get over it' and 'stop blaming white people'. Now, I understand that you cannot and will not condemn even that because who is to say that 'you're really smart for a black girl' is wrong or insulting? Perhaps I'm just being sensitive. Perhaps the question "you speak so well, was one of your parents white" is also not a racist statement. Who is to say? I understand that you can't condemn that either.

I don't care who you have dated, Kobi. If I said that I am married to a white woman now, would that mean you would take me seriously then? Would it change a damn thing to know that? What you think telling me that you have deigned to associate with non-whites does to bolster your credibility in this discussion is beyond my comprehension. I didn't say you wouldn't date a (nominally human, at least in the present but not in the past) woman of color. It makes absolutely no difference in this discussion. I'm curious how negotiable the people of color in your life feel their humanity is.

I do want to thank you, though, for one thing you have done today. You have illustrated, *precisely* why I am passionate about freeing liberalism from this meme that has possessed it most of my adult life. I understand that to you, not condemning slavery, Jim Crow, segregation or even lynching is noble and admirable because you will not judge people of the past by the standards of today. The problem is, of course, that means that these things are up for grabs and not settled issues. All it would take is for the prevailing winds to change and there is no reason, at least none you have articulated, to believe that you would consider a return to segregation unjust. If, however, there is a bedrock ethic--that certain things should not be done to human beings and whenever they have happened an injustice has been done--then it does not matter what the prevailing winds do.

I believe that the ideas you express, while well intentioned, harm the cause of equality because it allows too much hedging. I believe that as a queer rights movement we have been fighting a battle with one-hand tied behind our backs precisely because this unwillingness, on our part, to truly condemn the prejudice and bigotry thrown our direction as moral and social evils which must stop. We have avoided doing so because not only did we not want to condemn bigotry in the past, we didn't want to condemn bigotry in the present! So this has given me an opportunity to see how this philosophy plays out in real-time. Largely, the conclusions I had reached about the ideas you have expressed about non-judgement, were hypothetical. I saw glimmers of it from time to time but this is the first time I have ever seen it play out so clearly and in unadulterated form. So I thank you for that. I wish that my hypothesis--that this inability to make reasoned judgements from first principals ineluctably would lead to an inability to condemn or even fight effectively against bigotry and injustice--had been proven incorrect. Unfortunately, you have proven it beyond what I would have thought possible a year ago.

Aj

[firie]

There are laws in this country about immigration for a reason. To decide arbitrarily that one will circumvent those laws because it suits one does not make it acceptable. Just as it would not be acceptable to say murder is ok. You cannot pick and choose which laws you adhere to.

Kobi,

With all due respect, I have to note that I am befuddled by this line of reasoning, and because it is so often used in arguments about immigration. There was a conversation about this in this thread pages below, and so I must say what I said to that poster (was it you? I apologize if it was and so am therefore repeating myself to you again) was this:

Some laws are stupid. Some laws are quite racist. Some laws are quite oppressive (down right evil, really), and so therefore are absolutely meant to be challenged and broken.

And with all due respect, some of us very much do pick and choose the laws we adhere to, and even further, sometimes, even our own lawmakers and law "enforcers," if you will, pay no mind to them either.

I am not going to argue what others have said very well already, and really have a feeling, you could care quite less what I have to say on the matter of immigration and racism anyway.

But I just can't, in my anally neurotic way, see any logic to the above, and even more so when it's used to defend oppressing one's human rights. And lastly, I happen to actually quite love the fact that those who come here, to the US, from where ever, come here, because they make the country more interesting, and well, a little bit more enjoyable, in the beauty of neat and diverse people that it is. I will pay taxes gleefully (hell, if I had ten billion I would pay that up front for completely open borders free from harassment and overzealous INS agents toting egos and guns) for the serenity and peace of people passing peacefully to and fro from nation to nation, because I don't want any one to suffer, I like a global party, and think there is enough here on the planet to easily go around, if rationed a little less selfishly.

The "we must follow the law" argument just doesn't fly in any way to me; however, because we break/ignore laws all the goddamn time:


In Ohio the following laws exist:

if you ignore an orator on Decoration Day to such an extent as to publicly play croquet or pitch horseshoes within one mile of the speakers stand, you can be fined $25.

it is illegal to get a fish drunk.

it is illegal to hunt for whales on Sunday. (Surely it's illegal to hunt whales full stop?)

In Alaska, the following laws apply to moose:

a moose may not be viewed from an aeroplane.

it is illegal to give alcoholic beverages to a moose.

it is an offence to push a live moose out of a moving aeroplane.

In Texas the following laws apply:

it is illegal to take more than three sips of beer whilst standing.

the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica is also banned, as it contains a formula for making beer at home.

a new anti crime law has been introduced, requiring criminals to give their intended victims 24 hour notice, either orally or in writing to explain the nature of the crime.

In Pennsylvania the following laws apply:

Because of the farmers Anti-automobile society, these are some of the rules of the road:

Automobiles travelling on country roads at night must send up an rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear.

If a driver sees a team of horses, they are to pull to the side of the road, and cover their machine with a blanket or dust cover that has been painted to blend into the scenery.

In the event that a horse refuses to pass a car on the road, the owner of the car must take their car apart and conceal the parts in nearby foliage.

In Alabama it is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.

In Jasper, Alabama, it is illegal for a husband to beat his wife with a stick larger in diameter than his thumb.

In Arizone it is illegal for donkeys to sleep in bathtubs.

Also from Arizona, if a person is caught stealing soap, they must wash themselves until it is all used up.

In California, it is illegal to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

In L.A., it is an offence to lick a toad. Apparently, this is because people were getting high off them! (How!??)

In New England, fire engines are not allowed to exceed 25mph - strangely, this includes the journey to the fire!

In Devon (yes there is a place called Devon in the US), it is illegal to walk backwards after sunset.

In Hartford, it is considered an offense to cross the road on your hands.

In Cleveland it is illegal to drive whilst sitting on another persons lap.

In New Jersey you can be arrested for slurping soup in public.

Zoin city, Illinois, has a law that states that you cannot make faces at anyone.

A Kentucky law states that burglary can only be committed at night.

Fishing from the back of any animal is illegal in Idaho.

In Sheridan, Wyoming, a policeman can bite a barking dog, in order to quiet him.

Citizens in New York may not greet each other by putting ones thumb to the nose and wriggling the fingers.

When you pass a cow in Pine Island, Minnesota it is illegal not to tip your hat.

Georgia has a law prohibiting people from saying ‘oh boy’ in public.

In Atlanta its illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or lamppost.

In Hawaii it is illegal to insert pennies into your ear.

It is illegal in Idaho for a man to give his sweetheart a box of chocolates that weighs less than 50 pounds.

Women in Joliet, Illinois, can be arrested for trying on more than six dresses in one store.

In Chicago it is illegal to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

In Winnetka, Illinois, theatre managers can kick out any patron who has ‘odorous feet’.

In Lawrence, Kansas, it is forbidden for anyone to carry bees in their hat, whilst on the city streets.

In McLough, Kansas, it is against the law to wash your false teeth in a public drinking fountain.

In Natoma, Kansas, it is illegal to practise knife throwing at men wearing striped suits.

In Lexington, Kentucky, it is against the law to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket.

In Owensboro, Kentucky, it is illegal for a woman to buy a new hat without her husband trying it on first.

In Canton, Mississippi, it is illegal to kill a squirrel with a gun whilst in a courtroom.

Any city in Missouri can levy a tax to support a band, as long as the mayor plays piccolo and each band member can eat peas with a knife.

In Greene, New York, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards down a street, whilst a concert is on.

In North Carolina it is illegal to use elephants to plough cotton fields.

It’s illegal in Oklahoma to get a fish drunk.

In Seattle, goldfish can ride the city buses in bowls, but only if they keep still.

It is illegal in Maine to step out of a plane, whilst it is in flight.

In Florida, you can be fined to fall asleep under a hair dryer, and so can the salon owner.

Also in Florida, if an elephant is left tied to an parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid, just as it would be for a vehicle.

Again in Florida, it is illegal to have sexual relations with a porcupine.

In New York, you need a license to use a clothesline outdoors.

In Minnesota, you may not cross state lines with a duck on top of your head.

In Carmel, New York, it is illegal for a man to go outside if his jacket and trousers do not match.

In Baltimore, it is illegal to throw bales of hay out of a second storey window, within the city limits.

Also in Baltimore, it is illegal to take a lion to the movies.

The state of Washington has passed a law stating that it is illegal to paint polka dots on the American flag.

In Conneticut, for a pickle to be officially be considered a pickle, it must bounce.

In Bexley, Ohio, it is prohibited to install or use slot machines in outhouses.

In Harthahorne city, Oklahoma, it is unlawful to put any hypnotised person I an display window.

In Clawson, Michigan, there is a law that makes it LEGAL for a farmer to sleep with his animals.

In Gary, Indiana, persons are prohibited from attending a movie theatre or riding an street car within four hours of eating garlic.

In California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500ft of a pub, school or place of worship.

In Kentucky, no female is allowed to appear in a bathing suit on a highway unless she is escorted by at least two police officers, or armed with a club.

In Russel, Kansas, it is against the law to have an musical car horn.

It is illegal to hum in public on Sundays in Cicero, Illinois.

In Clinton county, Ohio, there is a fine for anyone caught leaning against an public building.

In Kenosha , Wisconsin it is illegal to have an erection in public. Even if you have clothes on.

In Kansas it is illegal to swim with a polka dotted bathing suit before 12:00 noon.

[Corkey]

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for your message and for taking the time to contact the Arizona Governor's Office.

We appreciate you sharing your thoughts and your comments will be passed on to Governor Brewer.

If you require assistance, someone from the Governor's Office will respond to you as soon as possible.

NOTICE:
This is an auto-reply to the email you have submitted to the Arizona Governor’s Office.
Please DO NOT respond to this email. This is an automated message only and any replies to this email are not processed.

Thank you,
Governor's Office of Constituent Services
1700 W Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-542-1318
602-542-1381 (fax)
www.azgovernor.gov

[Toughy]

Kobi,

What you seem to equate with ethics and philosophy.......hedging your bets and maybe it's right and maybe it's wrong..........actually has nothing to do with what I know about ethics and philosophy.

I have been on a couple of Institutional Review Boards (Ethics Review Board).....actually I was Chair of one. An IRB is set up to protect the welfare and rights of persons who volunteer for clinical trials and medical research. Incidentally, IRBs are the direct result of the 40 year Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments that ended in 1972. If you don't know about it.............try that google thang.....It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

We made judgments about every trial. We decided what was right or wrong. We approved or disapproved recruitment, retention, monitoring, design, and implementation of clinical trials. If we decided it was not ethical, then it had to be changed or that trial would not be conducted at our institution.

That IS what ethics are about. Making judgments about what is good for the individual and good for the community.

I am appalled that you will not condemn the fucked up racist shit that has happened and continues to happen in this country. As Aj pointed out........if you will not condemn racism, then I know I cannot count on you to condemn bigotry against the queer community. I cannot count on you to stand up and demand we queer folk be treated equally under the law.

[MsDemeanor]

Sorry Corkey, I just dont buy into this because it is bizarre.

I could send you copies of papers I did in grad school on racism but I quote a lot of people of color so I know it would offend you for me to do so.

Personally, I think ya'll just want to shut the white person up by adding more and more absolutely outrageous demands on what is appropriate and inappropriate for me as a white person to say and do.


It's not bizarre, it's just you. I didn't do papers on racism in grad school or any other school, and I don't have a sufficient background or education in race history in this country, and I haven't done a whole lot of self-examination and bag unpacking on issues of race, and I have lived and continue to live my life of white privilege. Yet, even I'm able to read and listen to what folks here and elsewhere are saying, and pay attention, and learn, and understand a little bit better, and respect the viewpoints of people who have lived what you and I can only read about. Nothing here is about shutting up the white person, it's about one white person who's too stubborn to listen.

As for what's appropriate and not appropriate - listening and trying to learn something is appropriate. Educating POC about their lives is not.

[AtLast]

I am quoting your post from way back there to maybe have a conversation with you about Undocumented Workers being selfish and self serving.

About the idea that they should stay put and pull themselves up by the boot straps in their own countries.

So I say to you: My grandpa came here to work a ranch in order to send money home to feed his family. The level of poverty in his country is something I doubt you have seen. No plumbing, electricity, jobs, or food. Living scared of the government.

One human being wanting to keep their family alive is not selfish. It's certainly not self serving. Coming here and doing jobs that truly, nobody else wants to do and living in conditions that you or I would never live in all to support their families at home.

They risk their life and limb to come here, usually assisted by Coyotes who are American and who have no problem taking large amounts of cash and leaving bodies in their wake.

Once here they work so hard. From sun up to sun down in triple digit weather with no breaks for less than minimum wage. Taxes taken out never to be filed for or returned.

They use American Services such as Western Union and American Express Moneygram and pay them money to send money home. They pay crazy prices for calling cards to maybe if they are lucky make a call. They buy food, and other things that require they pay sales tax. For the most part these are a good people who only want to keep their family alive.

Not every country is like America. You can't really pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you live in most South American Countries.

I won't even go into places like the Congo, Nigeria, Rhwanda....

So it is hard for me to make villains out of good people with no options who only want to feed their families. These are not greedy or selfish people. They are human beings. Who want the simplest things.

There is not even really a process in place to get here legally, other that the lottery system they have going on now. Meanwhile, families are dying and living in abject poverty. So their brain stem fires up and fight or flight mechanisms take over. Survival is one of the most basic human conditions.

Dollar bills are never more important than human lives, are they?

No, they are not! And I am totally OK with services from my taxes going to any and all immigrant populations- legal or illegal. My family history is in many aspects like your just a different era of time and different country of origin. Frankly, I have no idea how some of these people survive what they have lived. If my tax dollars can give someone some kind of chance to get education, job skills, health care, whatever needed to bring themselves out of poverty, political persecution and abuse beyond belief, good! I don't care if they are citizens or not.

It is about human beings, a world population and building a world that knows the meaning of grace as a human being. Yeah, looks like a bunch of knee-jerk liberal babble..... but, I don't care. If some people in my background didn't have the guts and determination to find a better place for their family to live and work, I would not be here as I am. So, I can give back something to their memory and deeds in hopes that other immigrant (no matter their legal status) groups prosper.

Amnesty is destiny! And the only sane thing to do as the FIRST step in immigration reform. I am sick and tired of hearing Reagan's amnesty didn't work. It sure as hell did in getting people here off of welfare, being educated and contributing to society! These are the parents of an educated and employed generation of Latinos here today! Seems to me these kids turned out to be good US citizens.

Make it easier to get visas and needed documents. For fuck sakes, the criminals are not the ones in lines trying to get proper documentation! They don't abide by laws anyway. They are not concerned about feeding their kids and spending time at back breaking jobs!! Do people honestly think that terrorists will be stopped getting into the US with a more secure border. Give me a break!

[MsDemeanor]

Besides the obvious issue of everything AZ is doing recently being racist, there's another issue that I don't recall being discussed yet here (correct me if I'm wrong, there's a lot in life that I don't recall).

In the news that I've seen, the primary argument in favor of this law seems to be centered around the drug trade, that the intention of the law is to stop the crime associated with that trade.

So, please explain to me, how does a cop asking someone in Flagstaff for their papers stop the flow of drugs and guns back and forth across the border?

When is someone in this country - politician, activist, anyone? - going to bother to point out that the US brought this on itself. We use more illegal drugs than any other nation, and we have lax gun laws and a ton of gun dealers near the southern border. The entrepreneurial spirit of "find a need and fill it" is held up as a god in this country. Well gee, a bunch of folks found that us Americans really like our drugs, so they're filling the need. Can't blame them for that any more than we can blame someone who risks their life to get in to this country because they can make more money here working for the poultry processors in the south who want to hire undocumented workers that they can pay less (sorry, that sentence got away from me). This country created the need, and people from other countries are filling that need. God Bless America, right?

[TheBellyBionic]

Kobi,

What you seem to equate with ethics and philosophy.......hedging your bets and maybe it's right and maybe it's wrong..........actually has nothing to do with what I know about ethics and philosophy.
<snipped for brevity, I hope you don't mind, Toughy>
I am appalled that you will not condemn the fucked up racist shit that has happened and continues to happen in this country. As Aj pointed out........if you will not condemn racism, then I know I cannot count on you to condemn bigotry against the queer community. I cannot count on you to stand up and demand we queer folk be treated equally under the law.

This, exactly. Refusing to condemn actions which are clearly wrong in every way denotes nothing so much as a complete *lack* of any kind of ethics. I feel that I have a very strong sense of ethics, and those ethics mean that I absolutely will stand up and say "No, there is definitely a difference between right and wrong. Slavery was wrong. Jim Crow laws were wrong. Apartheid is wrong. There is nothing redeeming or debatable about any of these things. They're just wrong. Always, in any era, at any time, always wrong." Kobi, you say "who am I to judge?" I don't. I, as a person with ethics, am an excellent judge of right and wrong. I, a person with ethics, am absolutely *obligated* to judge right from wrong. I find it incredibly disturbing that anyone could claim otherwise. I'm horrified that anyone could actually say that they can't judge the actions of the past. If you can't judge the past, then why should any of us trust you to make good decisions in the future? If you can't say whether or not slavery was wrong, why should any of us think that you'd stand against it happening again?

[apretty]

This country created the need, and people from other countries are filling that need. God Bless America, right?

sounds like the success of NAFTA, to me.

[firie]

Besides the obvious issue of everything AZ is doing recently being racist, there's another issue that I don't recall being discussed yet here (correct me if I'm wrong, there's a lot in life that I don't recall).

In the news that I've seen, the primary argument in favor of this law seems to be centered around the drug trade, that the intention of the law is to stop the crime associated with that trade.

So, please explain to me, how does a cop asking someone in Flagstaff for their papers stop the flow of drugs and guns back and forth across the border?

When is someone in this country - politician, activist, anyone? - going to bother to point out that the US brought this on itself. We use more illegal drugs than any other nation, and we have lax gun laws and a ton of gun dealers near the southern border. The entrepreneurial spirit of "find a need and fill it" is held up as a god in this country. Well gee, a bunch of folks found that us Americans really like our drugs, so they're filling the need. Can't blame them for that any more than we can blame someone who risks their life to get in to this country because they can make more money here working for the poultry processors in the south who want to hire undocumented workers that they can pay less (sorry, that sentence got away from me). This country created the need, and people from other countries are filling that need. God Bless America, right?

Not to mention that we (read corporate and government interests) like to keep that little fire fueled and so propel that activity quite a bit because that need is indeed quite the money maker for the US too. I can provide more information if this isn't an obvious thing to folks, but here is an interesting article on US bank involvement: link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/29/BU2L1E6LV2.DTL).

Also, ETA: Talk about people following the law! Way to go banks for picking and choosing what laws not to follow!

[SuperFemme]

Actually they were able to bring this law to the forefront when a rancher in Southern AZ was supposedly killed by immigrant criminals doing drug trade on his land.

What they DIDN'T tell the public is that they were wrong. The people who killed this rancher were not immigrants, and in fact they shifted the focus of their investigation to somebody in northern AZ. Without, of course, telling the general public. In fact, they are still touting this story of immigrant drug smuggling killers being responsible. LIES.

Here is a link to what is one of many many articles that use this murder as a rallying cry for the new immigration law:

http://www.mashget.com/2010/03/30/illegal-immigrant-suspected-in-murder-of-arizona-rancher/

Here is a link to a law enforcement source saying that the suspect is in America and that the nationality of the alleged murderer is not known.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_35ef6e3a-5632-5e58-abe7-e7697ee2f0d5.html

guess which story was harder to find?

are we all so gullible as to think that all Mexican nationals are drug smugglers and/or drug mules? really? is it perhaps possible that people are fleeing Mexico because of the violence?

border patrol agents are sometimes the ones involved in drug trafficking themselves. nobody talks about that though.

[Toughy]

I think we also need to remember there are some good cops in AZ.............the Sheriff of Pima County (Tuscon). He is a shining light in all this.

[SuperFemme]

I think we also need to remember there are some good cops in AZ.............the Sheriff of Pima County (Tuscon). He is a shining light in all this.

agreed. that one sheriff is such a nightmare that he overshadows all the good guys who do not want to have their officers involved in this crap.

[apretty]

I think we also need to remember there are some good cops in AZ.............the Sheriff of Pima County (Tuscon). He is a shining light in all this.


the city of phoenix (the capital) is also against enforcing these new 'laws' as well.

[AtLast]

sounds like the success of NAFTA, to me.

So true..............!

[SuperFemme]

Lawmakers in 28 states, including Utah, fight spread of Arizona immigration law

June 30th, 2010 @ 8:44am

By Lee Davidson, Deseret News

SALT LAKE CITY -- State legislators from around the nation — including Utah Sen. Luz Robles — have formed a group seeking to stop the spread of the new Arizona immigration law by offering alternatives that they say would reward and integrate newcomers who play by the rules.

Robles, D-Salt Lake, spoke during a national conference call to reporters announcing the formation of "State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy," which claims as initial members 53 legislators in 28 states.

She said that copying the Arizona law — which the Utah Legislature is expected to consider next year — would be expensive because of likely legal challenges. Such a law would not by itself stop illegal immigration and would cause "a lot of dissonance and divisiveness among communities," she said.

The Arizona law requires local police to question a person's immigration status if they have reason to suspect the person is in the country illegally.
As an alternative, the new group hopes to offer government health insurance to poor legal immigrants, pass tougher laws against employers who steal wages from workers, and to strengthen laws against racial profiling.

"We will be rewarding people who play by the rules," Robles said.
For example, she said she will again push a bill that would remove a five-year waiting period before children of legal immigrants or pregnant women who are legal immigrants can qualify for Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) coverage.

Besides rewarding legal immigrants, she said, "it's always more cost effective to provide adequate, affordable health care for the children" than to try later after years without care "to deal with more complicated medical conditions."

Iowa Sen. Joe Bolkcom said he wants to make it tougher for employers to exploit workers there. While recent immigrants may benefit the most from such a measure, he said, it would help all workers in his state protect themselves against employers who face only light fines if they fail to pay their workers.

Pennsylvania Sen. Daylin Leach said he is pushing to beef up laws there to ban any racial profiling — which he said would help Hispanics be more cooperative with police in solving street crime and would calm fears arising from the new Arizona law.

Robles said states are sending messages with bills — from the tough Arizona law to friendlier alternatives her group is pushing — that the federal government really needs to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
"There is no way we can fix our immigration system in a Band-Aid, statewide solution," she said.

But Jonathan Blazer with the National Immigration Law Center said on the conference call that is what will happen in the short term until Congress acts.

"The Arizona model is really a 'race to the bottom' model to see just how onerous life can be made for immigrants," he said. The new group's alternatives are instead "a rising tide that's intended to lift all boats and make sure no one group of workers is pitted against another group," he said.



http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11380224

[SuperFemme]

Arizona immigration law backer politician Barry Wong wants to cut power from illegal immigrant homes

One Arizona (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Arizona) politician has made a vow to make illegal immigrants powerless -- literally.

Republican Barry Wong (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Barry+Wong), a candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Arizona+Corporation+Commission), an elected body that decides public utility issues, says he would require the utilities to check the immigration status of customers, he told the Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/06/30/20100630arizona-illegal-immigrant-utility-service.html#ixzz0sKnAF3r3).

"I'm sure there will be criticism about human-rights violations," said Wong, who held a temporary spot on the five-person Commission (http://www.azcc.gov/default.asp) in 2006. "Is power or natural gas or any type of utility we regulate, is that a right that people have? It is not a right. It is a service."

Cutting electricity, water, natural gas, even telephone lines at the homes of illegal immigrants, he said, would lower costs for the rest of the state's customers. He believes the population spike caused by illegal immigrants forces the state to build new power plants and then raise rates for customers.

Since 2000, Arizona's population has jumped nearly 29% to almost 6.6 million people. In roughly that same time, the number of the state's Hispanic residents increased and now composes more than 30% of Arizona's population, according to the U.S. Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html).

This isn't the first time electricity surged into the immigration debate.
In May, after Los Angeles' City Council (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Los+Angeles%27+City+Council) voted to boycott Arizona over its controversial anti-illegal immigration law, SB 1070 (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Support+Our+Law+Enforcement+and+Safe+Neighborhoods +Act), Gary Pierce (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Gary+Pierce), who sits on the Commission, suggested L.A. (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Los+Angeles) stop using his state's power.
Pierce, also a Republican, dismissed Wong's idea.

"That's not an argument I think we'll involve ourselves in," he said.
Critics, however, charge Wong with simply using a hot-button issue to gain notoriety and votes.

"Everyone is seeing the polls that are so anti-immigrant, and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to target immigrants," said Julie Pace (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Julie+Pace), a lawyer currently suing the state over a law punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrant help.

"They all are coming up with novel ideas how they can get elected. They say, 'Target immigrants, and it helps me win an election.'"
Wong believes his idea deserves further study.

"The question is: Is it the right thing to do in terms of rates?" Wong, a former four-term member of the state's House of Representatives (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/U.S.+House+of+Representatives), told the paper.

Arizona has come under fire for months for its efforts to battle illegal immigration, which was put under the national spotlight with the passage of SB 1070, which would allow law enforcement to ask suspects about their immigration status. However, the law which goes into effect July 29, has its supporters.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 71% of Arizona backs it (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/arizona/71_in_arizona_now_support_state_s_new_immigration_ law), an increase from when Gov. Jan Brewer (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jan+Brewer) signed the bill in April.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/30/2010-06-30_arizona_immigration_law_backer_politician_barry _wong_wants_to_cut_power_from_ill.html

[Dylan]

WTF is up with people over there?


Jesus H Christ,
Dylan

And where's the feds? What the fuck is Obama doing between this and the oil spill?

[SuperFemme]

WTF is up with people over there?


Jesus H Christ,
Dylan

And where's the feds? What the fuck is Obama doing between this and the oil spill?

here is the latest: http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Obama-delegation-in-Tucson-97400129.html

eta: CA, AZ, TX and NM are all getting National Guard Troops. Oh goody. I can't wait to see how this pans out.

[Linus]

SF, thanks for the articles. It does make me wonder how long, given the increased support/drive towards anti-immigration stance, before we see mob mentality and rule happening. As the frothing continues to increase to demonize the undocumented worker it won't be long until we see the worst results on the front page. Some may say this is defense and just action for the US and other nations to discourage others from coming into a nation illegally but it's the ripple effect that can happen as society sees this.

Politicians often forget the power and impact of their words -- what is said, what is not said but heard, how it's said, when it's said -- has on society and those listening in. We don't speak in a vacuum nor do we live in one. Removing simple and basic human rights -- and finding it acceptable to do so -- is not, IMO, the sign of a nation that has evolved.

This whole exercise strikes me not as solving the true issue but just attempting to win brownie points in a time when one cannot provide real answers to economic challenges (i.e., don't spend money we don't have but don't find ways to create jobs either). As I read a variety of news sources about this issue I cannot help but wonder if this is a class sleight of hand (e.g., Ignore the man in the background and just watch the shiny balls in the front) to focus us away from problems that we really need to face and address with harsh reality.

[Apocalipstic]

SF, thanks for the articles. It does make me wonder how long, given the increased support/drive towards anti-immigration stance, before we see mob mentality and rule happening. As the frothing continues to increase to demonize the undocumented worker it won't be long until we see the worst results on the front page. Some may say this is defense and just action for the US and other nations to discourage others from coming into a nation illegally but it's the ripple effect that can happen as society sees this.

Politicians often forget the power and impact of their words -- what is said, what is not said but heard, how it's said, when it's said -- has on society and those listening in. We don't speak in a vacuum nor do we live in one. Removing simple and basic human rights -- and finding it acceptable to do so -- is not, IMO, the sign of a nation that has evolved.

This whole exercise strikes me not as solving the true issue but just attempting to win brownie points in a time when one cannot provide real answers to economic challenges (i.e., don't spend money we don't have but don't find ways to create jobs either). As I read a variety of news sources about this issue I cannot help but wonder if this is a class sleight of hand (e.g., Ignore the man in the background and just watch the shiny balls in the front) to focus us away from problems that we really need to face and address with harsh reality.


I would so love to see politicians do the right thing, not the politically expedient for themselves thing. Sigh.

[The_Lady_Snow]

If we honestly think that gang mentality is not going to happen we are all wrong. Allow me to share some information that happened to migrant worker Luis Ramirez in Pennsylvania

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/02/pa.immigrant.beating/


YouTube- latino killed Luis Ramirez shenandoah

How the parents reacted

jMVoV3CwKyc


The whole story:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/22/lia.shenandoah.interview.interrupted/index.html?iref=newssearch


Kobi's reactions aren't surprising to me, they kicked me in the gut as always when it comes from one of my queer peers. So Linus the mob mentality you speak of is out there, it will, it is happening NOW.

It breaks my heart.

[Corkey]

Ignorance is everywhere.

[SuperFemme]

oh my god that scares me.
because they are right, the message they are sending is clear:
there are no consequences for killing those of us on the fringe of society.

a fact already evident by the killings/beatings of trans people and gays all over the country.

[The_Lady_Snow]

WWLUUUFHzJA

[Apocalipstic]

I don't understand why US citizens want the US to be a Fascist country where our papers (papeles) have to be shown.

I grew up like that, in Argentina and it makes me crazy to think that anyone would want another human being to have to live like that.

[The_Lady_Snow]

2rNh18lH3j4

[The_Lady_Snow]

EF4GpwFLTZk

[Corkey]

I don't understand why US citizens want the US to be a Fascist country where our papers (papeles) have to be shown.

I grew up like that, in Argentina and it makes me crazy to think that anyone would want another human being to have to live like that.

I'll take a stab at that.
Primarily it has to do with control. Those who have it and those who don't.
It is fascist and that is how Hitler gained so much of it. When free thinking people give up their freedoms and follow instead of lead, this is what happens, invariably.

[Liam]

I don't understand why US citizens want the US to be a Fascist country where our papers (papeles) have to be shown.

I grew up like that, in Argentina and it makes me crazy to think that anyone would want another human being to have to live like that.

Fear makes people do ugly things.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Gn67U2-Fn4c

[The_Lady_Snow]

aIVxPf7RIeU

[The_Lady_Snow]

5FzyvtOduYs

[The_Lady_Snow]

d0vVGIw0gyQ

[Apocalipstic]

I'll take a stab at that.
Primarily it has to do with control. Those who have it and those who don't.
It is fascist and that is how Hitler gained so much of it. When free thinking people give up their freedoms and follow instead of lead, this is what happens, invariably.

In my mind it is so against what I thought the United States of America stood for. Not that historically it ever has. Maybe my idealistic dream of what the US should stand for? My hope.

Fear makes people do ugly things.

Fear of difference, or fear of made up uglyness? Both I guess.

[The_Lady_Snow]

SND5RsGvTEE

[Apocalipstic]

I have a question for the people who believe in keeping everyone out of the US, checking papers, tough immigration laws, etc.

Have you ever traveled outside of the US other than Canada and Tijuana?

Are you 100% Native American?

How did your ancestors arrive in the US?

Were your ancestors welcomed to the US? How did it impact their lives?

Why do you think you deserve to be in the USA more than anyone else?

Would you be willing to have your children have to carry ID papers or be picked up by the "law"?

ps...ok several questions :)

[The_Lady_Snow]

9Th0poxzYX0

[Corkey]

Thank you Snow for posting all of these.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Thank you Snow for posting all of these.

No problem....

I am angry, hurt, and I hope that you can see the good the bad and the ugly in us, after all we are not different than any other race, we fuck up, we commit crimes we go to church, hang out with families. We are JUST AS PROUD of our heritage and customs as the white man.

[Linus]

I so love PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/30/jan-brewer/arizona-gov-brewer-says-majority-illegals-are-drug/

While the source she eventually cited -- the Los Angeles Times -- says that "sometimes (smugglers) loaded up their human cargo with backpacks full of marijuana," the article doesn't back up her assertion that that "the majority" of illegal immigrants carry drugs into the country. More to the point, Brewer's contention is undercut by both federal prosecution statistics and the accounts of experts we spoke to. So we rate Brewer's statement False.

[dreadgeek]

I so love PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/30/jan-brewer/arizona-gov-brewer-says-majority-illegals-are-drug/

Linus:

Don't you realize that reality and facts have a liberal bias?

Cheers
Aj

[Linus]

Linus:

Don't you realize that reality and facts have a liberal bias?

Cheers
Aj

And here I thought researching political statements for facts was a Canadian thing. :canadian:

[The_Lady_Snow]

This video was posted by one of our fans and it is insanely insulting and will leave you with a sense of impotence and rage, making your blood boil!! It is a witness account on the murder of an undocumented immigrant by police officials!! The immigrant's cry for help will now be our cry for justice!! Please refrain to ...the tendency to violence and an eye for an eye mentality!! We will win this fight with non-violence and unity!! Have no doubt that this immigrant's pleads and desperation will meet justice and we will not rest until these atrocities are halted once and for all!! "No Mas" - "No More"


d7IQh05avx8

[The_Lady_Snow]

Let us contact President Obama at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact and convey our indignation to the atmosphere of hate, ignorance, and racism we are experiencing in the state of Arizona and the country!! As he prepares his speech on immigration for Thursday, the country is spiraling out of control with anti-immigration sentiments!! Let him know what you expect and demand to hear in his high-stake speech!! "No Mas" - "No More"



http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/30/jacoby.immigration.obama/?hpt=C2&fbid=_3Mv3tmMkh_

[Corkey]

My God there is no justice, these men need to be held over for trial.

[The_Lady_Snow]

c2vAbnMR3FE

[The_Lady_Snow]

bbaE4GD4lUM

[The_Lady_Snow]

8kbjhTFYWLA

[The_Lady_Snow]

qFCMxwzsups

[The_Lady_Snow]

eNKn2q0-Iy8

[The_Lady_Snow]

QghliTQbU-o

[The_Lady_Snow]

KyaO_z0LTN0

[The_Lady_Snow]

LVp5s1y7xWo

[The_Lady_Snow]

1xB-UYalXB8

[The_Lady_Snow]

irlfFYq2V80

[The_Lady_Snow]

uTGt1A3FuKw

[dreadgeek]

And here I thought researching political statements for facts was a Canadian thing. :canadian:

Canada ALSO has a liberal bias. :seeingstars:

[Linus]

Canada ALSO has a liberal bias. :seeingstars:

Don't tell the Conservatives that.. they might leav.. err.. Actually, on second thought, let them know. It'd improve the country immensely.

[AtLast]

This, exactly. Refusing to condemn actions which are clearly wrong in every way denotes nothing so much as a complete *lack* of any kind of ethics. I feel that I have a very strong sense of ethics, and those ethics mean that I absolutely will stand up and say "No, there is definitely a difference between right and wrong. Slavery was wrong. Jim Crow laws were wrong. Apartheid is wrong. There is nothing redeeming or debatable about any of these things. They're just wrong. Always, in any era, at any time, always wrong." Kobi, you say "who am I to judge?" I don't. I, as a person with ethics, am an excellent judge of right and wrong. I, a person with ethics, am absolutely *obligated* to judge right from wrong. I find it incredibly disturbing that anyone could claim otherwise. I'm horrified that anyone could actually say that they can't judge the actions of the past. If you can't judge the past, then why should any of us trust you to make good decisions in the future? If you can't say whether or not slavery was wrong, why should any of us think that you'd stand against it happening again?


SHIT! Hell yes, one can determine if something in the past is right or wrong. And one would have to rather moronic to not be able to see what those wrongs have produced that we deal with today. Unless one just wants to keep themselves under a rock. Which is the choice of many, unfortunately.

You are right on here, Aj. I often look around at some of the wing-nut garbage today and wonder.... Would these people stand up against forms of the past transgressions today? My gut fear is they would not. and cry that they didn't know it was happening just as so many did while Jews (and others) were being gased in concentration camps (just one example).

In fact, examples of this kind of thinking (and in-action) are with us today! How many turn the other way with environmental hazards, domestic abuse and violence right next door, hate crimes against people, crimes against women, child labor infractions, blatant racism and the long term effects of structural racism... on and on..... fill in more blanks....

You bet the sins of the past are on me if I don't recognize exactly what they are and how they continue in various forms!

[dreadgeek]

Don't tell the Conservatives that.. they might leav.. err.. Actually, on second thought, let them know. It'd improve the country immensely.

Linus:

No, no, please it would be rude for us to horde conservatives here and take Canadian conservatives as well. You know, we should share. The two countries, long history of friendship etc., and I don't know that we've ever given Canada anything...the French gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty. I say we could give Canada the Tea Party movement as a token of our esteem and friendship. And at any rate, Canada has a lot of moose right? Conservatives like shooting moose. Everyone goes home happy--well, not the moose but you get the idea.

No need for thanks. It was nothing really. :)

Cheers
Aj

[Medusa]

Linus:

No, no, please it would be rude for us to horde conservatives here and take Canadian conservatives as well. You know, we should share. The two countries, long history of friendship etc., and I don't know that we've ever given Canada anything...the French gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty. I say we could give Canada the Tea Party movement as a token of our esteem and friendship. And at any rate, Canada has a lot of moose right? Conservatives like shooting moose. Everyone goes home happy--well, not the moose but you get the idea.

No need for thanks. It was nothing really. :)

Cheers
Aj


You better include some helicopters to aid in shooting the Moose. I heard the conservatives like that ;)

[dreadgeek]

You better include some helicopters to aid in shooting the Moose. I heard the conservatives like that ;)

Helicopters are SOOOOO 2008. Stealth Bombers are where it's at for hunting moose from the air.

http://tremendousnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/b-2-stealth-bomber.jpg


If you're old fashioned, though, and want to hunt from the ground then nothing--I mean NOTHING--beats an M1A1 Abrahms tank. Road speed of 70mph and the main gun is 120mm cannon.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/images/abram1.jpg

But if you are ready for real XTreme Hunting (tm) then I say go for the railgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun) in low-earth orbit.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i1q_rRicAwI&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i1q_rRicAwI&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Cheers
Aj

[SuperFemme]

if you put sara palin in a helicopter and told her she was shooting moose, she'd so be there.

[MsDemeanor]

Y'all are thinking waaaayyyyy too small.

1) All the Canadian conservatives move to the US
2) All the US liberals move to Canada or Mexico (depending on if they prefer hot or cold)
3) The US conservatives send every undocumented person back to Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe, Canada, Asia, and Africa
4) Liberals in Canada and Mexico (the US's two largest suppliers of imported oil) overwhelmingly vote to quit exporting oil to the US, on account of being offended by the conservatives complaining about having to import oil from countries that hate Americans (which, by now, Canada and Mexico will have become)
5) The entire conservative population of North America now resides in a country with food shortages from collapsed agriculture and poultry industries, spiraling deficits because all the rich hollywood and silicon valley liberals have left and taken their industries (and associated tax dollars) with them, reduced tourism because there's no one to clean the hotels and bus the restaurant dishes, and a severe oil shortage because the Middle East is now the US's only major oil source.

[dreadgeek]

Y'all are thinking waaaayyyyy too small.

1) All the Canadian conservatives move to the US
2) All the US liberals move to Canada or Mexico (depending on if they prefer hot or cold)
3) The US conservatives send every undocumented person back to Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe, Canada, Asia, and Africa
4) Liberals in Canada and Mexico (the US's two largest suppliers of imported oil) overwhelmingly vote to quit exporting oil to the US, on account of being offended by the conservatives complaining about having to import oil from countries that hate Americans (which, by now, Canada and Mexico will have become)
5) The entire conservative population of North America now resides in a country with food shortages from collapsed agriculture and poultry industries, spiraling deficits because all the rich hollywood and silicon valley liberals have left and taken their industries (and associated tax dollars) with them, reduced tourism because there's no one to clean the hotels and bus the restaurant dishes, and a severe oil shortage because the Middle East is now the US's only major oil source.

I am humbled to be in the presence of a Jedi Master! Teach me your technique, sensei! I wish to become your Padawan learner and become as strong with the Dark Side of the Force as you.

[dreadgeek]

I have often wished that we had another planet upon which we could run the libertarian experiment American conservatives have said they think would lead to the best of all societies.

One group could stay here, the other group would go to the other planet.

On one planet there would be public schools where children would learn history and science. There would be public libraries, public museums, civic symphonies and theatre. There would be a social safety net so that there was a minimum level below which no one would fall. There would be investment in public transportation and clean or renewable energy sources. Infrastructure would be maintained for the good of all. Taxes would be higher than they are now, but corporations would pay their share and the rich would pay their share. People would still be religious, of course, but there would be church, there would be state and the two would not meet.

On the other planet it would be a libertarian paradise. The ONLY regulations would be in favor of corporations restraining the actions of citizens--for example, it would be illegal to sue a company for damages due to a faulty product. It would be impossible to sue your physician. There would be no public schools, the churches would provide all educational and charitable services. There would be a flat-tax so the person making $10,000 a year would pay the same percentage in tax as the person making $10,000,000 a year. There would be no labor laws, no civil rights laws.

In schools children would learn that the Earth was 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked the planet at the same time. All scientific discoveries would be filtered through a religious authority to ensure that they were doctrinally correct. If they weren't then those discoveries would be suppressed.

There would be police, of course, who were mostly concerned with the protecting of corporate property. Guns would be easy to get and everyone would walk around with *at least* two. There would be no traffic laws to speak of however if you caused property damage you could be sued for that. If you caused the loss of life a citizen could sue another citizen.

Assuming that there were ethnic, religious, racial or sexual orientation minorities on this planet businesses would be free to discriminate against them in any way they chose that did not involve taking their property.

There would be no environmental regulations and labor unions would be outlawed.

Every generation (say 25 years) we could do a survey of the two planets and see which one had the happier, healthier, more long-lived population and we could see which one was more technologically advanced.

Cheers
Aj

[MsDemeanor]

I am humbled to be in the presence of a Jedi Master! Teach me your technique, sensei! I wish to become your Padawan learner and become as strong with the Dark Side of the Force as you.

:giggle: :giggle: :giggle:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:cracked: :cracked: :cracked:

I'm humbled, as your posts usually leave me curled up in a corner whimpering in despair because I can't muster 1/10th of your the brain power.

[SuperFemme]

all joking aside...
here is a sobering thought and frightening story that I fear we shall see more of.

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/05/22/Antigovernment_dad_son_identified_in_Ark_shootout/

[MsDemeanor]

One group could stay here, the other group would go to the other planet.
Which planet gets the scientists who know how to create interplanetary weapons?

[The_Lady_Snow]

Which planet gets the scientists who know how to create interplanetary weapons?

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz37/essdelgado/marvin-the-martian.jpg

[AtLast]

all joking aside...
here is a sobering thought and frightening story that I fear we shall see more of.

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/05/22/Antigovernment_dad_son_identified_in_Ark_shootout/

Terribly disturbing. Yes, we will see more and more of this.

And I am with Msdeamenor with those weapons! Aj..... please beam us all up... PLEASE!!!!!

[dreadgeek]

Which planet gets the scientists who know how to create interplanetary weapons?

The liberal one. Ultimately, science only really works in open societies and since the liberal society would allow scientific research to go apace without interference from the church and the other one would have the church looking over every research program for signs of doctrinal heresy, science would go further in the former. Science just doesn't do well in theocratic (or otherwise closed) societies -- look at what happened to Galileo and Copernicus or, more recently, look what happened to physics in Germany under the Nazi regime or biology under Stalinism.

Cheers
Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

Stop the ignorance and racist, hateful rhetoric from the successor Arizona governor!! Beheadings? Contact her at http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp and demand as a U.S. citizen that she retract her ignorance and provide data to substantiate her claims instigating bigotry and hate!! Vamos mi gente, stand up or shut up!!!



http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/brewer_claims_illegals_are_beheading_people_in_the .php

[Linus]

Stop the ignorance and racist, hateful rhetoric from the successor Arizona governor!! Beheadings? Contact her at http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp and demand as a U.S. citizen that she retract her ignorance and provide data to substantiate her claims instigating bigotry and hate!! Vamos mi gente, stand up or shut up!!!



http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/brewer_claims_illegals_are_beheading_people_in_the .php



You know, I watched Criminal Minds repeat last night and it was an episode about a small town police officer, in Arizona, who was doing this against the undocumented. Makes me wonder if she can't tell reality from fantas... oh wait.

She can't.

[Linus]

Linus:

No, no, please it would be rude for us to horde conservatives here and take Canadian conservatives as well. You know, we should share. The two countries, long history of friendship etc., and I don't know that we've ever given Canada anything...the French gave the U.S. the Statue of Liberty. I say we could give Canada the Tea Party movement as a token of our esteem and friendship. And at any rate, Canada has a lot of moose right? Conservatives like shooting moose. Everyone goes home happy--well, not the moose but you get the idea.

No need for thanks. It was nothing really. :)

Cheers
Aj


You did give us something: two gold medals this past year at the Olympics ;)

And I don't think American conservatives would survive the Canadian Parliament. They'd have to learn how to issue insults without it appearing like an insult and they'd have to realize they've been insulted even from something that appears like a compliment.

And if you send Beck here, that will be reason for war. You have been warned! (and we've beaten the US once; we'd do it again and we'll inflict more Celine on you!)

Cheers, eh!

[AtLast]

You did give us something: two gold medals this past year at the Olympics ;)

And I don't think American conservatives would survive the Canadian Parliament. They'd have to learn how to issue insults without it appearing like an insult and they'd have to realize they've been insulted even from something that appears like a compliment.

And if you send Beck here, that will be reason for war. You have been warned! (and we've beaten the US once; we'd do it again and we'll inflict more Celine on you!)

Cheers, eh!

I think Canada gives the US hope. A country next door that has a nationalized health care system, a country in which same-sex marriage is legal throughout and a country in which the transgendered can receive treatment via the health care system. Oh, and there are the Canadian Rockies which are the grandest in the world.

When I was there last, I was amazed at how Canadians saw GW Bush as he really is, an idiot!

Actually, I don't wish Beck on Canada at all! Never!! May he rest where the sun does not shine.. We just cannot do this to our northern neighbor!

[dreadgeek]

This, exactly. Refusing to condemn actions which are clearly wrong in every way denotes nothing so much as a complete *lack* of any kind of ethics. I feel that I have a very strong sense of ethics, and those ethics mean that I absolutely will stand up and say "No, there is definitely a difference between right and wrong. Slavery was wrong. Jim Crow laws were wrong. Apartheid is wrong. There is nothing redeeming or debatable about any of these things. They're just wrong. Always, in any era, at any time, always wrong." Kobi, you say "who am I to judge?" I don't. I, as a person with ethics, am an excellent judge of right and wrong. I, a person with ethics, am absolutely *obligated* to judge right from wrong. I find it incredibly disturbing that anyone could claim otherwise. I'm horrified that anyone could actually say that they can't judge the actions of the past. If you can't judge the past, then why should any of us trust you to make good decisions in the future? If you can't say whether or not slavery was wrong, why should any of us think that you'd stand against it happening again?

[FONT="Century Gothic"][COLOR="Black"]

You are right on here, Aj. I often look around at some of the wing-nut garbage today and wonder.... Would these people stand up against forms of the past transgressions today? My gut fear is they would not. and cry that they didn't know it was happening just as so many did while Jews (and others) were being gased in concentration camps (just on

ALH:

I have to call something out here. Ordinarily I would let Belly do this because I don't fight her battles but you addressed me so it's my responsibility. Since it was public and since this is an example of something Belly has complained about generally here (so I'm not trying to make you the scapegoat) I'm doing this out in the open. If this was something better handled privately I apologize in advance.

You responded to me, but those thoughts are Belly's. Yes, it's something I might have said. It's certainly something I absolutely believe to be true. But Belly came into our relationship already believing that. She gets me. I get her. So it shouldn't be surprising that we would think a lot alike.

On another thread, Belly complained about butches not taking femme's seriously. This is what that looks like. Belly is a very intelligent woman and she has her own opinions. When she's posting, she's expressing *her* opinions. Opinions that I assume she arrived at on her own. I know that she did not have them fed to her by me.

On the larger point, femme's deserve to be taken seriously. We butches should take them seriously, we should do so because they deserve it and we should do so because if feminism means anything at all it means taking women seriously as human beings.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

You did give us something: two gold medals this past year at the Olympics ;)

The lemon juice and salt was just what that wound needed, thank you.



And I don't think American conservatives would survive the Canadian Parliament. They'd have to learn how to issue insults without it appearing like an insult and they'd have to realize they've been insulted even from something that appears like a compliment.


Actually I think that would be good for them. Character building, one might say.


And if you send Beck here, that will be reason for war. You have been warned! (and we've beaten the US once; we'd do it again and we'll inflict more Celine on you!)

Cheers, eh!

There's no need to go straight to the Singers of Mass Destruction! Wasn't Bryan Adams enough? What did we EVER do to you to rate that?

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

ALH:

I have to call something out here. Ordinarily I would let Belly do this because I don't fight her battles but you addressed me so it's my responsibility. Since it was public and since this is an example of something Belly has complained about generally here (so I'm not trying to make you the scapegoat) I'm doing this out in the open. If this was something better handled privately I apologize in advance.

You responded to me, but those thoughts are Belly's. Yes, it's something I might have said. It's certainly something I absolutely believe to be true. But Belly came into our relationship already believing that. She gets me. I get her. So it shouldn't be surprising that we would think a lot alike.

On another thread, Belly complained about butches not taking femme's seriously. This is what that looks like. Belly is a very intelligent woman and she has her own opinions. When she's posting, she's expressing *her* opinions. Opinions that I assume she arrived at on her own. I know that she did not have them fed to her by me.

On the larger point, femme's deserve to be taken seriously. We butches should take them seriously, we should do so because they deserve it and we should do so because if feminism means anything at all it means taking women seriously as human beings.

Cheers
Aj

I actually did not mean to do this at all, I knew full well it was Belly's post. I feel terrible for the slip. And do apologize. I do remember reading both you and Belly's posts in one sitting... and I just typed Aj. You certainly do not need to tell me that Belly is one hell of an intelligent woman.

I would have preferred that you did PM me as this was just a slip of names due to knowing you as a couple and nothing more. A human error. Your comments about taking femmes and feminist ideology to me seems a bit off as I am a rock solid feminist and one of my Master's Degrees is in Women's Studies as well as my doctorial dissertation was on sex-roles and women's oppression (back in the day). As a woman and a feminist, and past professor of feminist and women’s studies, I certainly do take us seriously.

This was a simple error without any ill intent whatsoever and I did not think you wrote the post. I just mixed-up names, that's it.

[dreadgeek]

I actually did not mean to do this at all, I knew full well it was Belly's post. I feel terrible for the slip. And do apologize. I do remember reading both you and Belly's posts in one sitting... and I just typed Aj. You certainly do not need to tell me that Belly is one hell of an intelligent woman.


I would have preferred that you did PM me as this was just a slip of names due to knowing you as a couple and nothing more. A human error. Your comments about taking femmes and feminist ideology to me seems a bit off as I am a rock solid feminist and one of my Master's Degrees is in Women's Studies as well as my doctorial dissertation was on sex-roles and women's oppression (back in the day). As a woman and a feminist, and past professor of feminist and women’s studies, I certainly do take us seriously.

This was a simple error without any ill intent whatsoever and I did not think you wrote the post. I just mixed-up names, that's it. [/QUOTE]

I did not mean to imply that you were not a feminist and I didn't necessarily think it intentional. I appreciate your owning it and certainly would defer to you on questions of feminist theory.

Belly pointed the post out to me and I had seen it earlier in the day but every time I went to respond, the phone rang. Because I've seen femme's dismissed in ways both blatant and subtle, this seemed as good a time as any to point out one manifestation of this. It was not meant as a personal attack and my statement of feminism was not meant to convey any impression that I didn't think you were a feminist.

All theory aside--and theory is important--I think that my feminism most comes alive in how I treat other women. It is the most concrete expression of it. I hope that in how I engage with people here I treat the femme's in our midst as I treat my fellow butches. I hope that the femme's feel that I take them and their thoughts seriously because to me those are the beginning and end of feminism--as a personal ethic--for me. Everything else is commentary.

Again, no offense was meant.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

I would have preferred that you did PM me as this was just a slip of names due to knowing you as a couple and nothing more. A human error. Your comments about taking femmes and feminist ideology to me seems a bit off as I am a rock solid feminist and one of my Master's Degrees is in Women's Studies as well as my doctorial dissertation was on sex-roles and women's oppression (back in the day). As a woman and a feminist, and past professor of feminist and women’s studies, I certainly do take us seriously.

This was a simple error without any ill intent whatsoever and I did not think you wrote the post. I just mixed-up names, that's it. [/COLOR][/FONT]

I did not mean to imply that you were not a feminist and I didn't necessarily think it intentional. I appreciate your owning it and certainly would defer to you on questions of feminist theory.

Belly pointed the post out to me and I had seen it earlier in the day but every time I went to respond, the phone rang. Because I've seen femme's dismissed in ways both blatant and subtle, this seemed as good a time as any to point out one manifestation of this. It was not meant as a personal attack and my statement of feminism was not meant to convey any impression that I didn't think you were a feminist.

All theory aside--and theory is important--I think that my feminism most comes alive in how I treat other women. It is the most concrete expression of it. I hope that in how I engage with people here I treat the femme's in our midst as I treat my fellow butches. I hope that the femme's feel that I take them and their thoughts seriously because to me those are the beginning and end of feminism--as a personal ethic--for me. Everything else is commentary.

Again, no offense was meant.

Cheers
Aj[/QUOTE]



Oh, I see your point and feel terrible for the blunder. I certainly also have seen countless dismissals of femmes on these sites. Although, I honestly do feel the Planet is much more feminist-friendly, really. And mods pick up on sexism far better than the old site. Does feel different to me. So much so, I left the other site completely. Not that I do not appreciate the fact that it did connect me to some fantastic people.

Absolutely how women treat other women is crucial!

Now, I have been thinking about the topic at hand in terms of how many other states and municipalities have been developing more such pieces of legislation based upon... the Federal government isn't doing its job.

It appears that the GOP is doing the usual legislative blocking of all things Democratic with actually getting somewhere with immigration reform. I'm glad Obama pointed this out recently and that a bill co-authored by McCain was kicked to the curb a couple of years ago.

I know so much about all of this go no where until after the mid-terms and if the GOP does pick up seats and the House reverts to a GOP majority, this will be even more of a mess. And the fact is that we do need sane, compassionate immigration reform. The Dems must hammer out the fact that the population of un-documented immigrants already in the US are staying! And a means for them to become legal (and citizens if that is what they desire) is critical in demonstrating that the US does indeed have a stake in having these people become part of the country in every way.

My only hope is that the Latino population is the fastest growing group of voters coming up. There needs to be a big voter registration drive going on and not just in border states. Latino candidates need to be supported (guess I do want that to be Democratic candidates!). This really needs to be a mass social movement. This can’t just keep going on.[ I feel that the amnesty variable is a major sticking point among the GOP and wing-nuts like the tea-baggers. It has to be taken on!

The fact is, there are many, many, many people that believe that the US should round up every illegal person in the US and ship back to their country of origin. They have no problem with spending the billions that would involve. They won't even talk about any other portion of immigration reform without this contingency! Crazy as it is! I'm not even talking about the crazzies here- there are countless middle of the road people that sit on the side of those people are here illegally, period./COLOR]
[COLOR="Black"]

My own take on dealing with this in order to see immigration reform is for studies of just how the Latino populations that received amnesty during Reagan's administration have contributed to the the US. They began a life with not fearing authorities, thus stopped hiding and put $ in banks, got leases for homes, or even bought a home as their jobs were secure. They started businesses that contribute to the tax base, etc. They pay taxes, go to PTA meetings and take care of their family. Their children became educated and have been able to enter the professions. Now their children are doing the sam. Many did not have the need to engage in any illegal activity to survive. Crime decreased within this population. We have the single most forceful data in front of us to shut down those that want illegals deported right in front of us and we are not using it. And this goes to a major sticking point blocking reform.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Let us mobilize and make this day count mi raza!! "Day Without Latinos in America" - Economic Boycott!! "No Mas" - "No More"

"Day Without Latinos in America" - ECONOMIC BOYCOTT
Location:The WHOLE United States of America
Time:12:30AM Thursday, July 8th

[The_Lady_Snow]

With the state of Arizona in the brink of financial meltdown and a separatist image, the ignorant, bigot successor Arizona governor allocating $250K to combat negative state image!! The damage of this beautiful state has been done and no PR Campaign will change neither sugar coat the racist agenda of the white, angry, hateful GOP!!


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009593-503544.html

[SuperFemme]

With the state of Arizona in the brink of financial meltdown and a separatist image, the ignorant, bigot successor Arizona governor allocating $250K to combat negative state image!! The damage of this beautiful state has been done and no PR Campaign will change neither sugar coat the racist agenda of the white, angry, hateful GOP!!



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009593-503544.html



maybe if the raised the fine for beheadings?

[The_Lady_Snow]

maybe if the raised the fine for beheadings?


I know my mother and I did a few, here lemme show ya..

http://blogs.msdn.com/blogfiles/johnmullinax/WindowsLiveWriter/FacebookMicrosoftAOLputtingspammersheads_116CE/142098408-head_on_spike_2.jpg

:|

[SuperFemme]

the last beheading i was invited to was saddam hussein. oh. wait.
white men beheaded him.
my bad.

[AtLast]

YouTube- Brewer to Obama: Warning Signs Are Not Enough

Brewer is so nuts!!!

[UofMfan]

Justice Department To File Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality Of Arizona Immigration Law

BOB CHRISTIE | 07/ 6/10 12:52 PM | AP


PHOENIX — The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown.

The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn't want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor.

The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops usurps federal authority.

The government will likely seek an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved.

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, although the punishment and enforcement tactics of the Arizona are much more severe.

Tuesday's action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.

Prior to seeing the lawsuit or receiving any official notification, Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman called the reported decision to sue "a terribly bad decision."

"Arizona obviously has a terrible border security crisis that needs to be addressed, so Gov. Brewer has repeatedly said she would have preferred the resources and attention of the federal government would be focused on that crisis rather than this," spokesman Paul Senseman said.

Three of the five Democrats in Arizona's congressional delegation, who are facing tough re-election battles, had also urged Obama not to try to block the law from going into effect.

"This lawsuit is a sideshow, distracting us from the real task at hand," Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick said in a statement Tuesday. "A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America's broken immigration system."

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.

The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement.

Arizona State University constitutional law professor Paul Bender said the federal government's involvement throws a lot of weight behind the argument that federal law pre-empts Arizona's measure.

"It's important to have the federal government's view of whether state law is inconsistent with federal law, and they're the best people to say that," Bender said.

Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unprecedented and unnecessary."

He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.

"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.

[Linus]

Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

This section is interesting since crime in Arizona is at it's lowest and the amount of deportation of "illegal immigrants" is at it's highest. What ever happened to non-partisan reporting?

[UofMfan]

This section is interesting since crime in Arizona is at it's lowest and the amount of deportation of "illegal immigrants" is at it's highest. What ever happened to non-partisan reporting?

Mainstream media has been partial for years now. This is why I read a lot of non-mainstream media to balance things out.

Gov. Brewer was quoted as saying that "illegal immigrants" have been decapitating American Citizens in AZ so this law is really needed.

I swear, makes me wonder who in their right mind doesn't see the racism behind this.

[Linus]

Mainstream media has been partial for years now. This is why I read a lot of non-mainstream media to balance things out.

Gov. Brewer was quoted as saying that "illegal immigrants" have been decapitating American Citizens in AZ so this law is really needed.

I swear, makes me wonder who in their right mind doesn't see the racism behind this.


It's because of their "right mind" that they don't see it. :|

[UofMfan]

It's because of their "right mind" that they don't see it. :|

Hahaha probably!

[Linus]

*GASP* Someone got it! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/07/al-hunt/bloombergs-al-hunt-says-crime-down-arizona/

I do like Politifact as they check everyone, regardless of party and will slam those who don't get it.

During the roundtable discussion on This Week, Hunt told host Jake Tapper: "I must say, John McCain, in his interview with you, Jake, that was extraordinary to say that crime is up there. He's talking about Mexico. Crime is down in Arizona. Every single academic study that's been done shows that immigrants commit fewer crimes."

[AtLast]

options Posted on Wed, Jul. 7, 2010


Arizona gov. cancels border meeting after boycott
MICHELLE PRICE

The Associated Press

PHOENIX - Gov. Jan Brewer has called off a September border conference in Phoenix due to Mexican governors' objections to Arizona's tough new immigration enforcement law, though some officials are discussing holding the annual gathering elsewhere.

It was Arizona's turn to host the 28th annual U.S.-Mexico Border Governors Conference for four U.S. governors and six from Mexico. But Brewer said Wednesday the meeting was canceled because the Mexican governors planned to boycott it.

Brewer said she was disappointed about the boycott and hoped the governors of New Mexico, Texas and California would support her decision.

"The people of Arizona and the people of America support what Arizona has done," Brewer said. "For them to basically not attend here because of that, I think is unfair."

However, the governors of New Mexico and California are trying to go ahead with the conference in another state, with or without Arizona's participation, spokesmen said.

In a June letter, governors from the Mexican states of Baja California, Coahuila, Sonora, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas said Arizona's new immigration law violates civil rights and has provisions based on ethnic and cultural prejudices. They suggested relocating the conference to a different U.S. border state.

The New York Times reported the cancellation of the Arizona conference Wednesday.

The Arizona law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by a court. It requires police officers, while enforcing other laws, to check a person's immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" the person is here illegally. The law does not define reasonable suspicion, but police training materials say triggers for such checks can include speaking poor English, traveling in a crowded vehicle and hanging out in an area where illegal immigrants typically congregate.

Brewer, who denies that the law promotes racial profiling by law enforcement, said the conference would have been a good opportunity to discuss the Mexican governors' concerns.

"I just think it's a shame that they have responded this way," she said.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson thinks Brewer lacks the authority to cancel the conference and was surprised by her decision, said spokesman Gilbert Gallegos.

Richardson, a Democrat, still wants to hold the conference and is looking for another location, Gallegos said.

New Mexico could host the conference but that could be expensive, so ways to reduce costs are being considered, he said.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, thinks the meeting is a valuable time to work on border issues and also wants to go ahead with it, said spokesman Francisco Castillo.

"He is proud of the success they have accomplished over the years to tackle their shared challenges, and he looks forward to continuing the dialogue this year at an alternative site," Castillo said.

Schwarzenegger has not offered to hold the event in his state, and Castillo said he doesn't know yet if the governor will offer to host it. California was host to the meeting in 2008.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, would welcome meeting with any border governors to discuss common concerns but thinks staging a September conference at this point is "probably not feasible, regardless of where that would be held," spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said. "That does take quite a bit of planning."

Brewer said she isn't ruling out attending the conference in another location, but her attendance would depend on when the meeting is held.

,,,

Associated Press writer Paul Davenport contributed to this report.

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation/20100707_ap_arizonagovcancelsbordermeetingafterboy cott.html


Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation/20100707_ap_arizonagovcancelsbordermeetingafterboy cott.html#ixzz0t3JIr6Sx

[The_Lady_Snow]

APNewsBreak: NM hosting border meeting AZ canceled


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100716/ap_on_re_us/us_border_governors

[The_Lady_Snow]

Ariz. immigration law hearing ends with no ruling



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_arizona_lawsuit

[UofMfan]

Ariz. immigration law hearing ends with no ruling



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_arizona_lawsuit



This is to be expected, it will be a while before a ruling is made :|

[The_Lady_Snow]

This is to be expected, it will be a while before a ruling is made :|


Sucks huh?

I really really dislike Brewer.

What about all those wacka nuts who are donating money to defend the law...

Scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[UofMfan]

Sucks huh?

I really really dislike Brewer.

What about all those wacka nuts who are donating money to defend the law...

Scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And the other States that joined them? I swear, the more I read these things the less I miss the States.

[The_Lady_Snow]

And the other States that joined them? I swear, the more I read these things the less I miss the States.


Well I am sure the people of Kherson love having you there!!!!


:praying: