It's Time to Boycott Arizona

[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/articl...sanctions.html

[Sabine Gallais]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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]

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

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

critical thinking, at least that was my read.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

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]

Originally Posted by apretty

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

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

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]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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...86278#37986278

[The_Lady_Snow]

Immigrant farm workers' challenge: Take our jobs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100624/..._take_our_jobs

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

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/...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??????

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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]

Originally Posted by Kobi

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.)