Been a long month with lots of debates on laws, constitution, candidates, freedoms, and equality this month.
This is what I gleaned from it.
It is ok that I have to ask for a certified copy of a birth certificate, a declaration of citizenship, and a release of information from state and federal agencies, from people seeking low income housing, but it is not ok to ask the president elect to provide the same documentation.
It is not ok to think the supreme court of a state should have waited to allow gay people to marry before the states constitution was ammended. That I somehow support tyranny becasue I am part of the all that are holding these people back.
Not special enough I guess to somehow feel equality should apply to me as well.
That being because I have come from a middle class, white, single parent family, and believe in God, have lost family members to wars fighting for this country, that I shouldn't want to retain my freedom or believe in the process that allows me that freedom.
That it is not ok to think you should give medical treatment to a living baby because it was supposed to be an aborted fetus.
That it is ok to teach sex education and birth control in schools even if it is so effective we have to pass laws to allow teens to have abortions without parental consent, and pay for those abortions. But it is not ok to teach that along with the right to choose to have sex there is the responsibilty of taking care of the situation you create by making the choice. ie. tell your parents, have a child, or pay for the abortion.
That people assume that because I do not believe in abortion it is because it is for religous reasons, when actually it is for womens health reasons. Abortions are trecherous on a womans uterus, the tissue is extrememly soft when a woman is pregnant.
That people assume because I am not up in arms about the gay marriage ban, that it must be because it is for moral or religous reasons, when the reality is I don't care if you are gay and want to be married, I think you should have all the benefits awarded any other married couple, but if you want it to have a legal stamp of approval go through the steps it takes to do that. That maybe instead of spending your money on lawyers trying to get the law changed it would have been better spent to have taken your cause to the ballot box first and had the state constitutional ammendment changed.
That if something can not be changed by law then it can be changed by the sword. But you can not defend yourself against the minority, because you are part of the majority. If you do you are being opressive.
So many more people turned out to vote, you all elected your guy, lots of talk abouut equality, freedom, change, and love, and then come out snarling if I don't agree with some aspect of your philosophy, every bit as bad as the neo cons before the election...sheesh.
What I think from all this gleaning......that America was founded on the constitution, that many people want the freedoms that the constitution provides,
but not many people want to uphold the constitution that gives them that freedom.
J
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
|
imlost2
|
Nov 7 @ 11:11AM
|
|
|
Some things are really fvked up in some school systems. They want to teach your children how to control their sex lives, (to the point of who they can have sex with no a-days with the same sex) which they legally under law shouldn't be even having sex and having sex outside of marriage but can't teach and use our tax dollars wisely enough to get our kids through their SAT's to prepare them for college , you tell me why? tc Lost
|
|
Josuha
|
Nov 7 @ 11:23AM
|
|
|
It is ok that I have to ask for a certified copy of a birth certificate, a declaration of citizenship, and a release of information from state and federal agencies, from people seeking low income housing, but it is not ok to ask the president elect to provide the same documentation.
That's because the very same poor folk have too, but the rich and powerful folk don't.
But...every four years, the rich and powerful folk, tell the poor folk how they are here to help them.
And the same dumbass poor folk believes the rich and powerful folk b.s. and it starts all over again.
It is not ok to think the supreme court of a state should have waited to allow gay people to marry before the states constitution was ammended. That I somehow support tyranny becasue I am part of the all that are holding these people back.
That's because when the Constituion of a state or at the federal level works for them it's a good thing.
But if it does'nt, it's a bad thing.
And if the Constitution can be circumvented and ignored...that's a real good thing.
Not special enough I guess to somehow feel equality should apply to me as well.
That being because I have come from a middle class, white, single parent family, and believe in God, have lost family members to wars fighting for this country, that I shouldn't want to retain my freedom or believe in the process that allows me that freedom.
Being white, middleclass and believing in the process is and our Constitution can be dangerous.
I would suggest not talking about it.
That it is not ok to think you should give medical treatment to a living baby because it was supposed to be an aborted fetus.
It's a matter of wording.
Like er..when the calvery won, it was a great victory.
When the indians won, it was a horriable massacre.
That it is ok to teach sex education and birth control in schools even if it is so effective we have to pass laws to allow teens to have abortions without parental consent, and pay for those abortions. But it is not ok to teach that along with the right to choose to have sex there is the responsibilty of taking care of the situation you create by making the choice. ie. tell your parents, have a child, or pay for the abortion.
Choice has nothing to do with responsibilty.
If that were the case.
The 'choice' woud have been made when the cloths were taken off.
That people assume that because I do not believe in abortion it is because it is for religous reasons, when actually it is for womens health reasons. Abortions are trecherous on a womans uterus, the tissue is extrememly soft when a woman is pregnant.
Blaspheny!
That people assume because I am not up in arms about the gay marriage ban, that it must be because it is for moral or religous reasons, when the reality is I don't care if you are gay and want to be married, I think you should have all the benefits awarded any other married couple, but if you want it to have a legal stamp of approval go through the steps it takes to do that. That maybe instead of spending your money on lawyers trying to get the law changed it would have been better spent to have taken your cause to the ballot box first and had the state constitutional ammendment changed.
It's easier to skirt the system.
No one likes to hear the word 'no'.
That if something can not be changed by law then it can be changed by the sword. But you can not defend yourself against the minority, because you are part of the majority. If you do you are being opressive.
Only white folk and middle calls conservatives can be oppressive..get with the program.
So many more people turned out to vote, you all elected your guy, lots of talk abouut equality, freedom, change, and love, and then come out snarling if I don't agree with some aspect of your philosophy, every bit as bad as the neo cons before the election...sheesh.
Liberals as rabid as the neo-cons..you just figuring that out?
What I think from all this gleaning......that America was founded on the constitution, that many people want the freedoms that the constitution provides,
but not many people want to uphold the constitution that gives them that freedom.
Check out the last 15 years and you've already have your answer..
|
|
blondhunger
|
Nov 7 @ 11:34AM
|
|
Hey, Joshua you get with the program. What kind of horse shit sre you spewing that only white folk and conservatives can be oppressive. The truth is that the State of California is going bankrupt as a result of supporting blacks with their liberal welfare laws with blacks moving to the state from everywhere in the US to take advantage of it. California is paying for huge medical care costs for illegal aliens that have flooded their counties, and on top of that having to waste money legislating to uphold every amendment put forth by liberal special interests.
Now that is what you call oppressive!
|
|
observed50
|
Nov 7 @ 12:52PM
|
|
JJ> You're sliding into selective listening, which I haven't noted from you before. You're missing points and choosing to focus on words or phrases lifted from context... 
In my arguing with you in personal communication about the value of the birth certificate, and it's sideshow trappings, I argued that it was sideshow because, can you remember another time in your life where a presidential candidate's birth certificate has been important in an election? College papers? Baptism certificates? I can't. That takes us back to Nixon, '72. What makes this different...???
Obama is black, with a name with Muslim roots.
Suddenly, the backlash of fear was to try and disprove his citizenship, his religion, and to find evidence that he was in fact, a Marxist supporting Muslim terrorism. Or some such junk. Maybe during the McCarthy period, someone was asked to produce a birth certificate because like the fear riding in so many folks in this election...you had to prove you were American enough all the time. But America had snapped out of the fog of that fear by the time I was old enough to think and listen.
This isn't about the anti-immigrant backlash where now we are forced to live in distrust of everyone and have 'papers' (again, American enough) to prove we are legal, the debris of which you deal with in your work. This is different...and for me...I think we win when we don't bend for the fearful and agree to prove we are somebody just to help people go looking for the next thing they will make us prove...
Democracy has within it the constant tension of the tyranny of the majority. The perception of the majority's ability to do at minimum, the 'wrong thing' against the minority, is an idea whose root in Plato's Republic, while the phrase itself was coined in Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America written in 1835. It is a constant danger when it comes to rights of law and who is protected.
Look at any lynching pictures...practically the whole town turned out to watch people swing without a trial, and during the Jim Crow form of that tyranny, those swinging were differentially black, and swinging because they had no courts to protect their 'equality before the law.' The majority supported slavery. They supported the internment of the Japanese. They made the courts mirror their common law perception...this is the way it 'should' be.
That tyranny is not about our singular personhood...it is about us as a herd acting tyrannically against a subherd. Majorities determine who win...but winning doesn't mean just, equitable or any other such thing by majority. Our conception of 'justice' like equality is in constant flux because as we rub shoulders with more and more people not like us, we keep having to rethink lofty universal principles that when we wrote them, and learned them...we had no idea they would apply to all these other people...too.
Equal before the law.
So if law applies...it applies right now doesn't it? Not...wait a minute and see if the law still applies...but right now. If we say 'equal' before the law, what is the explanation of a court waiting to enforce that equality, regardless of the fact that we might redefine the set of human actors to whom the law applies down the road, but that law is not being equally applied?
"But wait several months...we're gonna try and change the law! We might be able to deny the applicability of the law to this class of actors!"
Huh??
Make no rulings until we might change the law???
Can you see how this is absurd?? It reduces all law to non-applicability if any group says..."Wait! We might be successful in changing it!"
'Oh...okay. Gotcha.'
And the extension of the absurdity is that now Californians have a constitution granting equal treatment while insuring non-equal treatment. Huh???
The rub is...equality DOES apply to you as well. Nothing above suggests different, or in any of our personal communication or Monster's blog suggests different. Where are you pulling that from?
I'm really confused as to how this has now devolved into some acrimonious discussion about the Constitution in which you've now entered into the illogic of using labels to accuse and dismiss entire groups of people?? It hasn't been your style of writing or communication previously.
Check your drinks...do you keep them with you the whole time you're drinking them? Something has gone askew. 
|
|
jayej
|
Nov 7 @ 3:36PM
|
|
|
In my arguing with you in personal communication about the value of the birth certificate, and it's sideshow trappings, I argued that it was sideshow because, can you remember another time in your life where a presidential candidate's birth certificate has been important in an election? College papers? Baptism certificates?
Observed you are not the only one I have addressed this with both in comments and in persoanl communications.
Perhaps it was not an issue before because most folks just provided the documents. I am sure they have they have been required for quite some time. His Baptism certificate? I could care less about, not my business, his college papers? Registration if it pertains to citizenship. I verify the financial information and transcripts of every student I have here, and I have to contact their parents to see if they are providing any kind of support, even if the student is 40 and the parent is 80. These guys have to be absolutley transparent, why shouldn't he?
Suddenly, the backlash of fear was to try and disprove his citizenship, his religion, and to find evidence that he was in fact, a Marxist supporting Muslim terrorism. Perhaps for some but that is not my agenda. I could care less about his color or his religion. there is nothing in the constitution that says he can't be muslim, if that is his choice, not my business. Except for maybe how it would pertain to foreign policy. There is nothing in the constitution that says he can not be a marxist, fascist, or socialist. Honesty in that category does pertain, I don't vote democrat or republican and I would like a clear idea of what a candidates platform is.
I think we win when we don't bend for the fearful and agree to prove we are somebody just to help people go looking for the next thing they will make us prove... This is another area where you and I differ, I do not think it is a fear factor that requires the debris of paperwork I shuffle through. I think it is a control factor, using fear as a catalyst.
You may ask why I bring up control as a primary issue, but you answered that already....
tyranny is not about our singular personhood...it is about us as a herd acting tyrannically against a subherd You keep looking at this like the majority is the tyrants, I am looking at it like the government is the tyrant, and whoever is in power at any given time either democrat or republican being the herd or subherd flavor of the day.
As for the part of this that pertains to laws and changing them.
There is a process, take the necessary steps and follow the process.
By skipping over going out and gaining support, collecting signatures, putting it on a ballot, When it did go to a vote...guess what? It did not fly.
Now they start over, only the protests are against who they percieve as the enemy and how much support do you think that adds to your cause? It further divides the public you need to get the very thing you want passed.
I would think it is pretty safe to say if you try to shove something down someones throat they are going to gag.
Follow the process. Group together, state your objective , find support, gather signatures, get it on the ballot, and champion your cause.
The rub is...equality DOES apply to you as well. The universality applications of law continue to hammer away in the United States at the tyranny of the majority that constantly mistakenly feels that law applies to them, and not to all.
I am going to leave that alone and let other readers decide who took what which way.
Nobody spiked my drink... If my tone has changed, if I sound jaded, I am tired of arguing points, with people that are so explicitly polarized by their party lines.
It is like folks can't see the forest through the trees anymore.
|
|
|