Word Cops

[waldopaper]

Thought to continue the discussion down here as it is going (evolving) in a different direction in the main room. Turns out the dynamic involved more than a "word," but the "word" was a flag for much of the whole thing.

[Mark]

What I'm seeing is the wrong people angry about the wrong things, BO. Calling the government socialist gets a visceral reaction from the McCarthyite cold warriors--they grab their guns and off they go to shoot the Commies. But proving point by point that the government is fascist gets only a ho-hum from everyone else, because we never really dehumanized fascists the way we did Commies. Fighting fascism was a regrettable necessity for a short period of time, but never an overarching priority like fighting Communism.

In a fascist country, BO, you can't really keep race, religion, or sex out of it. Suppose Adolf Hitler was President here in the U.S. now (not so far-fetched, as the same interests that backed and supported Hitler, hand picked our current leadership), and Congress and the Supreme Court were composed of all his most loyal henchmen. Saying, "Hitler's a fascist," wouldn't arouse any feeling, it would just be a simple statement of fact. If you wanted to turn people against him, you'd have to appeal to their hatreds and say, "Hitler's a cunt," "Hitler's a nigger," or "Hitler's a Jew," which everyone would understand was insulting and demeaning to Hitler. Well, everyone except me, and I think I need a time out because that warm loving feeling is starting to wear off and I really do want to try to get along. Ain't hardly no place else I can post, so it is either learn to get along or stfu. Maybe stfu is the only way for me to get along.

[BO]

"In a fascist country, BO, you can't really keep race, religion, or sex out of it."

I agree. That's why, as much as I want to support the revolutionary leanings of some groups, there's always some ideology mixed in--like their hate for this group or that group, or more commonly, christian ideology--which I abhor--that spoils it for me. If these various groups could just try and stay focused on restoring the rule of law, they'd find that there was something in it for everyone. But in reality, I doubt anything like that is going to happen. Probably end up with half the country in jack boots and the other half burning in ovens.

[Mark]

That's why I like the Zapatistas so much. No hatred mixed in there. They identify with all oppressed people everywhere and they embrace everyone who isn't an oppressor. As for the oppressors, the Zapatistas refer to the Mexican government (which is backed by our U.S. government through Plan Mexico) as "el mal gobierno," the bad government, and they simply want nothing to do with it. They'll defend themselves from it when they're attacked, but they have their own "good government," which is a direct participatory democracy.

Our own "rule of law" is the same farce it has always been, forbidding both rich and poor equally from sleeping under the bridge.

There may be some action though, as a lot of people who never imagined it could happen to them, are now taking very seriously the possibility that they themselves could end up homeless.

Gosh, I wish I could find the thing I wrote back when I was on Care2 where there was a surge of anti-immigrant sentiment. I'd been there a couple of years and had a large following. I was one of the most popular people on their site and anything I wrote got enough recommends to push it to the top. But, of course, nobody knew me. So I wrote an article confessing that I'm an undocumented immigrant. Instant confusion. How do you react when you don't like illegal aliens and you find out that one of the people you like and admire the most, is one? ROFL

I did that a few times before anyone got hip to me. When somebody started posting stuff about how blacks spread disease, I admitted to being black. When some sexist stuff started, I copped to being female. I was quite prepared to explain that I'm actually an Iraqi insurgent, but they banned me because I got into a little dispute with some VIPs there. Some idiot had suggested that the way to stop rapes in the Congo was to petition the UN to provide more brothels. I didn't blow a fuse--I freakin' went nuclear.

Hell, maybe Rady was right and I did deserve to be banned from OEN. I'm a shit-stirring, fight-picking, trouble-making instigator. You guys wanna teach me how to behave in civil company, you got a long road to hoe. But since I'm just about plumb out of websites, maybe I'm ready to listen. At least you got my attention, and that's the first step with a mule. ;)

[waldopaper]

Spot on BO. It;s a flawed system, "rule of llaw," but as of yet... I can't imagine anything bter. Yeah, whoever has the most money can hire the best "argumentation" mouthpieces... but the primary assumption is this: the "Truth" will give even the weakest mouthpiece a deciding edge... and I agree with that.

For years the "right" has quacked about "moral relativism," but when it serves their purpose (ie "winning") they have no problem with it at all. Some would accuse you (BO) of being "xenophobic." Not me. Where I live, the Mex keep a low profile... but not the tweakers... the meth-heads that live on the outskirts of the city in their double-wides. They pay for their trailers by being in the meth business. They're just trying to "survive," and they don't particularly give a crap how they do it. Wouldn't you or I?

I aint excusing their slimy nasty asses at all. If they come near me, I'll KILL the fucks cos that's their deal: either you or me. Well, it's YOU asshole... BLAP nighty night. How nice. The capitalists get us working-class fucks to kill each other.

So BO... I aint gonna get all hoity-toity and "offended" because Beaners piss you off. If I lived where you do, they'd piss me off too... but for me, it's toothless white-trash rednecks. yeah, I know all about their "unfortunate circumstances," but I don't give a shit when one o"them" is bent on killing me and breaking the gold out of my teeth.

[Mark]

The truth might give even the weakest mouthpiece a deciding edge IF the facts came into it. In most cases what is being argued isn't the facts but the law, and the law, as Mumia so well described, is whatever the judge says it is. I got a couple of ex-lawyer friends who can explain it much better than I can.

Waldo, I can see where I've been going about things all wrong and your way is much more effective. Thank you.

Oops. Saved. Closed. Went to check my email and found this.

But PLEASE don't give up on me, teach! I'm determined to bring those grades up if it kills me. There's gotta be a way.

[BO]

"In most cases what is being argued isn't the facts but the law"

I believe you have that backwards. Habeus Corpis--bring the body (facts) out.

But you're right about judges acting as referees who mostly mis-interpret the law. Haven't met a lawyer of judge yet who even knew what justice was...and I've known quite a few myself. Our legal system is probably one of the most criminal enterprises within the American hologram. It's a totally corrupt system that simply exists to create the illusion that we're all afforded equal treatment. We aren't.

[Mark]

Habeus corpus refers to the person (body), meaning that you weren't supposed to be able to hold a person in custody secretly, indefinitely, etc. It dates back to the 1400s, I think, or at least before the Magna Carta. But we don't actually have it any more. See, it only applies to U.S. citizens who aren't labeled enemy combatants, and an enemy combatant is whoever the President says it is. So the lawyer files a habeus corpus motion, produce the person, and the court says, no can do, the President says they're an enemy combatant. That's not supposed to happen to innocent U.S. citizens. Like I know this one dude who really hates undocumented immigrants and Communists and a lot of other people, and his wife is a legal immigrant who looks Mexican and has a Mexican accent. So I tried to explain to him that if they were rounding up immigrants, his wife could get rounded up by mistake. And when she gave the guy trying to push her onto the truck her papers, he could just throw them in the dirt and stomp on them and say, "That's not my job. Get on the truck. You can sort it out after you get there." But of course when she gets there, she no longer has her papers and he doesn't know where she's vanished to, and he gets a lawyer to file a habeus corpus but it doesn't apply because it only applies to U.S. citizens and she can't prove she's a citizen and he can't find out where she is, etc., etc. Quite a few legal citizens, some born right here in the USA, have been wrongfully deported in roundups. I think Cheech and Chong once did a movie about it. It's a real trip--you find yourself in Mexico, don't know anyone there, don't speak a word of Spanish, and don't have any papers to cross the border and come home.

Anyway, an ex-lawyer friend of mine was co-counsel on an election case here in San Diego. The plaintiffs kept begging him to bring up the facts of the case in court. He was their lawyer. They were paying him. And he kept trying to explain to them why he couldn't bring up the facts. First they have to argue jurisdiction, venue, and standing. Then they have to argue whether the defendants (the elections officials) are the proper defendants or have immunity, which laws apply, and on and on. Really on and on. A few years later the case has reached the court of appeals, it gets dismissed because Congress intervenes, the fraudulently elected Congresspuke has finished his second term of office already, and the facts never did get in, well, except as part of a final brief and oral argument attempting to cite the Constitution (I'm proud to have an autographed copy of that brief and it was the most stirring oral argument I've ever heard), but the judges had already been told by Congress that they lacked jurisdiction, so they didn't care.

You are absolutely correct about our just-us system, BO. In spades.

[BO]

Here's a Salon article on Obama and his continuation of Bush's policy of denying suspected terrorists--which I believe now includes any form of dissention--the right to Habeas Corpis.

Guess I'll just call Obama an evil bastard and leave it at that.

[BO]

None of the third-worlders piss me off because of their race. Not only do we have hoards of mexicans in the hood (most fresh from across the border), but there's been a huge influx of russians and asians--Vietnamese, Korean, Indo, etc.-- as well.

Problem is, this huge population of newcomers has overwhelmed the existing culture in a very short amount of time, and has brought with it a new set of ethics that have very little resemblance to those found in the first world. The result is, criminality has skyrocketed. So has drug use, prostitution, violence and associated poverty. Not to mention that their presence has overwhelmed our local social services and education system which have been taxed to the point where quality is non-existent.

So, yeah, maybe this white boy is still doing alright in spite of these changes. But he definitely notices, and he speaks to the changes he sees. Does that automatically make me xenophobic because I've noticed a correlation between a shift in my neighborhood's demographics and its degradation? Is that how it works?

Or could it be that most use the word incorrectly. 'Cause hey, who often do you really get to use a word that starts with the letter x. So, lets use it everywhere cause it makes us sound smart and special. (I'm not ragging on you, Waldo.)

I ain't xenophobic. I loves all races. But when certain groups act like schmucks, I'm going to call 'em schmucks. I don't fear the mexicans because.....ooooo....scary.... their skin is different than mine. I don't like it when they break into my house, breed unrelentlessly, put their damn crosses up all over, shit on the environment....and all the other crap they do which is generally associated with third world cultures. (Almost sound like republicans don't they?) In fact, many I've seen are down right smug about the fact that they're here temporarily, and have no intention of sticking around--let alone adapting. They could care less. They's just here for da american cheese.

Fuck 'em.

[Mark]

Okay, remind me again what we're here for, BO.

But I gotta agree that I wouldn't like strangers breeding in my house.

[BO]

I dunno. What thread is this? ;-)

Oh yeah, 'word cops.'

Guess I get a bit sensitive every time that xenophobic word comes out of the closet. A shrink would probably say, hey, if you're being that defensive regarding a word you don't think defines you, well, it's probably a sure sign that you are (the word). You know, like an alcoholic claiming he's in total control of his drinking.

Damn, I'm turning into a volatile SOB. It's your fault, Mark.

Just kidding.

Do you like republicans, Mark? (yep, it's a leading question)

[Mark]

I don't like Republicans, BO. I don't like Democrats. I don't like Libertarians. I don't like Greens. I don't like voters.

People who delegate their power and authority, the keys to the treasury, the right to wage wars, everything, to people they can't hold accountable, piss me off, BO.

Let's say I'm a small businessperson and I hire somebody to keep my books, do the payroll, etc. After a while, I find out they've been ripping me off, so I fire them, right? You bet I do. Okay, when we vote, we're hiring people to take charge of our finances for us--the whole economy. Only if we find out they've been ripping us off, the Constitution says that we can't fire them. No recall. Article One, Section Five, the only one who can remove a sitting Member of Congress, is Congress. We can't fire them, all we can do is ask them to fire themselves, and that isn't very likely, particularly if they're enjoying ripping us off.

So we can wait until the next rigged election and hope to get somebody who won't rip us off. Think about it. Say somebody steals your credit card and starts running up unauthorized charges in your name. All you have to do is notify the credit card company and you're no longer responsible for any unauthorized charges. But when it's a Member of Congress running up unauthorized charges in your name, you call the company to report it and they say, "Thank you for contacting us. According to the Constitution, the thief must be allowed to continue ripping you off until their term of office is up, and during that time you are responsible for every penny of those unauthorized charges. Once their term is up, please contact us and we'll arrange for you to vote for another thief. Press 9 to speak to a representative, or 0 to end this call."

I don't like voters of any stripe or persuasion because I happen to believe that delegating your power and authority to people you cannot hold accountable is criminally insane.

Next question.