We’ve seen it all before.
Gay rights activists equating their modern-day fight for ‘equality’ to post-slavery oppression of blacks. Muslim activists equating justified terror law enforcement investigation to racial profiling of blacks. The obese even formed a group complaining they were being discriminated against like blacks. When it comes time to beg for attention, victims choose black people to compare their woeful experiences to, even though the comparisons are insultingly inaccurate.
The latest group seeking civil-rights props are illegal aliens via Russell Contreras of the Associated Press.
They gather on statehouse steps with signs and bullhorns, risking arrest. They attend workshops on civil disobedience and personal storytelling, and they hold sit-ins and walk out of class in protest. They’re being warned that they could even lose their lives.
“… they could even lose their lives.” Just who could we be talking about?
The list goes on and both Contreras and the Associated Press know this black/illegal alien comparison is not.
Although, it does make for good soap opera, and the emotional appeal of “anchor babies” is strong.
Black people by their very existence in America is not an illegal act and their comparison basically insinuates that blacks are criminals.
Very insightful. That is why fundamental exceptions were made to compensate for extraordinary conditions in the past. It is unfortunate that many individuals have exploited the good nature of people and wasted their opportunity to advance with this once in a lifetime act of voluntary exploitation.
Illegal aliens demand special treatment while those who don’t have the convenience of a border to run across, stand in lines abroad like fools.
Another insightful comment. The issue under consideration is national sovereignty and the rights of the citizens and legal residents. Not to mention the rights of people awaiting legal entry, which are being subverted by illegal aliens and their American supporters.
So, the moral of the story is: It is acceptable to defy the rule of law, when there are sufficient special interests willing to support your amnesty.
A corollary to the moral is: It is acceptable to subvert some individuals’ rights, when there are sufficient special interests willing to support the denigration of their individual dignity.
In conclusion, the selective application and enforcement of laws is incompatible with civilized society and individual dignity. However, with the rejection of individual dignity, and the implementation of a progressive totalitarian regime, then morality is inconsequential.
Your reaction to the AP article is confusing because it lumps all the wrongs done to black people into one package.
The term “unlike black people centuries ago” is misleading. You have to make a distinction between the condition of slaves before the Emancipation Proclamation and the wrongs done to blacks during the Jim Crow era – after the 13th and 14th amendments.
For over a century after the Civil War, blacks violated dozens and hundreds of laws, passed by legislatures mostly in the south. If a black man in Alabama drank from a whites-only fountain, he was breaking the law. The whole notion of civil disobedience required violation of laws deemed to be unjust. It was the primary tactic of the civil rights movement. Black people, indeed, WERE criminals, heroically so!
Laws change.
The current immigration laws can be compared to Jim Crow. They are discriminatory, dysfunctional, and, now with Arizona (and probably other states) about to make their own laws, arbitrary. No doubt, the entire legal framework of immigration needs to be revised. George Bush tried it and the Republicans hammered him.
Your lead sentence is also problematic.
“Gay rights activists equating their modern-day fight for ‘equality’ to post-slavery oppression of blacks.”
As a gay-rights activist, I may compare the struggle for equality to the civil rights movement, but I don’t compare the present condition of gays to the condition of black people under Jim Crow. There was a time when that sort of comparison might have been more apt, but, thanks to the continual advancement of our cause through the use of all the weapons of political and media action, things have improved considerably since Stonewall. Still a way to go, however.
The 14th Amendment is not only for black people. It is for all Americans– including homosexuals, Muslims, and, yes, “illegal” immigrants.
@brooklynbridge “misleading – designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently”
There is no attempt to mislead here, but state an opinion and if this is confusing, then I’m at fault as a writer.
You may not have equated the current gay ‘struggle’ to Jim Crow era blacks, but as far as the present lexicon is concerned, when the term ‘civil rights’ is mentioned, that’s the period inferred and I think you know that.
Lastly, if you’ve been here awhile you know I’ve always be for the repeal of the antiquated 14th Amendment which was written for post-Emancipation blacks to redress slavery, and is no longer needed.
Note the word “inadvertently” in your own definition. That word obviates the condition to mislead intentionally.
The term “civil rights” is not owned by blacks. There have been, and still are, struggles for civil rights all over the world, by communities as diverse as Roma gypsies to women in Afghanistan. American blacks have no more exclusive title to those words than Jews have to the word “genocide”.
Talk about pandering! Not only do you put the word struggle in quotation marks with regard to the gay rights movement, you make as if you and your fellow American blacks have sole right to the term “civil rights”. As someone who spent two risky months in Mississippi to register voters during the Freedom Summer of 1964, I probably have more dibs on the phrase than you do.
As for the 14th Amendment being antiquated. That is a quaint opinion. It is also moot.
If there’s any amendment that is no longer needed, it’s the 2nd.
Don’t feed the troll, people.
Igor
Anybody who thinks is a troll, Igor.
Good grief, there must be a lot of people who spend their days googling for key words searching for any site that happens to be discussing certain subjects. Maybe if they spent more time interacting with real people in the real world they would understand why they get labeled trolls.–And no, it’s not because they think, it’s because they launch into personal attacks the second someone disagrees with them.
The individual exhibiting homosexual tendencies is not the subject of discrimination. Homosexual behavior would be more correctly compared to interracial relationships. However, unlike the latter, the homosexual relationship is not productive by natural design. Still, what consenting adults do in their home, is their own concern.
@ENeece: I don’t spend my day googling for key words. Bob Parks is someone I know personally. I came across this site because we reconnected on Facebook. So don’t jump to conclusions.
Perhaps you can tell me, eNeecie, exactly how my “attacks” are personal — especially give the fact that your attack on me was quite personal. I responded to what Bob Parks wrote in his essay. I did not attack him personally. I don’t argue ad hominem.
@n.n. are you arguing “natural law”? How quaint. What exactly do you mean by “productive by natural design”? What happens when straight people have their tubes tied?
This reminds me of the over use of the word “Nazi” to describe anyone you want to make look bad. With each generation the memory of the Holocaust fades and its very existence has been questioned and debated. Eventually the word will loose its meaning and when antisemitism turns violent and the perpetrators are called Nazis, everyone will just shrug and turn away, thinking, “Yeah, whatever. Everyone gets called that.”
@MadRat
Arrrrrrgh!
“Eventually the word will loose its meaning…”
That’s LOSE!
Oh lawd…
brooklynbridge:
Quaint, huh. Are you denying reality, and claim that homosexual behavior is not deviant? The issue is not whether individuals exhibiting homosexual tendencies are productive or not. The concern is with normalizing a deviant behavior, and the potential consequences for the human species. This does not relate to whether there are more or less humans born, because some people choose to reject, or are incapable of, a natural behavior.
In any case, as individuals, homosexuals should not suffer discrimination. However, normalizing their behavior may have repercussions in the long-term, and that potential should be noted as such.
What part of “natural design” is in question? This is biology. The viability of the species. It is not an issue of social constructs.
I certainly deny that homosexuals, and homosexuality are deviant. Deviant from what? Can you please define “normal”? Are catholic priests deviant because they decline to propagate. Homosexual behavior occurs throughout nature. What is deviant is the persecution. What is “natural design”? Are you against birth control? medicine in general? tools? Biology did not provide us with eyeglasses.
Perhaps Mother Nature, in Her wisdom, fashioned homosexuals for a purpose — to design interiors, to create Broadway musicals — who knows? There is deviation in every species. There may be an evolutionary design in the phenomenon. Who are you to say there isn’t? Are you an evolutionary biologist?
Homosexuals have been a part of every culture since the Greeks (and well before no doubt). Gay men and women have made enormous contributions to the human race. Agreed, homosexuality is a social construct, around since the 19th century. In other times, the word for homosexuals was “normal”.
@brooklynbridge
“If there’s any amendment that is no longer needed, it’s the 2nd.”
As someone who’s had an unarmed family member murdered by an illegal immigrant with an illegal firearm, I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t see how my relative having a legal firearm could have ended up worse.
Additionally, I have another family member who “took care of” someone society won’t miss (not an illegal) using her legally owned firearm. She maintains and I sincerely believe that if she wasn’t armed she would have been raped and possibly murdered. If cities like Chicago want to ban guns, handguns, whatever then they should guarantee everyone’s personal safety but of course they won’t. Of course had she been raped, survived and gotten pregnant, you’d encourage her to exercise a right that’s nowhere to be found in the constitution.
If I’m wrong about the sentiment regarding the 2nd Amendment there is a constitutional process to do it – repeal it. Just don’t try to do an end around the law.
“They attend workshops on civil disobedience”
Civil disobedience like breaking the law against immigrating illegally?
“they hold sit-ins and walk out of class in protest”
Then they are just giving ammunition to the taxpayers who complain about having to pay for the education and other opportunities of illegal immigrants and their children.
“They’re being warned that they could even lose their lives.”
So could every other person who’s living.
BRFan, I used to be a supporter of gun bans until I met a Detroit grandmother who was forced to stabbed to death a man who forced his way into her home and went after her granddaughters. The man was batshit crazy on drugs. She told me it was the worst thing that ever happened to her and that she wished she had a gun so that she wouldn’t have had to stab him so many times, even in the eye. She bought a gun and three years later, her grandson used it to stop a home invader who was carrying a gun, a knife, and rolls of duct tape. He was a felon and obtained the gun illegally, of course.
@BRFan, my deepest sympathy for your loss.
I have lived outside the US for the past 25 years, in countries where guns are difficult to obtain, so I have no idea of what it is like to be threatened by gun violence.
The countries where I’ve lived have, statistically, very little crime perpetrated by people wielding guns. I feel safe and secure on the street, in my home, wherever. When I come back to the US for a holiday, I constantly look over my shoulder.
But you have it your way. You want to live in a country where anyone can have a gun, where guns are easier to get than a box of cereal? Great! You want it, you got it. God Bless America.
Brooklyn, boxes of cereal are subsidized for those who can’t afford them and there’s no waiting period. My cousin commented that in all her life, she had never been assaulted in Detroit, including a time her old car died on the Lodge at 3 am and she had to walk home. She went to France for a one-week holiday and was hit over the head with a skateboard and robbed. Life’s funny like that.
brooklynbridge:
Homosexual behaviors are deviant by their inherent contradiction to biological viability. Homosexuality is not a social construct. Individuals with homosexual tendencies can be productive. Their decision to engage in homosexual, or other deviant, behaviors is their own, and should not be a concern, nor an imposition on society.
What do you wish to achieve with the normalization of homosexuality? It is obviously not about individuals, but about their choice of behaviors.
The availability of guns to the general populace does not increase the likelihood of violence; although, the omnipresence of criminals does. Have you visited Russia, Italy, Canada, or the United States?
“Inherent contradiction to biological viablity”? What does that mean? Please explain more fully. Is oral sex between heterosexuals a similar contradiction? And what about marriage between to people who are biologically incapable of producing offspring? Be exact, please. I find your phraseology maddeningly vague.
There is not “decision” to engage in homosexual behavior any more than there is a decision to engage in heterosexual behavior.
Homosexuality, as I said, does not have to be normalized.It is part of nature, and part of human nature. It is not a “choice of behavor” any more than being left hande, or being black is a choice.
Homosexuality does not need to be normalized, any more than race needs to be normalized.
You right wingers talk about freedom all the time. But you deny rights and freedoms to people you don’t like. There should be absolute equality for gay Americans — including the freedom to marry.
“The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come.”,– Tony Kushner, Angels in America.
And there is no connection between the “omnipresence of criminals” and easy access to guns. Duh. It’s like saying there is no connection between easy availability of booze and alcoholism.
Corrections “two” “handed”
“there is no connection between the “omnipresence of criminals” and easy access to guns. Duh. It’s like saying there is no connection between easy availability of booze and alcoholism.”
Except that’s not what ANY of us have written. We’ve just pointed out that restricting LEGAL access hasn’t deterred criminals from illegally obtaining guns. Look recent shootings in countries where gun ownership is restricted and contrast that with Finland, where per-capita gun ownership is and has been higher than the US. Or you might contrast it to Mexico, in which gun ownership is restricted but the police and military regularly seize guns that predominantly come from Asia and former Soviet Bloc countries.
Otis McDonald, who wasn’t a felon and had never been arrested for any violent offense, merely wanted a legal means to defend himself against robbers – armed or not. It’s no different than Kenneth Batchelor using a legally-owned shotgun to stop an intruder in the UK. On the flip side, Munir Hussain DIDN’T use a gun but a cricket bat to permanently maim an intruder.
Also, you don’t understand alcoholism is you think that restricting alcohol will cure it. Prohibition merely took alcohol away from law-abiding citizens. The alcoholics found other ways to get it.
But I doubt I could convince you. It’s rather like a UK resident who argued that home invaders mustn’t be seriously harmed. I copied down his response in the Guardian to the idea of putting in writing that residents can use deadly force to stop intruders in their home:
“What is the worse crime, breaking into a house and stealing household goods or killing someone? Use of force to protect your house must be proportionate or it is a license to kill and maim for those fortunate enough to own a house.”
That commenter views crime through the filter of class struggle. The homeowner, being fortunate to own a house, mustn’t be allowed to hurt someone who, he assumes, is only stealing because of abject poverty. To point out that there are thrill-seeking teens and home-owning robbers who’ve broken in to neighboring houses wouldn’t move him at all. It’s all about class struggle.
And restricting LEGAL access to drugs has not diminished cocaine addiction. I get it. You are right about prohibition.
I agree that restricting guns alone, especially at this point where they are more common than toothpicks, will do little to reduce crime. The reasons, as you point out, are more endemic.
But selling alcohol to the public requires a license. There are heavy penalties for driving, flying a plane, etc. while under the influence. Selling booze to minors is a crime. In other words, whether it works or not, society does exercise its right to regulate. Why shouldn’t the same be true of firearms? I twelve year old can’t drive a car, but he/she can buy a machine gun.
Like Russia, like Brazil, and so many other countries, the US has a deep rooted culture of violence. It permeates media, it forms the popular mindset, it informs our foreign policy. That mindset, that problems can be solved by putting bullets in people, (usually by the end of a 50 minute episode or a 2 hour movie) forms the environment that creates the high crime rate.
Add to that, deep fissures of social inequality, an underclass that has little or no hope of participating in “the American dream”, a futile and benighted prohibition policy with regard to drugs.
Finland has a much more peaceful culture, a more enlightened policy with regard to drugs, and far more social equality. Sarah Palin would be laughed off the stage in Helsinki (as she would in most countries). As you know, Finland also has a set of strong gun regulation laws. Guns permits are required, and they are issued by local police. I would have no problem with that policy in the United States.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that home invaders should not be harmed. I think that is what the police are for. As you know, most police associations have come out in favor of restrictions on firearms — because they are the ones who have to face death that comes from the mouth of a gun.
282 Chicago young people have been killed by other, mostly young people packing heat. What would you advocate, handing out weapons to all Chicago high school students so they can defend themselves? Oh boy.
Good article in the New England Journal of Medicine. @MissJean, I wonder what you think of it.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMp1006326v1.pdf
“society does exercise its right to regulate. Why shouldn’t the same be true of firearms? I twelve year old can’t drive a car, but he/she can buy a machine gun.”
No, he/she can’t in my state. What state are you talking about?
I used Finland as an example because they are violent towards themselves, not towards others. They have been well-known for the highest suicide rate in the world, a phenomenon which has made their culture a major study for psychology. They are more “socially equal” because they are, for the most part, a fairly homogeneous group in terms of values, Laplanders included. We would consider them extremists in self-responsibility. This was why they were the only country who paid back their WW2 debt to the US. Their education system is phenomenal for its special ed programs but would be considered unfeeling to regular students. A student who decides to sleep in class or walk out of class would not get a call from the truancy officer or the principal. They would be expected to learn by failing, especially since Finland’s biggest resource is people with skills. However, they are having a major problem with drugs and young people who are getting a sense of entitlement, particularly university students (university is free to all, including the grandchildren of Finns who emigrated) who don’t see work but are able to draw unemployment while using dual-citizenship or other arrangements to get employment in other countries.
“Please don’t put words in my mouth.”
That would be particularly difficult for me considering you’re TYPING, not speaking. Strange that you have no trouble asking me such a foolish question about giving school children guns. No, I see no reason for any child to have a gun. But it seems to me that Chicago had a terrific gun ban for many years, so how do you explain the fact that the school children of Chicago were “packing heat”?
I’m also curious how drug policies could be changed in the US to encourage an end to gun violence. Please enlighten me as to the connection.
As to the article, I read something similar in a law enforcement journal several years ago. It was when Canadian citizens were required to declare all firearms in their possession, but there was no way of knowing who might actually have guns ranging from WW2 souvenirs to hand-crafted weapons by the many “hobby” gunsmiths.
Incidentally, there has been an effort in the US to make those convicted of a gun-related crime register with the local authorities, just like sex-offenders. However, it’s considered violating their rights. So what do you suggest we do?
“I never said that home invaders should not be harmed. I think that is what the police are for. As you know, most police associations have come out in favor of restrictions on firearms — because they are the ones who have to face death that comes from the mouth of a gun.”
I find this actually sad. Police officers in Detroit and other “shrinking” urban areas have admitted that they don’t have the manpower to respond promptly to calls. A couple of neighborhoods have neighborhood watches that are armed (legally) and willing to respond to a neighbor’s call. Is this vigilantism or common sense of survival?
Can’t say I agree with placing the blame for violence towards “putting bullets in people, (usually by the end of a 50 minute episode or a 2 hour movie)”. The three most violent movies I’ve seen lately have been Asian and European. Aren’t they more peaceful and enlightened than North America?
I also don’t see how “deep fissures of social inequality, an underclass that has little or no hope of participating in ‘the American dream’” is the fault of guns. Mostly, in my area, it’s the fault of 73% of births outside of marriage, with fathers absent or part-timing between sets of children by different women. Our young men are parodies of manliness, associating “masculinity” with violence. And I don’t think it’s just us; there are plenty of white boys in the suburban and rural areas who instigate fights so their friends can use their phones to load it onto Youtube. They don’t use guns, so how do we regulate their fists?
Miss Jean, let’s be clear about one thing right off the bat. “words in my mouth” is a figure of speech. Please don’t take the phrase literally.
Thank you for your extended praise of Finland. As a leftist social democrat, I have nothing but admiration for Scandinavian countries, who combine strong economies with strong social safety nets. Most conservatives would rail against the Finnish nanny state, but not you. Their strict regulations for gun ownership are part of a package that includes excellent health care, free education for all, and a generally pacifist position when it comes to foreign policy. I see nothing wrong with any of that.
As for suicide rates, I read somewhere that that has more to do with the lack of sunlight for much of the year. In the US, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have high suicide rates. Nonetheless, I have little doubt that the fact that there is a gun in the house, makes it far easier to off oneself, when one is in a deep funk.
Again, I was using another figure of speech, hyperbole, when I was discussing the age of gun ownership. In most places it is 18, but, due to lax enforcement of regulation, it is as easy for underage people to get a gun as it is to buy a drink. Hence, the armed gangsters in Chicago and the Columbine boys.
How can gun policies be changed to lower gun related crime? That’s a big one. We could start by imitating the Finns and licencing all firearms, after thorough background checks, of course. As there are so many millions of guns already out there, that won’t be an instant cure. But a photo ID should be required to buy ammunition. Gun fairs should be regulated also.
It should not be considered “a violation of rights” to have records of offenders who use guns, any more than sex offenders. In some places, those who are convicted of DUI have to put stickers on their cars. I agree with that.
Asian and European movies may match American movies in their glorification of violence, but their gun homicide rates are nowhere near the United States. Doesn’t that tell you something?
As for the sad “parodies of maleness” in your area (and in much of the USA, black and white), and the association of “masculinity” with violence, all I can say is that the gun is a phallic object. The big gun is a metaphor for the big cock — and as long as young boys can flaunt their weapons, they don’t need to understand what it is to be a real man, to be responsible for where they shoot their “bullets”.
And there is no doubt that poverty and disenfranchisement are factors. Why? Because if you feel empowered by your economic status, or your brain, or your talent, you don’t need to prove yourself by physical intimidation. Every now and then, some nutcase goes off and shoots people on a university campus, but by and large they are peaceful places.
The macho culture is highly destructive — and permeates the popular culture. It goes hand in hand with the glorification of war that sends young American men to their deaths halfway around the world.