History

You Lack Humanity. No, Seriously, You Do.

By Janet  |  2012/02/28 20:11 Posted in American Politics, Class-Based, Disability Discrimination, Exceptionalism/Nationalism, Exploitation/Rape/Abuse, History, Internet, Politics, Race, Social Mores  |  Comments (1)

FacebookIt all started so simply, as most drama does. My dad posted a video of an interview with Chris Matthews and Bill Maher. As usual, one of my dad’s friends, Norman, had to respond. Also, as usual, pretty soon Norman began to spout off some rather disturbing stuff. I knew what to expect, as Norman is one of those people who has, at times made comments about how the world was a better place before desegregation. *

I understand that, in his opinion, what he is saying isn’t that big of a deal.  I’m not sure that he understands just how big of a deal his comments actually are.

Bill Maher and truth have no place in the same sentence.  He is a part of a limo liberal Hollywood philosophy that bears no resemblence [sic] to the world where the rest of us buy gasoline ($3.66/gallon) and groceries (for what we buy up over 10% in the last year) and don’t have tax breaks for being bee farmers or investors in solar energy.

With his first comment, though, he seemed to be fairly rational, though the sardonic tone was very, very apparent.  So, I responded with my own sardonic comment.

Norman, if you’re so upset that you don’t get a tax break for being a bee farmer, then I’m sure you could buy some bees.  Or if you want the solar tax break, then put some panels on your own home.  It isn’t like you can’t benefit from those same breaks, so don’t complain about them, k?

Bill Maher is no more out of touch with reality than anyone representing the GOP. Actually, given his stance on quite a few issues, I would say he’s a lot more in touch with what “real people” go through than you are.

And that was where the drama began.

I know that Bill Maher is an easy target for people on the right.  After all, Bill Maher is very open with his liberal tendencies.  That makes right-wing people uncomfortable.  I understand this, and I’m used to seeing crap thrown at Maher for his politics.  What is ridiculous about Norman’s anti-Maher stance is that he’s giving Maher a hard time for being out of touch with the real world’s economic situation.  This coming from a man who is a semi-retired radiologist who spends his free time filling in for other doctors and travelling around the world (he openly touts that he’s been to all fifty states and 33 foreign countries); and, from what I’ve been told, has not really had that hard of a time paying his bills in a long time, if ever.  But that doesn’t stop him from taking on the “overtaxed” and “overburdened” position that many libertarians seem to be fond of.

And that is where we begin, with my knowledge of where Norman is willing to take things, my personal tendency to respond with sarcasm, and the tendency of both of us to challenge people of differing political persuasions to a verbal duel on Facebook.

Facebook First response from him is that he doesn’t own any property. I guess given his travelling tendencies that that is a reasonable way to live.  His response, though, that Alabama Power doesn’t buy back electricity from consumers who generate their own solar power is wrong.  A simple and quick Google search by him (or anyone) would find that Alabama Power does buy back electricity.  I know that that search took less than two minutes for me.

His second response was that Bill Maher is on his list to go to Guantanamo when “real Americans get the government back into control.”  This is one of those statements where a person’s jaw drops to the floor, if they can tell what the implications of the statement are.  He wants to imprison people who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from him.  That’s one of those comments that I just was not really expecting, even from him.

In that one sentence, Norman advocated for something supported by such “forward thinkers” as Fidel Castro, the Khmer Rouge, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler.  And in that one sentence, he turned some simple Facebook drama into something more sinister.

Facebook I was hoping that he wasn’t being serious, but, from past encounters, I was pretty sure that he meant every word.  That inspired me to point out how similar his idea was to something that would have been endorsed by Hitler or Mussolini.  I thought that maybe if I pointed out that he was advocating something bad that he might back off.  That was what I was hoping, at least.

Meanwhile, another “friend” of my father’s was going off on the potential donations to Obama’s campaign from foreigners, which would be illegal, and forgetting that the money that Obama receives might come from Americans who support his campaign.  I guess that some folks don’t realize that there are actually Americans who plan on re-electing Obama this year.

As I waited for Norman to respond, I had to wonder how someone could become so intolerant of dissent.  Yeah, I’ll argue with anyone, but the only people who I ever want thrown in jail are people who have actually committed a crime and did not do so under duress, as a result of mental or physical disabilities, or have any other legitimate reason for which they wouldn’t be responsible for their crime.  To me, it is shocking that there are still people who would advocate something so horrible.  Promoting dictatorship tactics seems like something that everyone in the world should have learned was a bad thing after the last 100 years.

Facebook Again, I waited for a response from Norman, knowing that he is not going to be one who just gives up a fight.  And the response comes. Again, it is jaw-drop worthy.

Not real Americans Janet. I only keep two facebook friends as a barometer of the leeches who suck on disability and the truly insane who voted for this regime.  We’ll reserve you a comfortable tropical suite with your fellow travelers.  This is a matter of life and death for our country and I choose death for traitors and their followers.

This political discussion with Norman is making me more and more uncomfortable with every comment he makes.  I want to believe that he is just some ignorant hick that doesn’t realize what he’s saying, but I know better.  I know that he is a very informed person.  I know that he is supposed to be incredibly intelligent, but by this point in the conversation, I feel like his intelligence is being overshadowed by some real darkness.

It surprises me that someone who is so judgmental could be a doctor.  It seems like people who go into medicine should be compassionate, life-affirming people.  Even though I’ve met my fair share of crackpot doctors, I don’t want to think that they’re the norm.  I don’t want to believe that there are really people in that field who would advocate the death of people who they deem unfit for living in their society.  That is a new level of creepy.

Facebook I think that at this point, even my father is about ready to fall out of his chair over Norman’s comments.  My dad is used to Norman being on the furthest right end of the spectrum, but today’s comments are just a bit too surprising, even for him.  Any respect that my father might have had for this man has obviously disappeared.  Of course, I think that Facebook may have taught my dad that a lot of the people that he respected in his youth are clearly not worthy of that respect.

FacebookProbably the most unusual comment from Norman was the one where he said that my father and I (and one other person) think that he is mainstream or even liberal.  Honestly, it seems like either those people must be humoring him or are completely oblivious of his real opinions on issues.  I wish I could tell these people that his advocating of legalizing marijuana does not make him a liberal.  Hell, he could be pro-choice and anti-death penalty, and his Facebook comments would still paint him as a racist and a fascist.

I almost wanted to slap him when he suggested that at the “trials” he wants for liberals that he would somehow have some kind of say over what happened.  It was in that moment that I realized that he seemed to be even more of a narcissist than I had ever imagined.   I don’t know how he came to view himself as being so untouchable, so worthy of adoration, etc.  Maybe people gave him so much attention in his youth for his brains that it fried any part of his mind that could comprehend how to be compassionate or humane toward another person.  I wish there was some way to go back and change him into a person who might be capable of being more than a self-serving ass.

FacebookMark decides to jump back in at this point, and starts whining over how I’ve called Norman a racist and a fascist.  I don’t throw these terms around lightly, so I have a very good reason for using those terms to describe Norman.  I tell him this and, shortly after that, Norman manages to throw another zinger my way.  That the people he hangs out with are doctors and that the “most rabid racists” are Nigerians.  He also manages to throw in an insinuation about how he thinks that my father and I are lazy.  (He makes this comment quite a lot, so it isn’t me jumping to some conclusion.) I know that I haven’t met a lot of Nigerians, but I do know one and I know that she is one of the most amazingly kind, tolerant, and loving people that I have ever met.  If Nigerians have such horrible feelings towards the “lazy” and those who make excuses, then I have to wonder why my friend would go into Social Work, which unlike medicine, is not a field where people can easily make money off their degree.  Of course, it didn’t surprise me that the one race that he could come up with as being  super-racist was one of color.

The conversation with Norman made me feel like someone who was interviewing someone who was an active participant in some kind of atrocity.  It wasn’t really enlightening, but it did teach me one thing: even people who are supposed to be smart can advocate for some really dumb things.

* – Two of the comments referenced in that paragraph can be found here and here.

American Exceptionalism Scares Me

By Janet  |  2012/01/24 17:00 Posted in 2012 Presidential Elections and Primaries, American Politics, Exceptionalism/Nationalism, History  |  Comments (1)

The other day I saw something that said that Callista Gingrich, the third wife of Newt Gingrich, promotes the idea of American Exceptionalism.  Honestly, the idea of promoting a particular nation or ethnicity over another is a bit scary to me.  It becomes especially disconcerting when the person promoting it has bleached blonde hair, sparkly blue eyes, and dresses like she’s stepping out of a mid-twentieth century movie or sitcom where the womenfolk just weren’t quite as well informed as their husbands.   Maybe that’s because I’ve watched too many documentaries on other countries and their beliefs about how they were more special than other people.  Maybe it’s because there were countries during the early and mid-twentieth centuries that promoted the idea that not only were they more special, more deserving, and more super-cool, and when people didn’t agree with them, those extra-special and cool folks decided to force people into agreeing that they were awesome by threatening them with war, loss of life, loss of property, etc.

I tried to give Callista’s special video on America being the home of the coolest kids around, but halfway through the short (two-and-a-half minute) video, I was already feeling nauseated by the the rhetoric.  Somehow, we are super special because God gave us special rights because we’re from a special nation.  (She doesn’t understand that the very line she quotes doesn’t mention anything about the rights only being given to Americans and no one else.  In fact, it says everyone is equal.)   And while she’s giving the shout-out out to God for being the bestest sugar daddy in the history of the universe for giving us our coolness factor, this video, like so many propaganda films of the last century, displays various military images.  Maybe it’s to inspire patriotism, but that was the excuse those other governments had almost a hundred years ago, too.

She may have innocent reasons for promoting American Exceptionalism, as may many others who have promoted it through the years.  Still, I would hope that people would be more wary of the ideas of one country or one group of people within a country being more important than another.  The ideas of empires, nationalism, and exceptionalism all rely on people placing more value on the lives of one group than another.  That may seem like a basic tenet of being a good citizen, but it is also a basic tenet of ideologies that shaped Nazi Germany, a fascist Italy, and the far-right regimes that rules the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War.

When we start pretending that we are better than or more important than anyone else, we begin going down a dangerous path.  If we hope to be a nation that promotes liberty and freedom, then we can’t accept the idea that we are, in any way, more deserving of freedom, respect, and liberty than any other group.  When we start promoting the idea that we are better than anyone else, we forget that one very basic idea that existed at the very start of this nation: equality.

Blame It On the Black Guy, The Gay Dude, and That Rich White Chick

By Janet  |  2012/01/02 00:11 Posted in American Politics, Economy, History, Honesty, Internet, War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq  |  Comments (1)

That was the image my dad posted on his Facebook account, and one of his friends responded with:

This is just a History lesson. I am sending it to all regardless of party . Please don’t read this if you are afraid of the truth. It is history and nothing can change it.

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day…
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney
) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush…
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

So, here is my rebuttal.  And, mine doesn’t sound like some stupid Facebook meme written by Karl Rove to sugarcoat the Bush Presidency and make some minorities look bad.

Pretending like it is just the Democrats’ fault that the economy turned to crap because of the timing is a ridiculous thing to do. The recession had been building long before the Democrats regained control. Between 2000 and 2006, a dozen economists had said it was going to happen. That was BEFORE the Democrats regained control of Congress.

Dean Baker pointed to the housing bubble in 2002. And Fred Harrison was suggesting it would happen in 1997. I’m pretty sure that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc. weren’t all conspiring for the economy to collapse then. Wynne Godley warned as early as the 1990′s that there were problems with international fiscal problems, which was another massive contributor to the growing economic troubles of the world. Admittedly, for things that were happening in the 1990′s, we (liberals) can’t blame Bush 43. However, we can blame the increasing willingness of so many Americans and so many worldwide to profit in potentially nefarious and, at least, morally ambiguous ways. Whether it was pretending like inflation wasn’t occuring on a massive scale or was acting like it was okay to set people up so that their mortgage was “worth more” than their property’s value. Greed was allowed to trump basic morality.

Bush 43 had his role in this whole thing. So did Clinton. So did Bush 41. Reagan, the Republican God of Economics, also had a role. Everyone contributed their own little bits of ignorance, arrogance, and insolence to the whole situation. And it wasn’t just the Presidents or the Congress. Alan Greenspan did a bang-up job in his position as Fed Reserve Chair, as did Robert Rubin, when they both allowed for derivatives to go practically unregulated. And non-politically minded and economically minded people allowed it to get worse, when it could have been stopped so much sooner. It was a willful ignorance of so many people to pretend that somehow it was okay for the cost of gas, food, and milk to double then triple.

Do you know why Fannie and Freddie went so kablooey? Bush 41′s administration did the wonderful thing of weakening the regulation of the two mortgage giants. The deregulation occurred in 1992, but wasn’t put into place until nine years later. And in 1999, under Clinton and FOP-controlled Congress, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed parts of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which helped allow for financial institutions that were basically out control.

Now, if you want to get into percentages and numbers and the budget related to the Bush 43′s presidency versus that of Barack Obama’s, then let’s do that. Bush issued tax cuts like a mad man. There were cuts for all taxpayers betwen 2001 and 2003. The child tax credit was raised and the marriage penalty was reduced. Pretend like that doesn’t matter all you want, but bringing in less money means you have to spend less, but Bush didn’t do that. An elementary school student could’ve told him that the math didn’t add up, but it didn’t matter. In 2003, 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates that were alive at the time, urged Bush not to enact the tax cuts because they believed that they would increase inequality and the budget deficit, which would make it harder for the government to fund essential services and would not help to keep the country from failing to produce some level of actual economic growth. These economists pointed out that in 2003 there were already two million fewer private sector jobs than there were at the beginning of that (smaller) recession. And they pointed out that tax cuts would lead to “fiscal deterioration that will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research.” In 2003, the debt level of the country was at $589.0 billion, the GDP was at 5.5%, and Obama was in Illinois. In 2003, Barney Frank was opposing Bush’s proposal to lessen the actual oversight of Fannie and Freddie and allow them to go into the fun-yet-immoral business of offering subprime mortgages so that they could have the bragging rights about having such a high percentage of homeownership for low income people. And 2 years later, the Bush administration opposed a bill that was going through the Congress that would have created a better regulation of those two corporations. The White House of Bush 43 had the opportunity to get the FMs under control and what did they do? They made sure that that wouldn’t happen.  And where was Obama then?  He had just gotten to Washington.  So, yeah, it’s his fault that Fannie and Freddie went nuts.

And to pretend like the deficit of 2007 was somehow something worthy of bragging about because it was “the lowest in five years” is to forget that the public debt at that point was approximately 3.18 times that of what it was in 2001. It forgets that the Defense Department was given a blank check on two wars, including one that we had no business in being in in the first place.  And it forgets that Halliburton and other corporate entities were rewarded for being FOB (Friends of Bush) or FOC (Friends of Cheney), which meant that they were given unfair contracts, got to shortcut the system, and were allowed to manipulate and endanger the economy and lives of so many people.

And I hope that you will have actually read this because its true, and it isn’t just some little blame game orchestrated to make the black guy, the woman, the loud gay guy, and the Mormon all look like total schmucks.  It’s based on reality.  It’s based on history.

Anything Short of Shooting Them

By Janet  |  2011/06/29 22:51 Posted in American Politics, Civil Rights, History, Immigration, Race, Social Mores, Television and Other Media  |  Comments (2)

I don’t like Mo Brooks.  I haven’t liked him in a while and I refused to vote for him for any position that he decides to campaign for.  I have never been shy about stating this sentiment.  I have lost friends over my refusal to vote for him for Congress.  In fact, in early 2010, I stated on my personal blog that I had no intent to support him and that I was tired of people trying to get me to change my opinion.  The following comes directly from an entry posted in February of 2010:

So, when I was getting onto the great ol’ FB today, what did my wandering eyes see:

Mo Brooks
Politician
You have been invited by ****** ******.
Would you like to become a fan?

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! I know he’s a Mormon, but when it comes to politicians within the Church, my heart belongs to Harry Reid. Mo Brooks is opposed to Universal Health Care…that is not something that would endear me to him. This is a man who makes, at best, rude comments on illegal aliens, and, at worst, racist statements. Do I want someone who states that illegal aliens bring drug-resistant tuberculosis on his campaign page? (The only legitimate news story I could find was on someone in this country to study English, but I couldn’t find anywhere in the article where it said he was illegal.)

Most people that I know had a hard time believing that he might possibly be a racist.  After all, he is a “well-respected” person in town.  Well, yesterday Venton Blandin interviewed Brooks.  He asked him about illegal immigration.  What did Brooks say?  Well, this is a direct quote from the interview:

As your congressman on the house floor, I will do anything short of shooting them. Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens.

Now, if you were shocked by the second part of the first sentence, then you probably weren’t alone.  I think in the post-Giffords shooting world that this kind of rhetoric might be especially frightening and surprising.  Unfortunately, I was not surprised.  I also wasn’t surprised by the people who agreed and encouraged Mo to go after the illegal immigrants.  Sometimes it seems like the anti-immigrant sentiment gets stronger with each passing day.  I’ve decided to share the following examples of opinions about the immigration law, Mo Brooks’ statement, and immigrants in general:

1. Its about time ALABAMA can be a *free* state that has laws that will help the LEGAL ALABAMA people WIN back their state from Illegal people coming in and taking away from people who GO BY the LAW. Law abiding citizens suffer. We have to live by the law or go to jail or even prision. For those who IMMIGRATE ILLEGALLY get away with the old saying of getting away with murder. meaning they can get away with ANYTHING! So I am thankful that Alabama is taking back what they shoulda have had all along. Now lets hope the legal system abides by the law and ENFORCE it! (screen grab of this one)

2. I have to respect Mo for his stand on this. We need to check out those who are in favor of illegal aliens. What other criminal activity are they in favor of?

3. I think any country who invades America should be considered an act of war. Homeland security needs to start focusing on whats best for our great country. This issue has been ignored for far too long and its un fair to hard working tax payers.

4. Mo is right this immigration issue has to be addressed. The illegals have done more than take jobs, free medical care, they also have a large portion of the drug and gang activity in Alabama also. Well as far as Birmingham goes, they cannot even manage the city’s finances, I guess they have to have the immigrants to blame for their money woes.
For those who say that God will take care of it. I believe that God gave us enough sense to take care of our own problems before he steps in. Illegals are a burden upon this state and Nation. They litterally have a free hand to avoid the laws that govern us. This is to the point of putting fear into the Citizens of this Country.

5. I too feel that Mo brooks is right. It is not right that these people get all the government free benefits when they are NOT legal. The benefits are supposed to be for our citizens not illegal citizens. The schools are bombarded by these children that come here and can not speak or understand english, so the teachers have to make exceptions for them, in other words they are passed on to next grade and do not know what they should know. Read your paper, most of the arrest are hispanic names and they are most likely illegal. I have seen all this myself and seen where they are working with fake social security numbers, someone tell me where any of that is fair to us that are legal and pay taxes. It is not fair, not one bit

6. Illegal aliens are an insult to the millions of legal immigrants who entered the U.S. legally. Anyone who supports illegals is only pro-alien because they have a vested interest either financially or politically in them remaining in this country. Cheap business owners use them for cheap labor, politicians are only trying to get the several million votes the illegals represent if they are granted amnesty and allowed to vote. Mo Brooks is right anything that is legal to rid this country of these people should be used.

Before I respond to the comments, I would encourage anyone who doubts the authenticity of these comments to view the Facebook page of the local news station.  They are all copied directly from that page.  No alterations have been made to these statements.

Comment #1: I think it is so odd that people think that illegal immigrants are somehow getting away with anything/everything by being here illegally. I’m fairly certain that when they break other laws they get the same kinds of punishment as legal residents. In fact, they sometimes get a more devastating punishment. I’ve seen one case where an illegal immigrant got a more severe sentence. (The immigrant got the death penalty, while the legal citizen got life. Reports said that the immigrant had borderline MR and was mentally ill, while the reports on the citizen stated that he was an angry drunk.)

Comment #2: Wow. Not only do we have to suspect immigrants, we have to suspect anyone who has a differing perspective. That takes us to a whole new level of scary. For that person’s benefit, I shall disclose my criminal history here. I have never done illegal drugs. I have never driven while intoxicated, since I’ve never actually had anymore alcohol than a literal drop of wine. I did have a driving lesson after a night without sleeping, which made me have some problems with concentration. I don’t think that I have ever sped. In fact, I was driving a bit more like a little old lady. My driving instructor used to try to encourage me to drive the actual speed limit, which I felt uncomfortable doing. (He viewed the speed limit as a suggestion. I viewed it as a limit or a maximum.) I stole a pencil sharpener when I was about 2 years old. I returned it a few minutes later. I tried downloading songs illegally one time and had such horrendous guilt over stealing that I deleted the files immediately. I have hit 1 person with my hand, and it was not a major strike. (It was more of a slap.) I feel guilty when I kill bugs because I know that they have a family somewhere. I feel guilty eating meat and I feel guilty eating vegetables. Does any of this make me a criminal? As far as I know, it doesn’t. Does it make me anything other than a crazy girl with a major guilt complex? Probably not.

Comment #3: An act of war? Really? Illegal immigration is an act of war? Well, I guess that Native Americans agreed on that point after Europeans had been here for a while. Of course, they were actually being massacred and harmed by the immigrants that they encountered. Americans who get upset over immigration these days are mainly just in a huff because they need something to get upset over.

Comment #4: Free medical care? How? To have the actual medical care, one must have some form of identification. The children of some immigrants may have medical care because many were born in America and are American citizens. As for drugs and gangs, I don’t think that immigrants are the only people to blame for that. If this person paid attention to the news on this very night, then they would have noticed that there were drug arrests last night. Each drug arrest involved an American citizen. Most of the meth arrests that are shown involve white folks. In fact, most of the drug arrests seems to involve people who are from this area. The only people who are truly afraid of the immigrants are the people who are too ignorant to understand the realities of the world we live in.

Comment #5: Immigrants aren’t the only people who don’t speak English. I have seen plenty of people from this area who have very little comprehension of a language that they have allegedly been speaking since infancy. When I was a kid, most of the kids who failed tests in spelling and English were kids from white, middle-class America. By the time I was in high school, I noticed that most of the kids who cheated in school were actually from families that were extremely well-off. The kids who had little money to their names were the ones who worked their asses off. Kids who want to have better lives don’t rely on cheating or being passed along. Kids who want better lives actually have to work to get the better lives.

Comment #6: I have no financial or political interest in having immigrants stay here. Instead, I have a social interest. I believe that every person is equal to every other person. This is called being an egalitarian. I don’t own a business. I’m not running for an office. I just believe in a free world for everyone. If anything, I would expect people to label me as an idealist.  I don’t understand how some folks always expect people who support a particular idea to somehow benefit from that idea.  If I wanted to benefit financially from cheap labor, then it seems like it would probably be more economical to take the jobs out of this country completely.  If I wanted to benefit politically from something, then I would probably say that I come from the Bankhead, Folsom, Jefferson, Overton, etc. families.   I think that would probably win me a lot more political sway than saying that I believe in treating people equally, especially in Alabama.

Unfortunately, it seems that there are more people who support Mo’s sentiment than those who are opposed.  It seems like it has become almost fashionable to be a bigot.  I might understand this kind of behavior in a state that didn’t go through so many acts of violence towards other races.  I might understand it if we didn’t seem to pride ourselves on not only being the first Confederate capital, but also the home of Rosa Parks, the Sixteenth Street Church, the Selma-to-Montgomery Marches, and other places, events, and people that changed this country’s policies on race and equality.  Did we not learn from our forefathers?  Or did we only learn it with regards to certain groups?

I know that some people who support bans on illegal immigrants might not be racists.  Sadly, I realize that many people who support it are racist, whether they comprehend that they are or not.  These are the people who complain about “the Mexicans”.  If you have skin that is a bit more brown than peach, then you might be a Mexican.  Even if your ancestors aren’t from Mexico, if you’re brown, you’re called Mexican.  And people justify this form of racial profiling by saying that they have to keep an eye on “those people” because they are dangerous.  I don’t understand how people can say this kind of thing and not realize how it is wrong.  I don’t get how people don’t see that this kind of stereotyping is the same kind of backwards thinking of the Klan, Skinheads, Aryan Nations, the wacky (psychopathic) RAHOWA people, the Nazis, and Joseph Stalin.  I don’t understand how people can talk about freedom in one sentence and spout off fascist rhetoric in the next.  It infuriates me, but it scares me more.

When Brooks decides to make his statement, he took this issue to a new level of scary.  He used a position of power to espouse a belief that is so terrifyingly ignorant that it really does worry me.  Because he happens to have this position of power, he seems to be justifying the bigotry that has been going on.  His position combined with his words makes it “okay” to hate.  That is the thing that no one should be okay with.

It’s Called Due Process

By Janet  |  2011/05/25 12:51 Posted in American Politics, Civil Rights, Crime, Gun Control/Violence, History, Internet, Mental Illness, Social Mores  |  Comments (0)

Jared Loughner’s competency is set to be determined officially today.   He has reportedly been found incompetent, which has many people outraged.  Actually, outraged is putting it mildly.  People do not seem to understand the whole purpose of a competency hearing or what important role it plays in the American judicial system. Below are the comments on the story within 2 hours of it being posted on CBS’s Facebook page:

loughnercompetence-12
loughnercompetence-11
loughnercompetence-10
loughnercompetence-9
loughnercompetence-8
loughnercompetence-7
loughnercompetence-6
loughnercompetence-5
loughnercompetence-4
loughnercompetence-3
loughnercompetence-2
loughnercompetence-1

Now, for those of you who think that Loughner is competent, I would recommend you check out his videos. They indicate a mind that is clearly suffering from some sort of mental disturbance. If you can understand those videos and see a balanced mind, then maybe you can see something that mental health experts are missing.

This is not a young man who I would think of as being fit to stand trial for murder.  Eventually, he may be competent, though.  When that day comes, then I would see no problem with trying him for the crimes.  But right now, this is a young man who is not thinking clearly.

If he were tried right now, in an incompetent state, then the justice system would be failing.  He’s guaranteed due process, including a fair trial.  A person who is in such a disturbed mental state cannot have a fair trial in said state.

I understand that people are angry about this case.  I understand that they want him to be penalized.  I don’t understand why it is okay for them to call for his execution (prior to a trial) and then say that the justice system is failing by following the laws that exist in this country.  It seems like they are all for their own forms of “justice”, but not for the justice that is guaranteed in this country by the Constitution.  Both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (below) require that Loughner be given the opportunity to have a fair and impartial trial.

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

We cannot waive his Constitutional rights because of our own personal feelings about him.  If you think that he’s the scum of the Earth, then that’s your opinion.  Your opinion cannot deprive him of his rights.  If we start taking away the rights of those who we simply do not like, then where would we end up?  To just execute him with no trial would put us on par with the contemporary governments of Iran, Libya, and North Korea or would make our government more like those belonging to Hitler and Stalin.

We have a set of laws in this country for a reason.  They aren’t just there to look pretty.  They’re there to protect us–all of us.  They protect the guilty as well as the innocent.  They make sure that no one is exploited.  We cannot choose to say that we will only apply the benefits of our legal system to the innocent.  What good would it do to have our system set up this way if we didn’t apply the same protections to those who have violated laws?  Why would we need a judicial system or due process or anything if we knew that we would only apply it to people who would never need it?

I will never understand people who are so wrong about these things.