-
Notes: 721 / 4 months ago from cephalopodqueen (originally from nanlawsketch)
-
5 months ago
Whitewash Racism
I don’t understand whitewash racism. I don’t understand when individuals use an offensive term, but believe it’s okay because they either say it behind closed doors away from the victims of that term, or they appropriate it and apply it to others. Saying it behind closed doors doesn’t hurt anyone, some say. The argument goes that words are words and in our modern society, nothing is off limits in terms of free speech. It doesn’t make it any better to apply it to persons that haven’t historically been associated with that sort of hatred, merely to be ironic. Even if no irony is involved then it’s still not okay in my opinion to use these terms. I’m not advocating an abrogation of free speech; nothing near it. All I’m saying is that we should have a social and moral obligation, a contract, to move past these offensive phrases and let them die a quick death. Even if they are still only continued behind closed doors and in jest, they are still continued nonetheless.
The Supreme Court made a point similar to this in Virginia v. Black. In Black the court addressed a statute in the state of Virginia that placed a ban upon cross burning. The Klan protested stating that this was a clear abrogation of conduct that represented free speech. There were several arguments put forth stating that a burning cross could be a religious symbol that was also used in ancient Scotland as a signal fire. However the Court took a rather pragmatic approach to the whole thing; they ruled that the history of a flaming cross didn’t matter. All that mattered was the sheer hatred and fear which it propelled into the hearts and minds of those who were victims to these sorts of actions. In fact the Court stated that the Klan and other hate groups had used the image to such a degree that it could no longer be identified as anything but a symbol of hate.
Now to be clear, it is unconstitutional to outlaw hate. It’s not something that you can rightly regulate. It’s a person’s right to hate. But what you can regulate is speech that has a potential to incite imminent violence against a person or class of persons. Now I know the connection I’m drawing between cross burning and racial slurs may seem tenuous, but I feel like it’s an important one to make. Hateful actions breed violence, which is illegal. I feel that hateful speech may lead to violence as well. I’m not saying we should outlaw hate speech, that goes too far and there is a difference between regulating conduct and regulating speech. All I’m saying is that morally and NOT legally, it should be removed from common usage.
Basically regardless of whether a person uses a burning cross in order to promote a religious or political message, it is can be illegal to do so merely because of all the hate that has ever been associated with it. It is scary to abrogate and limit speech (even though this isn’t pure free speech, rather conduct). But as I said earlier, sometimes some things offer such little societal value because of the hatred associated with them, they should be allowed to die.
-
Notes: 40261 / 5 months ago from greenstate (originally from jimparsonses)
Johnny Galecki about gay rumors [x]
Wow, so true. This is how I always hope to compose myself.
(Source: jimparsonses)
-
Notes: 7 / 5 months ago
Yes please. Sense this makes more of.
-
Notes: 11 / 5 months ago
Seriously finally maybe perhaps considering thinking about getting a dog.
-
Notes: 5 / 5 months ago
Ha, so very true!
-
Notes: 621 / 5 months ago from cephalopodqueen (originally from whitepajamas)
I might be called an odd proponent of 2nd Amendment rights. I believe in the right of everyone to own a firearm, and that because it’s ingrained within the Bill of Rights itself that it should be protected. However I also most definitely believe in strong and effective regulation of firearms across the nation. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says Congress can’t regulate rights. Yes they may be fundamental, but not absolute. This is why we can’t have machine guns and grenade launchers, and I personally think that is a good thing.
That’s why this little bit by Eddie has always rung pretty true, and I’ve never given any credence to the NRA’s catchphrase.
(Source: whitepajamas)
-
Notes: 17233 / 5 months ago from tetinotete (originally from appleday)
Good words.
(Source: appleday)
-
Notes: 1 / 5 months ago
Executive Decision
I’d like to take a brief moment to discuss something I heard on the radio today, specifically on American Family Radio. Now truth be told I’m not the sort of person who usually listens to this particular radio station, and maybe by the end of this post you can glean why that is. But occasionally while my radio scans through stations it stops for a brief moment on their bandwidth and I hear something that just infuriates me. Usually the process is I stop, listen, and then swerve into oncoming traffic because I see a red mist. Nowadays the anger I feel doesn’t come from the particular issues or positions they are proponents of; I usually just ignore those. What really causes me to speed and yell profanities at inanimate objects is the way they go about posing their arguments. They somehow manage to veil idiocy and a lack of understanding in how this nation works with a pseudo sheet of shadowy legalese. There in again maybe it isn’t idiocy or a lack or understanding, but rather a precise understanding of the logical and legal logistics that are assailed against them and their arguments that causes them to just yell “it’s in the Constitution” every 35 seconds.
I however digress, and need to move on the specific point I want to make.
What I heard precisely today was in regards to DOMA and Prop. 8. At the moment I was listening, a reader called in and stated (paraphrasing here) “DOMA and Prop 8 are the law, but the President of the United States and the Governor of California along with their respective AG offices have said they won’t enforce them. How do they get away with this?” The host of the show (sorry, I don’t listen enough to know who is who, and I didn’t catch a name) stated that the caller was right to be concerned and that what these respective executives in their respective offices were doing was wrong. He went on to explain the reasons that these executives chose to do this; (1) They were selfish and shortsighted, only caring about their own political agendas (2) They were corrupt because “power corrupts” according to the Bible, and (3) They hated the Constitution of the United States, and felt it did not apply to them. He ended this with saying no man can think he’s above the law, and that these executives obviously thought they were. Also, apparently it says in the Constitution that the President has to carry out any laws that Congress passes.
The problem I have with this is none of it’s really true. While these individuals are more than welcome to believe that the President and the Governor of California are only doing this for political reasons, the rest of it does not add up in a legal sense. The POTUS has the right and indeed the obligation to refuse to enforce any law which he believes is unconstitutional. This is in fact a bedrock principal of how our Federalist system works, and is also a function of the separation of powers. The President is there to check the powers of Congress, hence the term “checks and balances.” If the POTUS thinks “hey, Congress kinda fucked up on this one” then he can say “nope, not going to do it.” If the United States worked the way that American Family Radio thinks it does, then Congress sits supreme among the three branches, and the President is forced to enact and facilitate any law they pass. THIS IS FUCKED UP. Congress may most closely approximate the “will of the people” out of the three branches, but lets be clear; there is a distinct difference between the wishes of Congress (or the will of the people) and what is “Constitutional.” I myself personally believe that DOMA is unconstitutional because of numerous substantive due process and equal protection issues. I believe there are many others out there who feel the same as me, as the President obviously does. And maybe when you get down to it if it was possible to count the hearts and minds of every single U.S. citizen you might find that we are in the minority on this subject, that in fact the majority of Americans think DOMA is constitutional and should be enforced. Even this though, doesn’t matter. We are not a tyranny of the majority. Suspect and minority classes have always been protected by the Constitution, and that’s one of the key purposes behind having a written Constitution; to protect those in the minority from the will of the majority. It keeps us all equal, despite the numbers. However I’m rambling now, so in short:
(1) The POTUS can refuse to enact and enforce laws. This doesn’t make him power hungry, political, or Satan’s minion. Sometimes, he might just think that the damn thing might hurt people who have a Constitutional right to be treated like everyone else.
(2) To strip the President of this power would circumscribe an important power that the founders INTENDED for him to have, namely to weigh in on what is Constitutional and unconstitutional.
(3) Some men actually are above the law in a sense, and they maintain that position in order to make sure that the laws are fair to everyone else. For this reason, they must be insulated from those who might assail them.
(4) People should understand how the goddamned Constitution works before they open their mouths. It can be a sword and a shield yes, but don’t contradict your own argument with “it’s in the Constitution” when the Constitution demands the exact opposite of your position.
-
Notes: 3967 / 6 months ago from urlcannotendinahyphen (originally from animalstalkinginallcaps)
WOW, AND HERE I THOUGHT MAYBE YOU CONSIDERED ME A LOVING COMPANION AND OCCASIONAL CONFIDANTE, A FELLOW TRAVELER ON THE ROAD OF LIFE WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE SOMEWHAT SHORTER THAN YOU.
IT’S GOOD TO HEAR I’M JUST “AN AWESOME WAY TO PICK UP CHICKS.”
NEXT WOMAN THAT PETS ME IS GETTING BIT, JUST SO YOU KNOW. I’M ABOUT TO BE A LOT LESS “ADORABLE” AND A LOT MORE “20 POUNDS OF COCKBLOCK THAT SHITS IN THE KITCHEN.”
Oh my god this is so fucking awesome.
Following
