I Think My World is Upside Down

[gslack]

Hmmm, response to the ACLU thing. Crickets.

Well it IS pretty hard to defend the ACLU there I think.

Yesterday I heard President Obama and President Calderon, neither who has presumably read the Arizona immigration law, denounce it for the 'discrimination' it promotes. This despite the fact that it is explicitly stated in four different places in that law that discrimination/profiling etc. will not be permitted.

Yet President Obama does nothing to address problems of illegal immigration and President Calderon presumes to lecture US about discrimination?

So there's another way that the world looks very upside down to me.

It has long been my belief, that the ACLU is in reality a PR spin agency more so than actually protecting civil liberties. Sure they try and do some protecting of our rights but for the most part they only do so when it suits an agenda.

For instance, where was the outcry after the way the Obama administration has left the Patriot Act as is? it is a direct violation of a great many civil liberties yet no response from them since Bush left office... makes me wonder was it the Pat act they didn't like or who was in office?

Anyway thats my view of them..

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm, response to the ACLU thing. Crickets.

Well it IS pretty hard to defend the ACLU there I think.

Yesterday I heard President Obama and President Calderon, neither who has presumably read the Arizona immigration law, denounce it for the 'discrimination' it promotes. This despite the fact that it is explicitly stated in four different places in that law that discrimination/profiling etc. will not be permitted.

Yet President Obama does nothing to address problems of illegal immigration and President Calderon presumes to lecture US about discrimination?

So there's another way that the world looks very upside down to me.

It has long been my belief, that the ACLU is in reality a PR spin agency more so than actually protecting civil liberties. Sure they try and do some protecting of our rights but for the most part they only do so when it suits an agenda.

For instance, where was the outcry after the way the Obama administration has left the Patriot Act as is? it is a direct violation of a great many civil liberties yet no response from them since Bush left office... makes me wonder was it the Pat act they didn't like or who was in office?

Anyway thats my view of them..

The fact that the ACLU is not filing suits against provisions of the Patriot Act, and because the few honorable members of Congress present are not objecting to it, I have to believe that the defensibly objectionable parts of that Act have been corrected and the remainder is necessary to enable the government to defend and protect our rights (persons, property, etc.) I could be persuaded to think differently about that, but so far nobody has come up with any credible evidence to persuade me to see it differently.

And I would be the first to say that the ACLU is not wrong much of the time and has taken on honorable causes to defend people whose rights are being trampled.

But there is also the dark side where they trample on people's rights in pursuit of the almighty dollar. That Tijeras village seal is one such instance of that. And a system that permits them to do that is upside down from the way it ought to be.

One of those yin and yang things which is how so much of our world is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Another upside down occurrence happened yesterday as Congress presses on with Wallstreet reform. Did some regulatory changes need to be made there? Absolutely. But they extended government power to acquire authority over much more than a few necessary regulations. Government now has unprecedented power to order, seize, and/or liquidate much more of the system than just a few operations that are 'too big to fail".

Meanwhile, the legislation is silent on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the agencies that were the core and catalyst for the economic collapse we have experienced, and zero reform has been addressed there.

It's nuts.

 

[gslack]

Hmmm, response to the ACLU thing. Crickets.

Well it IS pretty hard to defend the ACLU there I think.

Yesterday I heard President Obama and President Calderon, neither who has presumably read the Arizona immigration law, denounce it for the 'discrimination' it promotes. This despite the fact that it is explicitly stated in four different places in that law that discrimination/profiling etc. will not be permitted.

Yet President Obama does nothing to address problems of illegal immigration and President Calderon presumes to lecture US about discrimination?

So there's another way that the world looks very upside down to me.

It has long been my belief, that the ACLU is in reality a PR spin agency more so than actually protecting civil liberties. Sure they try and do some protecting of our rights but for the most part they only do so when it suits an agenda.

For instance, where was the outcry after the way the Obama administration has left the Patriot Act as is? it is a direct violation of a great many civil liberties yet no response from them since Bush left office... makes me wonder was it the Pat act they didn't like or who was in office?

Anyway thats my view of them..

The fact that the ACLU is not filing suits against provisions of the Patriot Act, and because the few honorable members of Congress present are not objecting to it, I have to believe that the defensibly objectionable parts of that Act have been corrected and the remainder is necessary to enable the government to defend and protect our rights (persons, property, etc.) I could be persuaded to think differently about that, but so far nobody has come up with any credible evidence to persuade me to see it differently.

And I would be the first to say that the ACLU is not wrong much of the time and has taken on honorable causes to defend people whose rights are being trampled.

But there is also the dark side where they trample on people's rights in pursuit of the almighty dollar. That Tijeras village seal is one such instance of that. And a system that permits them to do that is upside down from the way it ought to be.

One of those yin and yang things which is how so much of our world is.

My job is directly affected/related to the inner workings of the patriot act.. A lot of grey area in it, and undefined apportions regarding national security has made people with jobs like mine and similar to do far more than ever legally and whats more full and acknowledged governmental support. Whereas before certain things would have been on a local support level and kept in house, since Pat act it is much more accepted so to speak..

I love my job, and I do appreciate the flexibility the Act gave my job. But it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean its best for the country. Read the Pat Acts provisions objectively and you will see it is a cage to keep things in more than a fence to keep things out.. I know Bush is given credit or blamed (depending on your view) but the reality is a party, even one in big chair alone could not ave gotten it passed. This was across both party lines and the only voices of dissension were either of no consequence to it or doing a classic say one thing but do another dance.

Example: Very little opposition to the Act until after it was ratified... That is a dead give away....

 

[Colin]

It has been a long time now that I felt that all was okay with my world.

Is it just me? Or is the world upside down these days?

There is a simple test that will establish this. Does your nose run, and your feet smell? If so, that's a sure sign that your world is most definitely upside down.

 

[Foxfyre]

It has long been my belief, that the ACLU is in reality a PR spin agency more so than actually protecting civil liberties. Sure they try and do some protecting of our rights but for the most part they only do so when it suits an agenda.

For instance, where was the outcry after the way the Obama administration has left the Patriot Act as is? it is a direct violation of a great many civil liberties yet no response from them since Bush left office... makes me wonder was it the Pat act they didn't like or who was in office?

Anyway thats my view of them..

The fact that the ACLU is not filing suits against provisions of the Patriot Act, and because the few honorable members of Congress present are not objecting to it, I have to believe that the defensibly objectionable parts of that Act have been corrected and the remainder is necessary to enable the government to defend and protect our rights (persons, property, etc.) I could be persuaded to think differently about that, but so far nobody has come up with any credible evidence to persuade me to see it differently.

And I would be the first to say that the ACLU is not wrong much of the time and has taken on honorable causes to defend people whose rights are being trampled.

But there is also the dark side where they trample on people's rights in pursuit of the almighty dollar. That Tijeras village seal is one such instance of that. And a system that permits them to do that is upside down from the way it ought to be.

One of those yin and yang things which is how so much of our world is.

My job is directly affected/related to the inner workings of the patriot act.. A lot of grey area in it, and undefined apportions regarding national security has made people with jobs like mine and similar to do far more than ever legally and whats more full and acknowledged governmental support. Whereas before certain things would have been on a local support level and kept in house, since Pat act it is much more accepted so to speak..

I love my job, and I do appreciate the flexibility the Act gave my job. But it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean its best for the country. Read the Pat Acts provisions objectively and you will see it is a cage to keep things in more than a fence to keep things out.. I know Bush is given credit or blamed (depending on your view) but the reality is a party, even one in big chair alone could not ave gotten it passed. This was across both party lines and the only voices of dissension were either of no consequence to it or doing a classic say one thing but do another dance.

Example: Very little opposition to the Act until after it was ratified... That is a dead give away....

You almost certainly know much more than I do about it, and based on what you've said here, I suspect it will be futile to ask you about details you wouldn't be allowed to provide.

I only know that the Patriot Act has not apparently adversely affected me in any way, there have been no breaches of privacy that I am aware of, and I have been impressed as threat after threat after threat from those who wish to kill, maim, or destroy us has been intercepted and thwarted. Our realities did change after 9/11. And you may be right that wrongs are being done, but right now I just don't have much passion or concern about a a Patriot Act that seems to have accomplished much good and so far as I know has not been used to do any harm to innocent people.

 

[jillian]

--The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, would not acknowledge the existence of radical Islam at a hearing before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and refused to acknowledge it had something to with the plot in NYC. But he is gung ho to use his power to challenge Arizona's recent immigration law while admitting that he hasn't read the law.

AZ's law is unconstitutional. And Holder not acknowledging the existence of radical islam is silliness. his not treating all muslims like they're terrorists is appropriate and it was also appropriate to wait until there was actual evidence of links between the bomber and the taliban loons in pakistan.

so i'm not sure what the complaint is.

--The ACLU will not defend those who respect and demand enforcement of the law, but files suit against a state that presumes to do so.

It isn't the job of the ACLU to defend government. It's the job of the ACLU to defend the constitution from infringement when people have knee-jerk reactions to people/things and speech they don't like.

--The President has nominated to US Supreme Court a former Harvard Law School Dean, former college professor, a “softball player,” a woman who practically grovels at his feet, one with scant legal and zero judicial experience, one who wrote an ode to socialism, a woman who is hostile to guns, and a woman who kicked the military off campus which, in his words, was not to increase the stature and competency of the Court but rather to make the Court “look like America;”

Rhenquist and Warren weren't judges before they were on the court. And clarence thomas was 42 years old, a judge for one year and an idiot with no constitutional background whatsover and a proclivity for sexually harassing women.

as for the rest... sorry, i can't respond to repetition of rightwing talking points that lack basis in reality.

--A bunch of parents in Florida apparently believe it is ok to allow 7 year-old girls to dress up in skimpy outfits and dance provocatively, even suggestively in public.

Well, it wouldn't have been something i'd have been thrilled about, but i think the over-reaction was a bit much. i don't see it as much different from the nuts who put their kids in pageants. they're gross, too.

--An enormous mosque is apparently being built just blocks from ground zero in Manhattan, and taxpayer dollars are supporting a mosque in Virginia while the ACLU challenges any form of religious symbol on village or county seals.

maybe not getting our 'facts' from 'barenakedislam' would be a good place to start. it's my understanding that space is being rented in the falls church mosque for census workers. big deal. government rents space in churches all the time. when you complain about that, i'm sure i'll be happy to get concerned about this.

--The Space Shuttle program launched Atlantis for the last time leaving space travel to the Russians and Chinese while our entire economy and national defense relies ever more on satellites.

people complain about deficit spending and say we should cut agencies like the FDA, EPA, etc..., eviscerate social security, cut off our poorest and oldest, but you want to pay for this? really?

--Schools increasingly focus on boosting children's self esteem by creating illusions of success rather than achieving honest and real success.

I haven't seen that. Schools here are highly competative and kids know full well how they're doing compared to other kids. Too much so, in fact. But I do hate those 'every body should win an award' things. it's a bad lesson to teach kids.

--Parents increasingly leave the care, raising, and education of their children to hired services rather than seeing that as their solemn responsibility, duty, and a blessing.

do you mean mom's working? and? that isn't 'leaving yoru kid to hired services'.

[QUO?TE]--More and more we are seeing one segment of society forced to give up more freedoms and privileges lest another segment of society be offended.[/QUOTE]

freedoms like reproductive choice? perhaps you and i have a different idea of what freedoms are endangered.

--More and more we are seeing devoutly religious people who express their opinions as more of a threat than we do terrorists committed to destroy, kill, and maim anybody they can.

silliness... we see people who are terrorists as terrorists, regardless of what they want to kill.

I could go on and on, but I suspect some of you get my drift.

Is it just me? Or is the world upside down these days?

depends on how you look at it, i guess.

i find it more offensive that people think they can tell old people they have to say christian prayers to get fed. try to impose their morality on others; while at the same time trying to destroy the social safety net and pretending that its worse to tell a business it can't discriminate than for some woman not to be able to use a public bathroom because she's the wrong color.

i think some people's values are skewed. but i'm guessing we see the skew in different places.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the Albuquerque Journal this morning:

On Monday, the Supreme Court reinstated a discrimination ruling in favor of 6,000 black applicants for Chicago firefighting jobs in in the 1990's, saying the entry level test the city fire department used had a 'disparate impact' based on race.

Monday's ruling is the latest twist in a long-running set of lawsuits over the use of civil service exams for hiring police and firefighters in Chicago and elsewhere.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices said the city was liable for paying damages to those applicants who had 'qualified' scores on the test but were excluded in favor of those who scored higher.

First, I have a REALLY tough time believing that the City of Chicago intentionally discriminated against black firefighters in the 1990's. Richard Daley was mayor throughout the 90's I believe.

And is there no room to set aside race in favor of excellence any more? We certainly do it in sports. Why not on fire departments?

But there is that 9-0 ruling too and I don't want to believe that all nine justices got it wrong. So why does this seem upside down to me?

 

[Conspiracist]

In the Albuquerque Journal this morning:

On Monday, the Supreme Court reinstated a discrimination ruling in favor of 6,000 black applicants for Chicago firefighting jobs in in the 1990's, saying the entry level test the city fire department used had a 'disparate impact' based on race.

Monday's ruling is the latest twist in a long-running set of lawsuits over the use of civil service exams for hiring police and firefighters in Chicago and elsewhere.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices said the city was liable for paying damages to those applicants who had 'qualified' scores on the test but were excluded in favor of those who scored higher.

First, I have a REALLY tough time believing that the City of Chicago intentionally discriminated against black firefighters in the 1990's. Richard Daley was mayor throughout the 90's I believe.

And is there no room to set aside race in favor of excellence any more? We certainly do it in sports. Why not on fire departments?

But there is that 9-0 ruling too and I don't want to believe that all nine justices got it wrong. So why does this seem upside down to me?

Because it seems many news stories portray blacks as making a living off of being victims rather than merit.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the Albuquerque Journal this morning:

On Monday, the Supreme Court reinstated a discrimination ruling in favor of 6,000 black applicants for Chicago firefighting jobs in in the 1990's, saying the entry level test the city fire department used had a 'disparate impact' based on race.

Monday's ruling is the latest twist in a long-running set of lawsuits over the use of civil service exams for hiring police and firefighters in Chicago and elsewhere.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices said the city was liable for paying damages to those applicants who had 'qualified' scores on the test but were excluded in favor of those who scored higher.

First, I have a REALLY tough time believing that the City of Chicago intentionally discriminated against black firefighters in the 1990's. Richard Daley was mayor throughout the 90's I believe.

And is there no room to set aside race in favor of excellence any more? We certainly do it in sports. Why not on fire departments?

But there is that 9-0 ruling too and I don't want to believe that all nine justices got it wrong. So why does this seem upside down to me?

Because it seems many news stories portray blacks as making a living off of being victims rather than merit.

I guess that's pretty close to what I'm feeling. I think we've won the war against racism and the few little mop up skirmishes remaining, as there is after all wars, are maneageable on a case by case basis.

So I'm ready to shelve all the remedial stuff, PC language, special benefits, etc. and start treating everybody as people and not as members of a particular race. I think black people can learn to live with an occasonal "n" word just as women have learned to live with derogatory terms just as insulting, etc. and if we learn to take such things in stride, they lose their power to affect us.

But that will also require that black people, white people, Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics etc. all compete in the same way and using the same criteria to determine the winner and losers. When we can do that, I think racism as a national issue will disappear into the woodwork.

I haven't read the SCOTUS ruling on this and I have deep respect for many on the high court and believe they almost certainly had legal justification for their opinion.

But damn I hate to see us continue to defer to 'victims' instead of promote and strive for excellence.