This has absolutely nothing to do with WoW, but since I've stopped bothering to post on weekends (barely anyone reads then), I figure this gives me a space to post my liberal socialist terrorist agenda.
The 14th amendment was written to ensure that the children of freed slaves would become citizens, since it wouldn't make much sense to have millions of non-citizens loose in the country, and even less to emancipate the slaves and make their children sub-citizens. Though obviously it didn't quite achieve that second goal. In a sense it was an anti-racism amendment. It seems ironic that now in a climate of anti-Hispanic sentiment people are seeking to repeal it. But obviously that's a purely emotional appeal and shouldn't carry any weight in what should be a fact-based debate.
On the subject of race, isn't it a strange concept? I cannot say I'm free of the idea, since I do see race, but it sure has a lot of arbitrary elements. The Irish were once black and Hispanics were white*; and now Irish are white as can be and Hispanics are somewhere in between. * If you wanted to try to apply genetics or lineage to race, a risky business to be sure, you'd find that most Mexicans have a huge portion of European blood. While Spanish settlement wasn't on the scale of the colonies further north (as far as I've heard), it's not as if they ran off to go intermarry, and even if they were so eager, so many natives had died that the numbers just wouldn't result in a population that was radically different from Spain.
About 8% of children in the US are from illegal immigrants. That sounds like a lot, and it is. But what does it actually mean? It doesn't mean that those 8% are 'anchor babies' who allow the parents to stay legally; they cannot petition for their parents until 18 or 21, making it damn slow. The number doesn't cover whether those children stay in the US either. The relevant numbers for the 14th amendment debate would cover how often parents are given citizenship with anchor babies compared to without (indicating abuse of the law) and whether birthright is causing parents to be deported while children stay here (indicating that the law might be encouraging children to be abandoned voluntarily or otherwise).
I don't think any state should recognize gay marriages. Why should they? Ah, I sound homophobic, don't I? Quite the opposite. I don't think government should care about marriage. It is a religious or cultural ceremony and should remain as such. Should I have any sort of special status because I'm baptized? That would be absurd and a clear violation of the first amendment. Well, at least on the federal level. Rather than state-recognized marriages, we should instead have civil unions, which give the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as the current legal aspects of marriage, open to any two freely consenting adults (I recognize that I'm being arbitrary in ignoring polygamy). Marriage would be a separate institution to be handled on a personal level. If a church wants to allow or deny gay marriages, I think that is the right of the church, but that it is not the right of the state to discriminate.
This not a mosque controversy is ridiculous. It is absurd that the same groups that advocate so strongly for Constitutional rights (they tend to focus on the second amendment) are so quick to throw out the first amendment. The not mosque has the zoning permits it needs. It is on private property (I forgot their defense of property rights). It breaks no laws. Is it insensitive? Hm...
Well yes. It is terribly offensive to complete idiots who are incapable of seeing that Islam and terrorism are not synonymous. But if we are going to throw out amendments whenever stupid people cause problems, we might as well ditch the entire bill of rights, excluding the quartering one, since that never seems to come up.
I'm curious if England had this problem with Irish or Catholic community centers during their much longer period of conflict with Irish and catholic extremists. Perhaps not, since we had the sense to build all our places of worship before some jackass ruined everything. Oh wait, there's already a mosque, a mosque mosque, near ground zero. How insensitive of them to build a mosque so close to the future site of the towers.
My governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, has made this ridiculous statement "I’ve been to Pearl Harbor. I laid a wreath at Pearl Harbor. I’ve been to Auschwitz. I laid a wreath at Auschwitz. I’ve been to Ground Zero, and I laid a wreath there. I do believe that there are special places on Earth that should have a zone of solemnity around them."
How is a place of worship not appropriate for a zone of solemnity? Should we ban all German flags near Auschwitz? Perhaps. And certainly we should make sure the Quinn didn't say any prayers when he was there. Furthermore, there should be no new sushi restaurants in Hawaii, in deference to those who lost their lives.
Terrorists cannot take away our freedom. They can kill us, but they cannot take away our freedom. That's not meant to sound defiant, only to be factual. Only we can only take away our freedom, by ignoring our rights and the rights of our fellow citizens. If this mosque is blocked for any reason other than legality, then the terrorists will have won.
Posted by Klepsacovic at 7:00 AM | Sunday, August 22, 2010
Powered by Blogger.