From a discussion that ensued on SM:
"i going to bow out of this debate with you b/c either you're completely ignorant about const law and you're just trying to fake it, or you're not ignorant and just weird. i mean, "congress" does not apply to the states, the first ammedment says nothing about free expression on govt property? this is just basic stuff which i'd be happy to elaborate on but you don't seem to really want to learn, as your weird exchange with rob demonstrates. "
Constitute this.
Alright. So let me be upfront, I have no formalized law credentials, most of my legal insight has come from watching movies and self-study, and discussion with law professionals.
Part of my "keep it real" persona is to state what I do not know.
I asked for an example of a state government enacted-law being overturned or challenged within a state court system because they infringed on freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution. What I got in return was a Supreme Court document, which by my understanding, is a federal court.
On this I may be "dead wrong" however, it wasn't clearly explained in the example presented.
But even if the state takes the place of "Congress" as stated in the 1st amendment, barring someone from saying "Merry Christmas" or making any references to religion in a gov't/public workplace is not infringing on free speech or curtailing "free expression" because it's speech that if allowed could lead to preferential treatment and understanding of one religion over the other. US history is replete with examples where 'harmful' speech has been disallowed.
It all depends on context. if a person says "Merry Christmas" to a co-worker he knows is Christian, in passing through the hallway, it's probably not a big deal, in the sense of, it doesn't constitute "establishment of a religion."
If one of the groups has a meeting, let's say, and the boss says to his team, "Have a Merry Christmas everyone!" while he didn't mean anything negative by it, it could distance those people who do not celebrate Christmas, and, at its root, is a religious holiday. Anecdotally, I remember while growing up, wanting a tree, presents, etc... Why? Not because of some deep seated desire to celebrate the religious holiday of Christmas, or to be Christian, rather just to "fit in" We should be living in a society where no one feels they have to partake in someone else religion in order to feel comfortable. It's the bedrock principle of a gov't not establishing one religion as superior to the other.
This is similar to the case of an RA in a state school running Bible classes from the dorm. The RA is in a position of authority, and generally a point of contact for incoming freshman to a new school. Given the nature of what a religion is, and its purpose and usage in society, someone in a position of authority, using state resources to show preference to one religion over another is ultimately not what the constitutional architects wanted.
Now while separation of church and state is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is a statement made by Thomas Jefferson, one of the constitution's architects in reference to the 1st amendment clause barring Congress from establishing a religion.
So, as I see it, clamping down on behaviors which could be interpreted as preference for one religion over another in a gov't work place is completely in line with the 1st amendment's call for "no establishment of religion." Separation of church and state is something they obviously believed in, and intended on being upheld.
Secondly, calling it "a war on Christmas" is just plain stupid, and also clear evidence of a Christian-centric mindset. For, if it is indeed a "War" on anything, it's a war on all religions, not just Christmas.
And using free speech to defend it, is again a huge stretch, as the free speech clause at its root exists to make sure minority voices in a debate or exchange of ideas, are not suppressed. From a practical point of view, Christmas will not be "forgotten" or "mistreated" because gov't employees are unable to say it while in the workplace.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
O, Bama, why are thou?
I feel it absolutely necessary to comment on the Obama factor.
A lot of what I'm hearing in the media is of the variety, "This is already a historic election, because the two democratic front runners are a woman and a person of color." Now, there's no reason to further delve into the the United State's record on racism and it's intrinsic nature to the very foundation of this nation.
There's no reason to once again quote MLK's statement (this one rarely makes the elementary school textbooks):
"Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society..... We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population."
Link
But I'll do it anyway.
But the nay sayers will ask, how do you explain Hillary? How do you explain Obama?
Here's what I say. George Bush has just f)(#$)@(#cked up that bad. He's screwed up SO bad, that it's fueled the popularity of both these candidates. No matter how hard the republicans try, any person they put up will be seen as a Bush surrogate. Even the hated by right-wing McCain will at some level be seen as a Bush surrogate. Hell, even a "Clinton Surrogate" aka Hillary, is losing ground to the "vote for change" campaign.
Speaking of Hillary, she's obviously trading on her last name. So in some sense, she cannot be part of any signal that America's perception of it's national leaders are changing. In fact, on SM, it's been guessed that many elderly Desi democrats will vote her way as they remembered the "good times" of Bill's presidency. So obviously, she's being carried quite a bit by it. Does this mean she's not a candidate or person of merit, worthy of a presidential campaign? No, but you cannot make the argument that she's just some Jo Blo (Josephine Blo?) woman proving that electoral politics are changing. She's not just "a really smart woman" with a vision and a this or a that.
Obama, on the other hand, gained his popularity by his distance from the current administration (both in physical appearance and in verbal description) Obama is riding the "hope" and "change" wave so cleanly now, because now is when it will be strongest. Mark my words, if Obama doesn't secure the nomination this year, popularity for him will most likely decline for future election years (2012, 2016, what have you) Why? Because it's Bush's gigantic screwup of a presidency that has fueled all this Obama energy in the first place. Eight, or even four years from now, the anti bush energy that fuels Obama, will have all but completely dissipated.
However, I will say this. In the event that Obama secures the nomination and the presidency. I, HMF, will say the US collective consciousness has made some strides in changing its old ways of thinking.
A lot of what I'm hearing in the media is of the variety, "This is already a historic election, because the two democratic front runners are a woman and a person of color." Now, there's no reason to further delve into the the United State's record on racism and it's intrinsic nature to the very foundation of this nation.
There's no reason to once again quote MLK's statement (this one rarely makes the elementary school textbooks):
"Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society..... We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population."
Link
But I'll do it anyway.
But the nay sayers will ask, how do you explain Hillary? How do you explain Obama?
Here's what I say. George Bush has just f)(#$)@(#cked up that bad. He's screwed up SO bad, that it's fueled the popularity of both these candidates. No matter how hard the republicans try, any person they put up will be seen as a Bush surrogate. Even the hated by right-wing McCain will at some level be seen as a Bush surrogate. Hell, even a "Clinton Surrogate" aka Hillary, is losing ground to the "vote for change" campaign.
Speaking of Hillary, she's obviously trading on her last name. So in some sense, she cannot be part of any signal that America's perception of it's national leaders are changing. In fact, on SM, it's been guessed that many elderly Desi democrats will vote her way as they remembered the "good times" of Bill's presidency. So obviously, she's being carried quite a bit by it. Does this mean she's not a candidate or person of merit, worthy of a presidential campaign? No, but you cannot make the argument that she's just some Jo Blo (Josephine Blo?) woman proving that electoral politics are changing. She's not just "a really smart woman" with a vision and a this or a that.
Obama, on the other hand, gained his popularity by his distance from the current administration (both in physical appearance and in verbal description) Obama is riding the "hope" and "change" wave so cleanly now, because now is when it will be strongest. Mark my words, if Obama doesn't secure the nomination this year, popularity for him will most likely decline for future election years (2012, 2016, what have you) Why? Because it's Bush's gigantic screwup of a presidency that has fueled all this Obama energy in the first place. Eight, or even four years from now, the anti bush energy that fuels Obama, will have all but completely dissipated.
However, I will say this. In the event that Obama secures the nomination and the presidency. I, HMF, will say the US collective consciousness has made some strides in changing its old ways of thinking.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Half Breeds will take over the world
My prediction for 2008. Half Breeds will take over the world. 'Half Breeds' will always have the 'I'm so confused, I'm stuck between two cultures' thing going for them, but (especially for women) their 'exotic' look will be the new kryptonite to white racist hollywood producers in particular.
Here's the logic. They're confusing. People look them and think, "oh is she A or B? I don't know what to think?" Uhh. she's not white, but she's not asian either. So the standard stereotypes won't immediately kick in, but the thought process of "oh ho hum, just another boring fake plastic britney spears white chick" thinking doesn't kick in either.
In confusion, the brain will lose all its logical capacity, and simply emotion will kick in, emotion being, the evolutionary brain sensors (symmetry, youth, etc..)
Watch out for these cats, they're primed to take over the world.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Race Issues != Gender Issues
Ladies and Gents, I've been wanting to post an opinion on this for a long time.
This is due to a slew of comments of the form "You're a person of color, so you understand white privilege and race issues well, but being a male you do not understand how you benefit from male privilege"
So lets start at the beginning. The gender issue and race issue are not completely synonymous, they have certain overlaps I agree, but to simply graft over points that I make on the race debate and say, "see it's just the same as gender" is lazy and incorrect.
Here are the differences:
Race is completely, unequivocally concocted and socially defined. Numerous efforts were there to "scientifically" prove that certain races were genetically inferior to other races, all of this evidence however is racially motivated, to keeping (what was at that time) the status quo of white superiority.
Any study during that time cannot be extricated from the social temperament extant. Secondly, in the US in particular, race has a very specific history. Blacks were herded like animals on ships for the sole purpose of forced labor. They weren't allowed to learn, read, write, or advance intellectually in anyway. This reality is entirely, 100% socially concocted. Whites and blacks have no reason to be together or interact other than societally motivated causes (ie. we brought you here on ships)
Men did not go to Oprah-land to bring women to serve as their laborers, to bolster the "male" economy. Men and women also have that little thing called "evolutionary impulse" that keeps us together. This trait, if it was really detrimental would not pass on from generation to generation, rather it would die out because it doesn't serve survivability & replication of the human race. In fact, exactly the opposite: men and women interacting is what DEFINES survivability of the human race.
Now, one might imagine a reality that men and women don't actually interact, rather live in separate societies and only engage in replication via in-vitro fertalization. If male privilege were really as absolute as females would like to think, why haven't we seen a push in this direction? Because our evolutionaray impulses exist as they did 1000's of years ago, where technology & economics couldn't support a separate male and female society. I believe these impulses are keeping us together.
The female separatist movement does exist, but I'm a bit unclear as to their end goal. are they suggesting a society of just women? or are they just lesbos that don't want to be around men?
Now, is there male privilege? Yes. of course there is, but there's female privilege as well. I could go through the laundry list of cases and categories, but I'll save that for another time. The biggest example of female privilege is in dating/relationship situations - seemingly trivial, but upon further inspection, a cornerstone for the very relationships that sustain our society.
If one supports the removal of male privilege, then one should support the removal of female privilege as well.
This is due to a slew of comments of the form "You're a person of color, so you understand white privilege and race issues well, but being a male you do not understand how you benefit from male privilege"
So lets start at the beginning. The gender issue and race issue are not completely synonymous, they have certain overlaps I agree, but to simply graft over points that I make on the race debate and say, "see it's just the same as gender" is lazy and incorrect.
Here are the differences:
Race is completely, unequivocally concocted and socially defined. Numerous efforts were there to "scientifically" prove that certain races were genetically inferior to other races, all of this evidence however is racially motivated, to keeping (what was at that time) the status quo of white superiority.
Any study during that time cannot be extricated from the social temperament extant. Secondly, in the US in particular, race has a very specific history. Blacks were herded like animals on ships for the sole purpose of forced labor. They weren't allowed to learn, read, write, or advance intellectually in anyway. This reality is entirely, 100% socially concocted. Whites and blacks have no reason to be together or interact other than societally motivated causes (ie. we brought you here on ships)
Men did not go to Oprah-land to bring women to serve as their laborers, to bolster the "male" economy. Men and women also have that little thing called "evolutionary impulse" that keeps us together. This trait, if it was really detrimental would not pass on from generation to generation, rather it would die out because it doesn't serve survivability & replication of the human race. In fact, exactly the opposite: men and women interacting is what DEFINES survivability of the human race.
Now, one might imagine a reality that men and women don't actually interact, rather live in separate societies and only engage in replication via in-vitro fertalization. If male privilege were really as absolute as females would like to think, why haven't we seen a push in this direction? Because our evolutionaray impulses exist as they did 1000's of years ago, where technology & economics couldn't support a separate male and female society. I believe these impulses are keeping us together.
The female separatist movement does exist, but I'm a bit unclear as to their end goal. are they suggesting a society of just women? or are they just lesbos that don't want to be around men?
Now, is there male privilege? Yes. of course there is, but there's female privilege as well. I could go through the laundry list of cases and categories, but I'll save that for another time. The biggest example of female privilege is in dating/relationship situations - seemingly trivial, but upon further inspection, a cornerstone for the very relationships that sustain our society.
If one supports the removal of male privilege, then one should support the removal of female privilege as well.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Indian Independent Cinema - checklist
I've caught a lot of Indian Independent Cinema of late, as almost everything else, there's a formula behind it all. Even chaos, rebellion and movement against the status quo has a formula behind it.
For an Indian indep (really, a non-Bollywood) film to be successful or even exist, it usually has one or
more of the following components:
1. One character must have a relationship with a non-Indian. Usually it's an Indian female hooking
up with a white male.
2. One character will invariably be gay.
3. One character must whack off (no matter how irrelevent to the story line it is)
(Icing on the top is jabs and criticism on the caste system, but this isn't always included)
Let's do a quick rundown.
Fire - points 2 & 3
Bend it like Bekham - points 1 & 2
Bride and Prejudice - points 1
Dharm - points 1 & caste system
Bavandar - points 3
East is East - points 1
Loins of Punjab - points 1
I'm open for any more additions to the mix.
For an Indian indep (really, a non-Bollywood) film to be successful or even exist, it usually has one or
more of the following components:
1. One character must have a relationship with a non-Indian. Usually it's an Indian female hooking
up with a white male.
2. One character will invariably be gay.
3. One character must whack off (no matter how irrelevent to the story line it is)
(Icing on the top is jabs and criticism on the caste system, but this isn't always included)
Let's do a quick rundown.
Fire - points 2 & 3
Bend it like Bekham - points 1 & 2
Bride and Prejudice - points 1
Dharm - points 1 & caste system
Bavandar - points 3
East is East - points 1
Loins of Punjab - points 1
I'm open for any more additions to the mix.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Keeping it Real
I keep it real
I used to say that a lot in high school. Maybe to some who read my posts, I might as well still be in high school. That's fine, not everyone has to like, agree or even tolerate what I have to say.
But understand this, I do keep it uncategorically real. And what I mean by this is, I do say things rooted in what I believe to be true and logically sound, and I do respect the opinions of others when I truly find merit in them.
I was recently called out for ad hominem attacks rather than engaging the points and arguments. Truth be told, I only do that to those who have first engaged me in such a way.
I won't go into the background, because frankly, anyone who's reading this would already know it. but here are some excerpts from a rant against me on SepiaMutiny:
.............
if a guy actually makes some statements against your usual misogynist frothing, it is because he wants to get in women's pants, and women of course are incapable of contributing effectively to the discussion since you and you alone have had the unique vantage to explore both male and female behaviors
Instead of jumping on the bandwagon and dismissing what I say as misogynist, how about actually engaging the point? Because nearly 100% of the time, the evidence to call me "misogynist" is out of an exaggerated or misrepresented interpretation of what I truly said. Instead of actually engaging my points, you do exactly what you accuse me of doing.
Believe it or not, there *are* women who have enough sense to look past the easy "misogynist" conclusion and have actually answered my points and engaged in a dialogue.
and are specially qualified to posit laughable theories that sound like they have been extracted from reading the equivalents of self-help books written by pick-up artists like mystery and the game.
Hah. If you're going to soapbox against someone at least get it right. The *book* is called 'The Game' the author is Neil Strauss. You may find the theories and observations laughable, but I would say you may perhaps live in a privileged reality, where perhaps you don't experience the things the average male might, in a standard male/female interaction.
and if none of these work, adopt the age-old strategy of ad hominem against the commenter. it seems an easy way to just dismiss arguments that don't agree with your contorted world views without actually engaging with the points in them.
As I said before, I never or rarely make any statement against someone without them striking first blood. I challenge you to find an instance.
i am sure your analysis of human interactions that constantly focuses on the follies of whites and women has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are a male person of color
Yes, and MLK focusing on the follies of whites because he was a person of color too. That's what we as human beings do, we record into our memories much more deeply the events of us as victims rather than not. Does this mean men and people of color are not culpable of anything, in any way? No of course not, it would be silly to state that, which is why I didn't state it.
you seem to confuse being wrong, obnoxious and unpopular with actually being correct and courageous.
I don't care if I'm classified as wrong, obnoxious or any other words, as all of the above or none. Nor do i care about how 'unpopular' I am. As I said before, I'm not constantly wondering if people will classify me as a moderate democrat with conservative tendencies or a blue peacock. I say what I see, hear, read, observe and pontificate on. Feel free to say I'm wrong or obnoxious. but, I keep it real.
"you are either with me or against me",
Dont know where this is coming from (other than your head) There have been many times where i've conceded various points made by others.
but seem to be left without a response when actually shown an instance where you spewed your hate filled spitballs with absolutely no reason. as usual,
I already showed you where you made an unprovoked jab at me. Here's the link again, in case you forgot:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004756.html#comment169251
But I don't care that people make snide jabs at me, hell I dish it out, I can take it, I dont care. Here's where you lack a certain consistency, you say here:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004774.html#comment171352
that you dont want me to "pull my punches" yet in the super-rant you ascribe it as "hate filled spitballs" for no reason. so make up your mind, I personally thought it was a jab equivalent to the one you levied at me. I didn't say I wished for your sister to come down with a case of ovarian cancer, nor would I ever.
if anything you come off as very whiny by making little jabs at others, then calling them 'hate filled spitballs' when it's done right back to you. That's hypocrisy.
sm intern, you might want to consider why hmf's quoting misogynist lyrics with a sham apology was considered acceptable, but a esponse with similar lyrics was not.
For the record, I had no problem with Tara's lyrics, I thought it was a funny response, as well as indicative of her "alpha/beta male dichotomy" - which she didn't denounce right away, so I can only assume there's truth to it
I used to say that a lot in high school. Maybe to some who read my posts, I might as well still be in high school. That's fine, not everyone has to like, agree or even tolerate what I have to say.
But understand this, I do keep it uncategorically real. And what I mean by this is, I do say things rooted in what I believe to be true and logically sound, and I do respect the opinions of others when I truly find merit in them.
I was recently called out for ad hominem attacks rather than engaging the points and arguments. Truth be told, I only do that to those who have first engaged me in such a way.
I won't go into the background, because frankly, anyone who's reading this would already know it. but here are some excerpts from a rant against me on SepiaMutiny:
.............
if a guy actually makes some statements against your usual misogynist frothing, it is because he wants to get in women's pants, and women of course are incapable of contributing effectively to the discussion since you and you alone have had the unique vantage to explore both male and female behaviors
Instead of jumping on the bandwagon and dismissing what I say as misogynist, how about actually engaging the point? Because nearly 100% of the time, the evidence to call me "misogynist" is out of an exaggerated or misrepresented interpretation of what I truly said. Instead of actually engaging my points, you do exactly what you accuse me of doing.
Believe it or not, there *are* women who have enough sense to look past the easy "misogynist" conclusion and have actually answered my points and engaged in a dialogue.
and are specially qualified to posit laughable theories that sound like they have been extracted from reading the equivalents of self-help books written by pick-up artists like mystery and the game.
Hah. If you're going to soapbox against someone at least get it right. The *book* is called 'The Game' the author is Neil Strauss. You may find the theories and observations laughable, but I would say you may perhaps live in a privileged reality, where perhaps you don't experience the things the average male might, in a standard male/female interaction.
and if none of these work, adopt the age-old strategy of ad hominem against the commenter. it seems an easy way to just dismiss arguments that don't agree with your contorted world views without actually engaging with the points in them.
As I said before, I never or rarely make any statement against someone without them striking first blood. I challenge you to find an instance.
i am sure your analysis of human interactions that constantly focuses on the follies of whites and women has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are a male person of color
Yes, and MLK focusing on the follies of whites because he was a person of color too. That's what we as human beings do, we record into our memories much more deeply the events of us as victims rather than not. Does this mean men and people of color are not culpable of anything, in any way? No of course not, it would be silly to state that, which is why I didn't state it.
you seem to confuse being wrong, obnoxious and unpopular with actually being correct and courageous.
I don't care if I'm classified as wrong, obnoxious or any other words, as all of the above or none. Nor do i care about how 'unpopular' I am. As I said before, I'm not constantly wondering if people will classify me as a moderate democrat with conservative tendencies or a blue peacock. I say what I see, hear, read, observe and pontificate on. Feel free to say I'm wrong or obnoxious. but, I keep it real.
"you are either with me or against me",
Dont know where this is coming from (other than your head) There have been many times where i've conceded various points made by others.
but seem to be left without a response when actually shown an instance where you spewed your hate filled spitballs with absolutely no reason. as usual,
I already showed you where you made an unprovoked jab at me. Here's the link again, in case you forgot:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004756.html#comment169251
But I don't care that people make snide jabs at me, hell I dish it out, I can take it, I dont care. Here's where you lack a certain consistency, you say here:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004774.html#comment171352
that you dont want me to "pull my punches" yet in the super-rant you ascribe it as "hate filled spitballs" for no reason. so make up your mind, I personally thought it was a jab equivalent to the one you levied at me. I didn't say I wished for your sister to come down with a case of ovarian cancer, nor would I ever.
if anything you come off as very whiny by making little jabs at others, then calling them 'hate filled spitballs' when it's done right back to you. That's hypocrisy.
sm intern, you might want to consider why hmf's quoting misogynist lyrics with a sham apology was considered acceptable, but a esponse with similar lyrics was not.
For the record, I had no problem with Tara's lyrics, I thought it was a funny response, as well as indicative of her "alpha/beta male dichotomy" - which she didn't denounce right away, so I can only assume there's truth to it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)