Exact Approximations

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Honest asshole.

Speaking of immigration, I was talking to a friend recently about American policies on work permits. Basically, my take is that anyone who wants to come here and try to work should be allowed to. Sign the papers, register with a picture, pay your taxes and come take your chance. Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?
Friend: "Yeah, I agree. My main concern with illegal immigration is terrorism issues."

Lex: "That one is easy: if you have a turban on your head, you're getting the shit searched out of you."

Friend: Laughing. "Oh my God Lex, that's so un-P.C.!"

Lex: "I don't give a flying. I mean, sure, it sucks, but how many of the terrorists were Muslim?"

Friend: "Well, what about the extreme? Like kicking all Muslims out of your country? Isn't that what China did?"

Lex: Crap, is it? I should know this... "Yeah, that's a bit extreme, but giving up a bit of extra time at an airport or border isn't that much of a sacrifice, and searching all the Middle Eastern people just seems like good resource allocation. Randomly search everyone else and mandatorily search all terrorist look-a-likes. Sensible racial profiling. Like I said, they were all Muslim."

Friend: "What about the Australian terrorist?"

Lex: Never heard of the Australian terrorist. Feeling a bit dumb, but prepared to play it off. "Yeah, that guy and the American Taliban from Marin County. So, o.k., I'll evolve my thoughts here. You get mandatorily searched if you're 1) Muslim, 2)Australian, or 3) from Marin County. There's the answer."

Lex & Friend: Giggle.

I don't care if I sound racist, or insensitive, whatever. If you've got a burka, speak "fla-la-la-la-la", or carry a Koran, take one for the team and quit bitching. Black people had to deal for 200 years, and still do. No pity.



  • Lol, thats funny. I am scared of being a racist, and you just toss your shit out there!

    By Anonymous Scared lil sadie, at 7:37 PM  

  • "Sign the papers, register with a picture, pay your taxes and come take your chance. Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?" Indeed. However, it is not the illegal immigrants that I am bothered by, but the illegal employers. If they had to "pay taxes" on workers that they hire, then we wouldn't have to worry about all of these immigrants. Either there would be no jobs, or, Americans would fill these jobs, the so called jobs that Americans don't want, because you have to have a green card or a SS# to work in this country.

    If the illegal employer could not hire the illegal immigrant, then there would be no reason for the illegal immigrant to come here, well, maybe our health care system, but, that is another story - see Sicko!

    By Blogger Crazy East Coast Uncle, at 8:01 PM  

  • Lex, upon further review, yes, this is racism on your part.

    By Blogger Crazy East Coast Uncle, at 5:17 AM  

  • CECU - oh man, that's comedy. I totally called it. On Sadie's blog, she had another discussion regarding illegal immigration, and I mentioned that it wouldn't be long before CECU came and gave us his "blame it on the employers" speech. Golden. I do agree that the employers should be held responsible, that would be a smart way to do it. I don't buy the "jobs Americans don't want" argument. I think you were alluding to this. Poor Americans will take shit jobs, just like the next guy, illegally under the table if they need it badly enough. I think there are simply jobs Americans aren't in bad enough financial positions to need to take. Americans are snotty, and don't take jobs they think they are too good for, especially when they can get cash and poverty assistance (since they're legal). We have a market for employing very low-skilled workers in very shit-crap jobs. And I say, if you want 'em - have 'em.

    Also, your comment regarding healthcare: total misconception. Few illegals use American health care systems, because they are so afraid of being INS'd. They just don't know about / have faith in privacy laws. Furthermore, illegals really only have access to emergency rooms and some free clinics. It's not like they're getting quality health care. And if they do sneak over for just that reason, I say they should go for it. If they take the risk of crossing the border for no reason other than to get necessary health care - then they must be in a very dire situation. Again, that's a humanitarian issue.

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 5:46 PM  

  • Oh, and another thing. I don't give a flying if this is considered racism on my part. It's good, cost-effective policy that everyone is to fucking P.C. to seriously condsider. They can deal with it for the goood of the whole. It's simple societal utilitarianism. Im also in the "yes, I would take the lives of thousands of innocent people if it meant a cancer cure" camp.

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 5:48 PM  

  • Actually, i read that the US spends over $350 million dollars a year on health care for illegal immigrants.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:54 PM  

  • But I don't think your being racist, Lex.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:56 PM  

  • Whoa, Martin Luther King, Jr. just disowned you, Lex. I'm a bit saddened to see this.

    Greater good to be singled out just because you happen to have the same skin color/belief system as somebody else? You're going to let a couple people fuck things over for a shit ton more? I believe this happened to the Japanese a few years back. Yeah, everybody thought they'd terrorize our war efforts so we put them all in camps to keep them away from stuff. That's right, take it for the team, Japanese.

    Oh yeah, Hitler did something like this too. "I want to build a better Germany. Make this better for the people. The jews? Nah, they're the problem. You can't afford bread because the Jews have all the money. Take one for the team, quit your bitching."

    Bit extreme, but that's where this sort of logic leads.

    WWI, people didn't like the Germans. Went so far as to change their names to avoid any sort of association with Germany.

    Black people did suffer for 200 years. They're still recovering. I don't think we should sell them radios or cars. Take one for the team and let the rest of have some quiet time away for the terrible hip hop crap and fake gold teeth. We'll be a better society without that.

    All white males should not be allowed to rent uhauls. We might drive them into federal buildings and blow shit up just because that one white male did.

    The reason you don't care, Lex, as I see it, is because you're not on the receiving end of it. Let's do what Nony has said and limit who can have children to those who comes from suitable families. No abuse (mental, physical, substance). Certain levels of income. The usual crap. Take one from the team and don't breed. Don't adopt even. No pity. It's the greater good.

    Or, women can't work. Children turn out better if momma is at home all the time. Creates better family stability, etc. Take one for the team.

    You could suck that up for 200 years, couldn't you? Life would be so much better if all these things happened.

    By Blogger Arbusto, at 8:10 PM  

  • Wow Busto - I'm disappointed too. I thought I said in my post that the whole "kicking every Muslim out of China" thing was too extreme? Obviously, all of your examples would encroach upon civil rights to an unacceptable degree. Therefore, I find your examples unhelpful to the issue I'm discussing. I'm not talking about killing off a race. I'm not talking about throwing a whole race in camps. I'm not talking about sterilizing people. I'm talking about taking a little more time at the airport. If I agreed with your logic - I would have said no Muslims on planes, similiar to your no white people in Uhauls example.

    This is exactly the thinking that drives me crazy. People are so P.C. that anytime logic dictates a classification based on race, gender, national origin, age, or class - people get bent out of shape and start crying Big Brother. It's not Big Brother, it's the best way to catch terrorists. So, yes, I think this group of people should take one for the team.

    BTW - my great-grandfather was a Jew who came to America and changed his name. I faced lots of discrimination as a poor teenage single mother on welfare. I have spent a great deal of time studying the ongoing effects of racism. I offer a policy opinion on an issue basically unrelated to all the examples you gave, and then you assume I am therefore ignorant of history?

    I feel like your comment illustrates the weakness of using the slippery-slope in an argument. You can't prove an action incorrect by marrying it to a far more extreme example. If that is the only place my logic can lead, then people are delusional and short-thinking.

    All that said, best comment on the post. You're smart, even when I disagree with you. And I still have much, much love.

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 8:37 PM  

  • Ouch...
    It is a bit extreme. Alot really. Lex isn't talkin genocide...she's bein a bit racist in light of recent current events, but as long as she's not running the country, or trying to ship everyone out of the country, to the grave, or making them work for free..that was a low blow. I mean seriously, we're talking delays at the airport here, and all of a sudden it's a race war!

    Anyone who says they don't draw judgement when they see someone who bears slight resemblance to Bin Laden is just plain lying. You can't help but have the thought enter your mind. Its human nature.
    I think Lex would be fine with a frisking at the airport if she was sportin a turban. She's got that "take one for the team" kind of mentality.

    By Anonymous Sadie, at 8:44 PM  

  • I do have a take one for the team mentality. Fo sho'

    I think another example of where my line of thinking is considered acceptable is the criminal suspect category. When a crime is committed, and a description is given - for example, "white male, shaved head, heavy-set, over 6 feet tall" - who are the people who get stopped, searched, and questioned? People fitting the description. And those people are inconvienced to the same, if not higher, degree as my example of searching Middle-Eastern folks at airports. Do you take issue with this example as well? I'm not trying to be condascending, I seriously wonder if you think this example dictates a different result than the examples you or I gave? Or whether you see this comment's example as fundamentally different from the airport-search example?

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 9:30 PM  

  • I don't see my examples as unrelated. Some of them take it to the next step though.

    What the hell is the point of an individual civil liberty if I have to give it up because one person who looks like me blew shit up? All because I share a faith or a skin color with them? Not all middle-easterners are Muslim. Not all Muslims are from the Middle East.

    Just because somebody "got a burka, speak 'fla-la-la-la-la', or carry a Koran" doesn't mean they're anything like Bin Laden's group. He's got a tiny, tiny contingent and you want to screw over the rest of them. Why the limit to airports? They can drive, I'm sure. Just like those guys they stopped the other day with the truck of explosives. They could live here. Sleeper cells. Interment camps are the answer!

    Your next example, bald 6 ft white guy who's fat is far different. There, you have a crime committed and a bit more telling description. The profiling you're talking about, you have no reason to suspect anybody of anything other than a couple guys who did it once who are of my religion (maybe, I could just have their skin tone and not even have the same faith).

    It's taken centuries to bring some equality to minorities. And it's still a battle. You're talking about taking steps backwards now.

    Come on, Lex, you're letting the terrorists win with this thought process if you're going to suspect everyone. The terrorists in this sentence could be Bin Laden or G-Dubs.

    By Blogger Arbusto, at 9:56 PM  

  • "Interment camps are the answer!" - again, with the misplaced slippery slope. Some of your examples take it to the next step? Which ones don't? If your examples are not taking it to the next step, how are they similiar?

    In the criminal suspect example, the description could be far vaguer - as simple as "black male, wearing white t-shirt" - and a larger group of people in the area will be searched and, possibly, interogated. Again, this is far more intrusve than my suggestion. I suspect that you are simply used to this happening in the crimial context, and so are more comfortable with it. But if we take your logic - that my line of thinking leads to atrocities - than you need to do that in every area. You need to be against any person being searched or questioned by the police, when there is no evidence other than appearance. Seems silly, no?

    I believe in racial equality. But I also believve in public safety and, more importantly, smart resouce allocation. The whole country suffers when the government spends more money than necessary so that they can remain P.C.

    How am I taking steps backwards in the race for equality? All I am saying is to search people who fit the description, it's an additional five minutes out of your already two hour airport wait. This is no infringement upon civil liberties. It's an offering of what I feel is common sense to a nation that is so stuck in trying not to appear racist/sexist/ageist that things are getting a bit out of hand.

    I understand that not all Muslims are from the Middle East and vice-versa. I include both groups in my "search 'em" category because people from both groups can easily fake being members of the other. A tall black guy from Somalia can't fake it quite as well. Nor can an Irishman.

    "you're letting the terrorists win with this thought process if you're going to suspect everyone." -- I think you're letting the extreme, misguided liberal nuts win by not being willing to get real about a problem and take small, but effective, actions against it - if only when those actions do not fly in the face of liberties and freedoms. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot see that waiting an extra few minutes in an airport to undergo a search because you look like the very people we are searching for is a serious infringement on liberties and freedoms.

    So, you are countering my argument by giving different examples of extremes. Explain to me how the airport search is going to be detrimental to those people subject to it in any real way? The only thing I can think of is that it may lead to people being more willing to think that Middle-Eastern folks are the group that terrorists come from. But then, they might just be right, huh?

    Man o man - I flippin LOVE comment wars. Such good discourse comes of it. I appreciate that you're engaging me meng, seriously.

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 10:11 PM  

  • Civil liberties emphasizes the liberty of the individual. In many other forms of government the importance of the individual has disappeared. The individual lives for the state. Here in a democracy the government still exists for the individual, but that does not mean that we do not have to watch and that we do not have to examine ourselves to be sure that we preserve the civil liberties for all our people, which are the basis of our democracy.
    ***Eleanor Roosevelt

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:03 PM  

  • You're talking effective resource allotment. Interment camps would be more cost effective. For one, the danger doesn't end at the airport. Prevent your suspects from taking part in any sort of dangerous activity.

    Then again, they wouldn't work because Muslims don't have to be middle eastern. You even named a couple examples of Non-Middle Eastern dangerous Muslims. Malcolm X was considered a terrorist, too, wasn't he?

    The larger problem that I see is if you're profiling at the airport, it's not ending there. Negative Nancy on the street is probably calling in anytime she sees a turban on a head and probably doesn't let her daughter wear a towel on hers to dry her hair because somebody might call her in as a terrorist. The airports are just one example of creating second-class citizenship. It's already digging into our society. We've already lumped all Middle Easterners and Muslims into one group.

    Cartman sums this up perfectly.
    If the link doesn't work, search youtube for South Park the snuke

    By Blogger Arbusto, at 7:08 AM  

  • I feel like we're both getting a bit repetitive.... This is a lawyers disagreement through and through.


    Again, all I ever advocated was racial profiling when it comes to airport searches. Obviously, the trade off of putting "terrorist looking people" in camps is VERY different, and completely unacceptalbe. I would never accept that. That would actually interfere with a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm talking about an airport search, which everyone is going through to some degree anyhow. My point is that, if you want to find the people with the "flammable when combined liquids" - you know damn well what they are most likely to look like. Same thing with bomb shoes. There isn't the same risk with people walking on the street - they are incapable of getting on a plane, hijacking it, and killing a few thousand people. That ~can~ be done on an airplane.

    Obviously, street walkers can carry bombs that will kill everyone within a certain proximity - but then again, we have had non-jihad people do the same thing (Unibomber, That Tim something guy at the Oklahoma building, the Columbine kids...) Also, as I remember it, the current policy when someone sees another person on the street that they believe may be a threat, they are supposed to report that person to the police. That has been the status quo - and it's not leading to abhorent violations of rights.

    Another thing I was thinking about was the gun control discussion that I wrote about awhile back ("Argument Deconstruction"). You were somewhat in agreement with me about taking away guns. There, I was advocating taking away everyone's right to own guns, because a small % of gun owners (legal & illegal) do terrible things with them. In that situation, people are losing a very small right (the ability to enjoy their hobby) for the greater good (decreasing gun-related deaths). That also requires a larger group to suffer for the ill-founded actions of a few, but you didn't get upset about that. Is that simply because that classification was guns and this is nationality? Because I don't see that much of a difference between the two. It's the same concept - utilitarianism - some making a slightly larger sacrifice for the good of the whole.

    Also, I'm still interested in how you feel about my example re: the vaguer criminal's description that leads to a wide net being cast over potential suspects? Are you o.k. with that, because it seems to me that your logic dictates the result that this is wrong too? If you are ok with it, why is that o.k. and this not? I guess I need to understand how you are distinguishing the two a little better...

    It seems to me that what I propose simply does not feel right to you, and so you are trying to argue its badness by comparing it to bad things. I don't think that logic works. It's a straw man argument, and it ditches the issue at hand.

    I think it sucks too, to be classifying people based on appearance. But I am willing to accept a small degree of that for purposes of national security. I refuse to be so P.C. that I am willing to ignore good ideas that could protect us all. That's liberalism taken to a degree that makes it lose its appeal, and an example of it that turns me off to extreme liberal thinking. Looking out and caring for the rights of fellow mankind is an amazing thing that we should absolutely continue to do. But let's not let it paralyze us from taking certain actions that will help everyone by inconveniencing a few; but only when the inconvienence of those few does not interfere with their fundamental rights. Freedom from an airport search is not a fundamental right, as I see it.

    ~~ sigh ~~ if someone else doesn't add their 3 cents too, we might just have to agree to diasagree and move on.

    I really hope that being on the receiving end of my disagreement isn't causing you to feel genuine animosity towards me. That would suck. And if some white kid blows up a plane anytime soon, you will receive my deepest concessions.

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 1:14 PM  

  • So, I watched the Snuke clip. (pretty flippin funny). There, Cartman was misguided because he was suspecting a Muslim, when it was actually the Brits, coming to finish off the Revolutionary War. But the terrorists ~are~ Muslim. Isn't a "jihad" a religious war? There are no Brits coming to try to win the Revolutionary War... I'm confused?

    Is the purpose of the clip the part where the Muslim family decides to leave because America is an intolerant country? I see that as the first legitimate concern I can see coming from my suggestion. But, somehow, I doubt people would stop living here because they have to undergo airport searches. People already have to undergo airport searches. And, recall, my suggestion still dictated random searches of everyone.

    How was Cartman summing it up? By saying he still got the Muslims out? I mean, who does that? How many people seriously think like Cartman? And, those who do, already hate Muslims, right? My idea wouldn't change the mindset of Cartmans much.

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 1:33 PM  

  • Daughter: "Mom, you're STILL writing on your blog, arguing with your friend?"

    Lex: "Yeah honey, it's no big deal."

    Daughter: "But why would you argue with someone you like so much?"

    Lex: "We're lawyers sweetie, this is how we roll."

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 1:34 PM  

  • sadie grey says to tell me to tell you to get over yourself..ha!ha! We love ya! This is my second blog my first comment on someone else's blog. So now you need to read my blog and comment on it. My address is themominthecity.blogspot.com

    By Anonymous themom, at 1:57 PM  

  • I know you only advocate profiling in airports. My statement is that's not where it's going to end. It's trickling into everyday life. A second glance at the guy across the street because he's got a big beard but let's hope he doesn't have dynamite strapped to him. Airports are one facet. I'm not talking about only police activity. The ingraining of racism into society. Individuals treating someone differently because they look like the guy who flew a plane into the building. That's my problem. Profiling is one symptom.

    The purpose of the South Park clip was Cartman assuming the family as terrorists based upon his appearance. Did it even say the kid as a Muslim? I'm remembering it being "Oh, a Middle-Easterner, oh shit!" More people than I care to think about think like Cartman. That's the highly aggravating part.

    But people feel this is ok because we don't look like them and they're easy to pick out. KKK is religiously affiliated is it not? Even if they're not, I'm still not a suspect for anything though because of that. It's another small contingent of people who represent a tiny, tiny little sect in the overarching religion or belief system. When a white guy buys wood or bricks or even guns you don't put him to heightened scrutiny separate from what others get.

    My stance on gun control is hardly well thought out at all. Most of stems from my tenuous belief that we're not entitled to guns. Something or another about militias but not militia as it is today.

    The vague description. Well, crim pro distinctions. The police need some sort of probable cause, reasonable suspicion. They can't act on that information. At least, that's my faith in parts of the system. They likely will act and hopefully the court will do something about it.

    The Supreme Court has never upheld cost effectiveness as a compelling interest for anything. It's not the government's role to be cheap.

    Watch for the white kid with a plane, it may be in AZ. I have an expendable brother.

    An issue I've had in law school is I'm conclusory. I don't think I've gotten over that much. Probably a good thing I won't be a litigator.

    Hi, Daughter. Kick Mom in the shins for me. Tell her, bad liberal! Bad California grad student!

    By Blogger Arbusto, at 2:57 PM  

  • I appreciate this comment as the most pursuasive you have left on this topic. Kudos for that. And thanks for the reassurance that the disagreement doesn't mean you hate me - I'm always afraid that's going to happen when I express what are considered radical views.

    The reality is that people are "looking at the guy across the street" anyway. That's freedom of thought.

    I disagree that just because we take a closer look at suspects who fit the description, it's necessarily going to trickle down and turn into some of the doomsday scenarios you have mentioned.

    "The vague description. Well, crim pro distinctions. The police need some sort of probable cause, reasonable suspicion." - and this probable cause, reasonable suspicion - generally begins with a simple vague description. That is ~exactly~ what my proposal is based on. Taking a closer look at people that fit the description of the smaller group of people we are trying to find.

    My position is not based simply on allowing the government to search on the cheap. You are absolutely right, it is not the govenment's job to be cheap. But, since the government doesn't have the resources to closely search every airplane passenger, they need to at least make what searches they can do most effective. Do what it takes, within reason, to increase your chances of finding who you are looking for. And, as I said, we would still be randomly searching everyone else. And whether or not the Supreme Court has called my reason a compelling interest, doesn't take anything from the fact that I think it is an important consideration - especially given what BushCo has done to our budget. I'm a blogger, not a professional jurisprudence author. Also, I am basing my propoosal on other reasons, so please don't isolate me to the weakest of them. Safety. Safety is a huge concern. Losing three thousand lives again is a huge concern. We are actively engaged in "The War on Terrorism" - like it or not. A group of people has declared a fatwah on our asses, and we shouldn't ignore a cohesive set of characteristics among them for the sake of being P.C. So, my reasons are: the greater good, public safety, effective policing, minimal intrusion, and lastly, monetary efficiency.

    "When a white guy buys wood or bricks or even guns you don't put him to heightened scrutiny separate from what others get." -- you're right, but I think this person (at least the gun-buyer - I think wood is a stretch) should be subject to heightened scrutiny. Any person engaging in suspicious activities should be subject to question. That's the societal pact. And if a person looks like the people we are searching for, it's natural to screen them.

    We need to find security threats. And those people that have created a danger at airports have a common denomiator - a general region of origin, race, and religion. It makes sense to take a closer look at everyone in the group, when all the bad guys are coming from that group. It's retarded to me to go ahead and randomly search an old lady and her five year old grandson, for the sake of being P.C., when that little old lady is surrounded by a group of five men, praying to Allah, and looking around like they're a bit on edge.

    Everyone is down on profiling because it "singles out a certain group of people" - but police use profiling ALL the time. They have profiling specialists. They question people who fit the description. It's simple police activity / strategy. And it makes sense for a reason.

    Last word is all yours 'Busto, unless you want me to respond to something. If not, I'll lay in wait until someone else comes along with thoughts on the issue. Or maybe put some time into posting something new... Have a field day my friend.

    Adios my liberal amigo. (I'm guessing I'm now officially excommunicated from that club. Frick. Now I have to vote for McCain ;)

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 4:17 PM  

  • Because my head hurts, actually and metaphorically, I'm only going to address a couple things and leave most of it. We're going nowhere.

    I still fear that it will "trickle down" into something or another. The world hasn't changed that much from WWI where people changed their names so they'd no longer be though German. That's what Fox News makes a living off of. That's what some prosecutors make a living off of (one of my ex-roommates "If you've been picked up or the police suspect you. It may not be that crime but you're guilty of something.") The though process is still there: That guy looks Muslim, he's plotting against me.

    "And those people that have created a danger at airports have a common denomiator - a general region of origin, race, and religion." This is what I find troubling. You're lumping far too many people together as suspect. But we've been over that point before. I just want to highlight none of those are the same thing and none are indicative of who is actually suspect. The original post even reminds us of the American kid who joined in.

    Have you looked at what they use to profile in airports? It's everything. You look too nervous. You look to confident. You wear sunglasses. You don't wear sunglasses. You're sweaty. You're perfectly calm, etc. The profile is pointless.

    I really wish I knew where my ibuprofen was at this time. McCain is too liberal for you, now. You must vote for whoever funds Homeland Security the most.

    By Blogger Arbusto, at 7:00 PM  

  • Oops, forgot one thing.

    The wood for crosses. I should have added rope to the list too. And any ingredient for Molotov cocktails.

    By Blogger Arbusto, at 7:02 PM  

  • In your original post, the initial topic was about the American work permit policies. You mentioned "anyone who wants to come here and try to work should be allowed...Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?" How you got off onto a racist discussion is beyond me, but I am truly surprised by all the jibberish prose that you use to attempt to hide your racism!

    As I said on Sadie's blog:
    Sounds like an illegal employer to me.

    Lex, what makes you against this illegal employer stuff? Are you just mad that you didn't think of it first! :)

    I don't see this as a racial issue. This is a class issue, Rich vs. Poor. The rich are getting richer because of the profits they make on illegal employees. They don't have to report it. They don't pay tax on it. They say it is because of the jobs that Americans don't want. Bullshit! If Americans got paid minimum wage, and not sub-minimum wage like the illegal employees get, Americans would take the jobs. Also Americans would know about overtime after 8 hours, which the illegal employers don't pay. So, more Americans would do the work. It is the employers who don't want to pay the payroll tax, or pay OT and any other benefits!

    This has nothing to do with race. Follow the money.

    I find it interesting that you had this post last week. You called it comedy that you "totally called it" early in your comments. However, as I commented, this is a class issue, and not a racist issue. I guess, being a lawyer, you couldn't pass up an arguement, even if its slant is racist! Shame on you! Where is your dignity?

    Once again, this is a class issue, not a racial issue. The work permit policies deal with the employer, and the employee. It deals with payroll taxes, which everyone in America has to pay, but, many don't! Not paying payroll taxes is one of the quickest ways to wealth. In Sadie's post, she talks about the employer not paying taxes! The rich have figured this out long ago. The powers that run this country currently, are from the rich segment of the population. They don't want to "fix" the work permit policies. They also own the corporate media, which is where most followers get their information/propaganda! The rich plant stories about the illegal immigrants and try to attach it to terrorists, to keep the public scared. With the public scared, they don't pay attention to what is really going on. The illegals are being brought into America by these illegal employers, who exploit them, and make profit off of them, don't pay taxes, and are getting rich! The media wants you to talk about the racial issue, and not see the class issue.

    You fell right into it! Shame on you!

    By Blogger Crazy East Coast Uncle, at 3:18 PM  

  • CECU - you are a flippin' idiot sometimes, I swear.

    First, this post was only about the immigration work permit issue as an opening. The racist interpretation surrounding my suggestion regarding airport security was the main focus of my post. The two topics were linked by the following: I mentioned to a friend that I thought work permits should be easy to obtain; my friend told me that he agreed, but also voiced concerns regarding border security, especially as it related to terrorism; from this, I told Friend what I thought about searches, and THAT portion of the discussion was considered radical. So, my post was meant to spur discussion about the radical portion I wrote about. I was leaving the immigration/ work-permits issue to the topic posted at Sadie's.

    So, without leaving any justification for calling me racist (as Arbusto did, when we engaged in an actual comment-conversation about the topic meant to be left with the reader after reading "Honest Asshole"), you jumped to conclusions about me, and started arguing something I never disagreed with you about.

    If you go back and read the comments on Sadie's blog about the illegal immigration issue - I stated very clearly that I never disagreed with your "focus on the employers" approach. In fact, I also noted that I wasn't against any idea because it's not my idea - quite the contrary, I appreciate a good idea no matter whose brain it comes from (although, as an aside, it's not like you were the first person to ever think of that widely discussed angle...)

    So, with all due respect, check your flippin facts before you make stupid assumptions.

    And 'Busto - apologies if you were expecting a response, I was trying to leave you with the last word. Although I would like to clarify that the reason I grouped together "a common denomiator - a general region of origin, race, and religion." - is because, although a terrorist might not be from a Middle-Eastern country, they could pretend to be (or not be). I was trying to make the point that people who fit the physical description can pretend to be all kinds of things. A Muslim terrorist could say they were a Christian from Arizona - but if they had the physical characteristics, I would still want them searched. Not much consolation to you, I'm sure, but I wanted to explain my thinking there. I know that I need something stronger than ibuprofren abouts now... But if you still want me to go on, let me know, and I will. Otherwise - last word is still yours.

    ~~ Peace in the Middle East ~~

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 4:21 PM  

  • Nope. I'm good. I just wanted to echo something you just said.

    "CECU - you are a flippin' idiot sometimes, I swear."

    The vision I have in my head from reading CECU's comment is that he saw immigration in the post and skipped everything else. He got overstimulated from the one word. Sorry, CECU, but I lawled.

    By Blogger Arbusto, at 4:39 PM  

  • 'Busto - coo' - I'm pretty much done too. Worn out. BTW: I tried to look up "lawled", but couldn't find it. Maybe I'm a dumbass for not knowing, but what does that word mean?

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 6:08 PM  

  • CECU, one other thing you mentioned:

    "Once again, this is a class issue, not a racial issue."

    How is screening airport folks based on race not a racial issue? I think Arbusto is right, it looks like you saw the immigration issue and jumped right to that, rather than reading, and understanding, the point of the post. The immigration issue was simply an introduction to how the racial issue came up. Also, you use exclamation points way too freely ;)

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 6:27 PM  

  • "Lawl" is how you would pronounce "lol" if it were a word. So if I did lol, I would have loled and, thus, lawled. Got it?

    By Blogger Arbusto, at 7:18 PM  

  • Oooooooohhhh - - O.K. - that makes sense.

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 7:46 PM  

  • Typical Lex. When you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshit! I am sorry that Arbusto fell into this also. Arbusto was on the right track about civil liberties, and I agree with him about that portion of the discussion.

    Lex, I agree with your comment, "First, this post was only about the immigration work permit issue as an opening. The racist interpretation surrounding my suggestion regarding airport security was the main focus of my post." That you linked the two is where the bullshit comes in and to which I was directing my comments . That you used the work permit issue, or the immigration issue, to get into a discussion to show your racism is sad. That you used that as a backdrop to support your racist views sucks!

    I was not getting into the racial tone of the arguement, yet, I getted called "flippin idiot" because you couldn't respect that or understand it. I did not jump to conclusions about anything, rather, it was you who jumps to conclusions many times, and then uses baffle to support the bullshit.

    May I remind you, in your original post, you stated: "I don't care if I sound racist, or insensitive, whatever. If you've got a burka, speak "fla-la-la-la-la", or carry a Koran, take one for the team and quit bitching. Black people had to deal for 200 years, and still do. No pity." Plain and simple, that is racism! Your attempt to hide it behind the Republican scare tactics of terrorism is a stupid arguement! Your attempt to lump it in with 200 plus years of the African-American struggle in this country is insensitive and racist.

    When you say "take one for the team" which team do you mean? Americans? Or the America that you associate yourself with, and not America as a whole? Is it just your safty that you worry about, or everybodies? The answers should seem obvious, but, when you title the original post, "honest asshole, and end it stating that you don't care that you sound racist or insensitive, I wonder, how could you worry about the country as a whole? So, when you say take one for the team, is this to mean your team? Why should anyone take one "for the team" when they are not on that team! You sound so republicanly redneck in this post it is disgusting!

    Perhaps you have been home too long watching the Fox News, or listening to too much Rush!

    Perhaps you should give Ann Coulter a call, or get together to have a cup of java, for old times sake! Or, could it be that you are trying to get on GMRs good side!?

    Ah, but, now, I am assuming here. Racism is ugly. To me, you don't look very good in this discussion!

    By Blogger Crazy East Coast Uncle, at 7:10 AM  

  • CECU...you make me laugh.

    Lex...your not a racist. Kudos to you for having the sack (cred..days of CECU's nony's)to speak your mind about a touchy subject.

    Busto...I hope I didn't forever ruin my chances of another comment from you on my blog...

    Siempre discutir!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:20 PM  

  • Sadie, I love the humor of that comment :) In a Non-PC racially oriented discussion, you somehow get "sack" and "touchy" into the same sentence! Wonderful!

    So, let's go to something new...shall we...what did everyone do for your summer vacation!?

    By Blogger Crazy East Coast Uncle, at 8:47 PM  

  • CECU, did you miss the part where I told her she was racist? And told Daughter to kick her in the shins?

    Oi, all that commenting and nobody but the racist read them?!

    By Blogger Arbusto, at 2:38 PM  

  • I know Arbusto, isn't it frustrating? I put all this time into my wonderful pursuasive prose and get nothing but a first line read and one furious opponent. Sigh, it was a good conversation. Perhaps the topic was one that most would prefer to stay away from?

    Ah well, try try again.

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 2:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home