archenemy

Good to make the distinction about groups who use violence. In each of these three groups history, they had violence brought upon them. In each of these three cases, it was our government who orchestrated that violence. And I am not sure what your second point is: that dumb girls, stupid niggas, and lazy workers (or, gasp, middle easterners) would have never thought that all people were created equal and should have equal say in how they are governed if they hadn't read that shit that these brilliant white guys wrote? Come on.

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document. This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers. This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo. Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups. I guess that we'll just have to disagree on this one. Yes, the suffragettes were courageous and faced resistance and intimidation and no small amount of derision - but they were inspired by and appealing to a moral framework encoded within the nation's founding documents that explicitly recognized and gave formal legal standing to a grand abstraction known as "inalienable rights." Since you are so familiar with history you'll no doubt recall that Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Wollenscraft all couched their arguments within a framework established by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The existence of this framework, and the power of the ideas contained within it, rather than their posession any kind of menacing physical power that left the men of their time cowering in fear, is what ultimately lead to the recognition of their rights. Exhibit A is the "Declaration of Sentiments" from the 1848 Women's Right's Convention in Sececca Falls: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. " I'm sorry - but had Wollenscraft et. al been transported to Mecca or Jeddah and made the same arguments "You know....inalienable rights....granted by the Creator.... the, uh, self evident ones...." They would have been met with mute incomprehension at best, and its fair to say that the outcome would have been rather different. I'm sorry, but it was ultimately the moral power that their arguments has in the western context of individual rights, and nothing else, that lead to women's liberation. If it were otherwise, then women never would have been subject to male domination in the first place, and women's status in the rest of the world would differ quite substantially from what we observe today. Actually, Anthony et al worked on states rights. Paul, Burns etc later worked on federalizing these rights. It was here that this movement faced its biggest challenge--which includes an ugly incident of wrongful imprisonment of these women (very timely discussion when folks are talking about the new law changes around habeas corpus). Read a little more about the 1900's and you'll see things in a different light. It was far more than a simple "come to Jesus" meeting of morals. It was a fight--one that degraded into physical altercation just the same as it did for blacks and for labor unions.

Ah, to be young again...

Hang in there buddy!

What document is that? The bill of rights? I believe that IS part of the Constitution of the United States. Do you mean the Declaration of Independence? It does proclaim certain rights, but it's not an acting legal document. what a strong reaction to an innocuous statement. I draw attention to the distintion because most people have read the Bill of Rights and most have not read the Constitution. To forget that these two things happened at different times (especially when we are discussing Amendments that occurred later in time such as we are) is to forget the incredible amount of social change that happened during this time. The outcome of this simple exclusion is often an opinion that the authors just came to their senses over a couple of little items they left out in the first draft and added in the appendix. This is not the case.

I am JayB. Do I look fat in this avatar? That is fucking funny!

Since when are they the only ones to get pot and chicks? And home delivery?

Is the sign up for that here?

Good to hear--see you tomorrow!

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document. This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers. This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo. Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups.

this sounds a bit cyclical to me. Of course the majority of voters support not allowing blacks or women to vote when the majority of voters (all the voters as a matter of fact) are neither black nor female. It is not "us" when the "us" pool was that limited. Are you saying that blacks and women deserved to remain in servitude because they didn't have the right attitude? Of course not. None of these policies went by the wayside, they were battled out for years. Rights are never granted, they are only taken. Slavery ended because most voters (in the North) supported its abolition. Women got the vote when most voters (men and women) supported it. The Equal Rights Amendment passed because most voters (black and white) supported it. Yes, there were long struggles before the public adopted these positions. My point is that voters often don't realize how much power they wield...if they choose to. Voters also do not realize that most of the wounds against civil liberties are self inflicted...they were popular among voters until voters changed their minds. Welcome to the USA. Oh I see, so people just kinda came around to their senses and then just sorta "supported it". Hmmm, all those history books I read must have been wrong.

but you have time and desire to spray?! Not only that, but I have the time and desire to award you with the supreme self-righteous, judgemental asshole of the year trophy. Congratulations.

I see that you got a pic of Kurt and Kay's house there. Are both their dogs okay?

Someone's agreeing with me? I'm framing this post... Did I spell agreeing right? I would be embarrassed if you framed this and I spelled it wrong.

this sounds a bit cyclical to me. Of course the majority of voters support not allowing blacks or women to vote when the majority of voters (all the voters as a matter of fact) are neither black nor female. It is not "us" when the "us" pool was that limited. Are you saying that blacks and women deserved to remain in servitude because they didn't have the right attitude? Of course not. None of these policies went by the wayside, they were battled out for years. Rights are never granted, they are only taken.

Yes, and the discussion keeps bringing up rights and Constitution. I am agreeing with you. I just think it's easy for folks (not you personally) to forget the their rights are outlined in a different document.

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document. This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers.

Amen. I think the best thing would be to toss out EVERY incumbent at every election for a few cycles - until they get the point that the electorate grants them power, and they need to get that through their thick skulls. Agreed. It is our duty to purge the gov't when it has reached tyrannical levels.

However, if liberty is not granted, I think it's status as an intrinsic property or an action is fundamental to the constitutional stance on homosexuality. Perhaps. Our constitution provides self evident rights, however. I.e, the government does not 'grant' rights; we already have them, and it must provide a compelling reason to revoke or deny them. So far, the government has provided no compelling reason to deny gays the right to marry, which is, at best, central to the pursuit of happiness for much of that large segment of our population, and, at worst, an utterly victimless act. Indirect offense to, say, religious organizations from such a practice has not constituted a legal harm in the past. BTW: not to split hairs, but our Constitution does not grant us any rights; mostly it defines our government.

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control. And although ideally we already have rights, the sad truth is that people usually only have the rights they have fought for and taken.

He probably pays strippers too.

I consider 80 old. So if you are 79 or less, you're golden.

Would you please put the space in between "in" and "love" Thanks and good luck with the compass!

I am not claiming that one.

I am also glad that the stripper thing didn't pass. What is truly absurd is wasting tax payer money and police resources to ensure that some old guy doesn't get a lap dance.