The Real Constitution
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
Sorry about this rant but some hellish personal experiences these
past
few months seem to more and more remind me of, and verify this
dreaded
outcome - the real Constitution that has been in effect over the
Bush-
Clinton years (and before) is:
-----------
First, you gentrify people.
Next, you gentrify services (including government services) to
support
and accommodate them.
Then, everyone else can go to hell.
-----------
People, including myself, can rant and rant about Constitutional
rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. But without as strong of
a cultural base as this other constitution they (and I) will get
nowhere.
---
Here's an interesting rant about it.
"The Constitution of Status" at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/status1.htm et seq
ZerkonX
> First, you gentrify people.
> Next, you gentrify services (including government services) to support
> and accommodate them.
> Then everyone else can go to hell.
"..you gentrify people.."
who is the 'you' here and what is 'to gentrify" mean exactly?
Is this about property tax?
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> rationality.
The Weimar Constitution of 1919 (Germany) was once described by a
historian as "a Constitution without a people".
Now you tell me: Who the hell in our society holistically supports
constitutional rights except the people who've been seriously fucked
over by the government? And what do you think of those people? Do
they have a medical disorder called "delusions of constitutional
rights"? Or are they just misfits? Or are they unintelligible,
irrational proponents of Usenet babble?
Concerning the meaning of the words "gentrify" and "you", you will
have to do your own homework.
d.
ZerkonX
> The Weimar Constitution of 1919 (Germany) was once described by a
> historian as "a Constitution without a people".
>
> Now you tell me: Who the hell in our society holistically supports
> constitutional rights except the people who've been seriously fucked
> over by the government? And what do you think of those people? Do they
> have a medical disorder called "delusions of constitutional rights"? Or
> are they just misfits? Or are they unintelligible, irrational
> proponents of Usenet babble?
>
> Concerning the meaning of the words "gentrify" and "you", you will have
> to do your own homework.
I guess you mean what you say but you are not saying what you mean!
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:01:30 -0700 (PDT),
>
> dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Now you tell me: Who the hell in our society holistically supports
> >constitutional rights except the people who've been seriously fucked
> >over by the government?
>
> Corporations, the wealth class, the powerful, the
> connected who trample on just about anyone/everyone.
>
> It ain't just the government.
That is correct. Yet government clientizes them above their victims,
don't they?
Tell it like it is.
I just spent a few minutes skimming over the website. I
got the impression the author of the paper is a Marxist. He was
expressing the idea in a paragraph about democracy being about
"competing groups" of people and having to do with cultural
differences, that is, cultural groups of people. Maybe he is a
ashkenazi variety of jew and has a jewish community center to which he
is a member. But for many of us, and I would suspect, most Americans,
we have an ethnic heritage (which we don't push in other people's
faces as being superior to theirs); or, we are real Americans and we
respect the cultural heritage of The United States. If we are "black",
and I don't mean people from India, we see the culture of the United
States as having been traditionally white and priviliged due to the
country's founding being by white folk mostly ENGLISH.. The author's
contention seems to be to deny that there ever was a culture
recognized as American.
Every one of my generation knows that there has always
been an American culture.
Some people weren't as priviliged as others. Blacks were not
priviliged. That White, anglo saxon, thing was always there: WASP.
There is a thing called AMERICAN and it represents American culture.
It has nothing to do with (Marxists thinking about competing groups as
the author at the website proposes), it has everything to do with
cultural and educational norms established by the recognized
authorities of the UNITES STATES.
In a country with as many cultural and racial and ethnic
differences as the United States there are established NORMS OF
BEHAVIOR.
You cannot say and do certain things in the USA that you
can say and do in certain other countries. that is due to NORMS that
Americans have established so as not to offend. There has got to be
minimal and established NORMS IN EVERY COUNTRY WHICH ESTABLISHES THE
CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE STATE.
TALK OR WRITING ABOUT CULTURAL GROUPS AS COMPETING IS
not American. IT IS MARXIST (and primitive). WHICH HATE GROUP DO YOU
BELONG TO?
AMERICANS WHO COMPETE AS GROUPS OF PEOPLE ARE NOT
AMERICANS PER SE . To be an American means that YOU are an American.
Not your fucking group. YOU. Your social security group number?!!
Doesn't sound American does it? YOUR social security number. YOU.
America is about ethnic diversity. Someday we will all be
equal. America is not about an ethnic group promoting their diversity
above the individual American.
ZerkonX
> He was
> expressing the idea in a paragraph about democracy being about
> "competing groups" of people and having to do with cultural differences,
> that is, cultural groups of people.
I believe if you look closer you may find that he was not saying only
democracy is composed of groups in status competition but all societies
are and a system of democracy has to deal with this as do other systems.
A good and very interesting counter point missed in this essay to:
" ............courts can help bring parties together through expressing
respect for both sides. By showing empathy for both positions, a court
can fashion accommodations that give each side some measure of dignity
and respect."
I disagree with strongly. This really IS the problem. Courts should
'express' or 'show' no 'respect' or 'empathy' for any side, in that all
sides are equal and should be treated with dispassion as a group. It is
the equal treatment that is the 'respect' and 'empathy'.
"Perhaps if we pay attention to the constitution of status, we can bring
that ideal (of democracy) a few steps closer to reality."
Or not. If 'we' could only NOT pay attention to this, how much closer to
is this ideal achieved? A court of law should be like a safe house away
from the given status battles waging outside on the street.
He is right, I believe, to see these competitions as a given in any
society. In a court room, however, there should be no group competition
only 'competition' between points of law not points of status.
Tell it like it is.
Precisely, and it is NOT what Americans recognize as
AMERICANISM.
Just like the ANNONYMITY (I hope I spelled it right.) that a large
metropolitan city provides, (in contrast to a small town), is
precisely what fosters increased incidents of crime (not the
increased in population, but the increase in annonymity within the
increased population).
When we talk about what is and isn't American, we
recognize, as you wrote in agreement with the author of the article)
competing racial groups may be a given, but those competing groups are
not representative of what it is that we call American. Americans are
individuals.
Not the competing ethnic group to which you MAY OR MAY
NOT belong. Whether La Raza, Zionist, or Eskimo, or Puerto Rican
living in Puerto Rico. Hawains living in Hawaii. Or Asians of every
sort.
And, we must agree that there is such an accepted norm,
between all these competing groups (Competing for what?), as an
objective NORM an American culture which they all recognize and
respect. Civic Law does not recognize one group as having more rights
than another. That is corruption. But nonetheless real.
It will be a cold day in hell when one group attempts in
America to change the course of history overnight. For attempting such
a stunt in Christian Russia in 1917. a generation later Elie Weisel
and his kind were chased across Europe by Hitler's Nazis. It is the
innocent who suffer.
The innocent do not understand, and don't want to
understand the non-materialistic forces at work in every society. It
is a painful experience listening to Elie Weisel sighing deeply and
explaining about how Jesus a good Jew is not the Jewish Christ. Even
though it is a known fact that in ancient times, in world history,
Jews were awaing a real person, not just a Spirit, to save them from
the world and all of its gentiles!!!
Jesus didn't fulfill expectations. He suffered and died
in a theocracy in fulfillment of the Jewish prophets. Establishing
MORAL LAW. No jew believes this. Like the author of the article they'd
rather discuss Americanism as being nothing but competing groups. And
of course, all groups inferior to theirs. That is why, for me, Elie
Weisel is , in fact, a good jew. Nothing more and nothing less. And
Jesus is a good jew and CHRIST. Thus incorporating jewish morality
into global humanity.
When the jews stop being so goddamned ethnocentric and understand
their contribution through CHRIST THERE WON'T NEED TO BE A JEWISH RACE
COMPETING WITH OTHER RACES. THERE WILL BE PEACE ON EARTH, AND
COMPETITION WILL END FOR ALL RACES IN AMERICA, INCLUDING LA RAZA.
Now if I can convince Mr. Shirt off. [However
he spells his name.] With the Mossad agent as his real mother! Our
Homeland Security Chief! Yes, it's true, his mother was one of
Israel's first female Mossad agents. Chertoff believes whenever the
President is discussing the American Homeland he is really discussing
Chertoff's dual loyalties! No, the President is discussing giving a
"work permit" to illegals, rather than continuing to criminalize them
and allowing Cheroff to destroy the laws of the United States through
inaction during a time of crisis. The idea of a pregnant Mexican woman
swimming the Rio Grande during low water, then giving birth to an
American citizen! Who dies twenty years later in Iraq defending his
country! Sickens me. Rant all you want no one's listening.
Last night I watched several documentaries
simultaneously across several PBS television stations.
In one documentary from Boston,
Massachusetts; WGBH was showing the cultural problems, upheavals
really, that characterized the 1960's. They showed Henry Kissinger
saying blah blah blah (I don't mean that literally, you moron.), then
a jewish-American would be shown insulting the policies of the
President! Then Kissinger again, and more insulting of President
(Nixon) by another jew (or member of a "competing group" if you will),
Then I decided to write down what Kissinger, whispering daily in the
President's ear, was actually saying: (so as to film jews demonizing
President Nixon): "There was so much protest against the war, that it
was impossible to CONDUCT the war." Perhaps Leonard Bernstein was
needed. I watched him on another PBS show a few days ago. Conducting a
symphony.
When the American people don't want
unnecessary war then it can become difficult conducting or
orchestrating wars. Killing the ruling family in Christian Russia in
1917 gave the world SECULAR COMMUNISM. Killing the ruling family in
Iraq in 2003 has given the world Al Queda.
Americans are not La Raza versus Jews
versus Asians versus Hispanics versus... However you may think so.
I'll tell you a secret, (as an American),
you cannot divorce Christ and Jews, however evangelicals try. It
cannot be done. Not by real Christians. Not by real Americans. The old
is forever wedded to the new. The Holy Bible is a closed book. Jews
wrote every word of the Bible both old and new testaments. And it's
about MORALITY. The history and culture of a people seeking God. In
other words FAITH and religion and science are all one and the same.
To put it simply. THERE IS A GOD.