ZACK IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Theron]

>I am sure Theron will take

>in the spirit in which

>it was offered. :-)

>

>If he is offended, he will

>let me know.

 

Hiya, :-)

 

I appreciated your comments --BIG SMILE!

 

Hugs,

 

Theron :-)

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[+ deej]

>I trust that all here will

>enjoy the holiday. I

>certainly will. We should

>all take this opportunity to

>remember that it is because

>of the events this holiday

>commemorates that those of us

>in this country have the

>freedom to air our opinions

>on this or any other

>subject that interests us.

 

This is really a minor nit, but it's also worth pointing out on the US Independence Day holiday.

 

The internet (and this site) is not a wholly US-populated place. The freedoms "we" enjoy are not available in some locales. Should US citizens be thankful for our forefathers who fought for rights that we have today? Absolutely. Should we assume those rights apply universally to the internet? No. They don't.

 

Phrases like "in this country" have no place in internet-based discussions. They work fine in your local bar or restaurant, but not in the "global community" of the internet.

[Boston Guy]

>This is really a minor nit,

>but it's also worth pointing

>out on the US Independence

>Day holiday.

>

>The internet (and this site) is

>not a wholly US-populated place.

>The freedoms "we" enjoy are

>not available in some locales.

>Should US citizens be thankful

>for our forefathers who fought

>for rights that we have

>today? Absolutely. Should we assume

>those rights apply universally to

>the internet? No. They don't.

>

>

>Phrases like "in this country" have

>no place in internet-based discussions.

>They work fine in your

>local bar or restaurant, but

>not in the "global community"

>of the internet.

 

Actually, I thought Reg got it right... it would have been less correct, in my opinion, for him to say "WE have the freedom...". I took his phrasing to be a recognition of the fact that this is a US holiday that recognizes and celebrates US rights and freedoms.

 

And it's worth our being thankful for these rights and your point that they are not universally available is right on target.

 

I do wonder how those who visit from other countries feel about this ...

[CT Dick]

Good point, deej!

 

It is easy to forget that the internet and all the posters on it are not confined on my desktop in lovely, little Connecticut.

 

Dick

[Guest jizzdepapi]

Blind Patriotism?

 

So what do you do when you're on the far left politically and there's a national patriotic holiday? Is it cause for celebration?

 

hhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. It is food for thought because, without a doubt, we could speak out freely in political dissent in this country before many others. And it's also true that the government can conduct witch hunts, as happened not that long ago with Joe McCarthy, and ensure that Americans can lose all chance of earning a livelihood. It's also a fact that any GLBT in this country can be denied employment, promotion or housing based on their sexual orientation and can only rely on the MERCY of the courts for redress.

 

So that can be food for thought for all of us. Here's an interesting link (http://www.projectcensored.org/cyearbook.htm) to coverage of stories to which the government would just as soon we did not pay attention. Project Censored is an admittedly lefty media watchdog. There are similar organizations on the right.

 

I wish you all a happy but cautious fourth of July.

 

Jizz

[Guest Theron]

RE: Blind Patriotism?

 

>It's also a fact that

>any GLBT in this country

>can be denied employment, promotion

>or housing based on their

>sexual orientation and can only

>rely on the MERCY of

>the courts for redress.

 

Hi, Jazz :-)

 

Not any, but most. A few states and counties have passed state law, and or city/county ordiances, that do ensure glbt people equality in employment, housing, credit and public accommodatins. We still do have a LONG way to go, but I don't want us to over look the progress that has been made. Interestingly, when we have been winning it has been on state and county levels, and the work has been being done by state level not-for-profits that promote and protect the civil rights of glbt citizens. My message to those who do contribute money or time to the cause, please ensure that you support your state wide orgnizations who are out there working to advance your rights, in addition to the national organizations that are out there working on our behalf.

 

Hugs,

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest jizzdepapi]

Oops!

 

of course, you're right, theron. i was thinking of efforts on a national level. as a matter of fact, in connecticut, my home state, we enjoy such protection.

 

what is happening with efforts around the country to overturn bills protecting us? i know the radical right has put some effort into this.

 

thanks,

jizz

 

p.s.: i think you know something about my proclivities. are you sending hugs or thugs?

[Guest Theron]

RE: Oops!

 

Hi Jizz :-)

 

I agree, sadly, the time has not yet arrived for justice to prevail on national levels. Although, we did make a lot of progress in terms developing a stronger national presence on the political landscape when Clinton was in office. We still did not have the strength and support to pass any bills, even with a friendly administration. Now Bush is in office, and we take another two steps back --although it is important to continue working nationally to move forward. I actually think we have a ways to go before we are going to pervail on a national level.

 

Our greatest success have been on state levels, and I predict we will continue to make progress there. I believe, through a combined effort of bills being passed on state levels, maintaining a national presence, and finally the presence of an administration who is friendly towards our cause, that, in time, we will prevail nationally.

 

Interestingly, as the former executive director of a state wide organization, I can tell you, one of the greatest obsticles towards moving forward are gay people. The fact remains, many gay people simply do not feel oppressed --even though, for the most part, in the United States a person can be fired or denied housing because of someone's perception of their orientation. Many gays are in high income brackets, and are comfortable. Another thing I've found is that many people would like to see progress, but do not understand the importance of the role they play in moving forward -- they are waiting for someone else to do it for them. Yes, we have state and national organizations who work on our behalf, but they always need money, and volunteers. Everyone can do something to help, even if it is sending in a 25.00 check, and you have no idea how difficult it can be to motivate people to pick up their telephone or write a simple letter to their Senator/Representative asking them to vote for a bill, when we have a bill infront of them. If more people realized the importance of the role we all play in advancing our rights, well let's just say it would make all the difference in the world.

 

Concerning your question about success the extreme right has had overturning the bills we have passed, I am aware of many attempts, but no actual success, to date. This does not mean it could not have happened, as I have been out of the fray for a couple of years now.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: Oops!

 

thanks. very informative response but the question still begs: hugs or thugs?

 

thanks

jizz

[Guest Theron]

RE: Oops!

 

Okay, I'll bite...that are thugs?

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest jizzdepapi]

thug! PIC

 

http://www.thugcam.com/players/images/ssDaz.jpg

 

but i know him and he's kinda sweet!

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: thug! PIC

 

sorry. last pic is probably not a good thug example. now here's a thug. found him special for you on latinofanclub.com:

 

http://www.latinofanclub.com/jpg/date_miami.jpg

[Guest Theron]

RE: thug! PIC

 

Oh, if that is a thug, then I sure could send ya some, cause there are lots of guys who look like that who do chase after me, all the time.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest regulation]

RE: Blind Patriotism?

 

>So what do you do when

>you're on the far left

>politically and there's a national

>patriotic holiday? Is it cause

>for celebration?

>

 

If you're looking for suggestions, jizz, mine would be to try explaining why gays (as well as certain other minority groups) have fared as badly or worse under leftist governments like those in the Soviet Union and Cuba. Or how people can agitate for the right to serve in the armed forces without being patriots. Those are two questions that have always puzzled me.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

hi, reggie. thanks for your comments. mine were intended as musings on a lazy summer afternoon, i suppose, concerning a very real riddle that I, and others, live with because of our political beliefs—if you believe in what this country should stand for but have huge problems with the way the U.S. now and historically conduct(s)(ed) domestic and foreign affairs, how do you say this publicly without appearing to be an enemy of the state? my commments were not intended especially to promote lefty beliefs or criticize the right (personally, i believe the existence of a "center" is vastly overstated). this post is, for most people, more than they wanted to know. i just couldn’t respond to yours in a “sound bite” and thought i wouldstate my views all at once with concerns you stated and maybe some you would express later. i’ve also included a statement from a young cuban gay male that I thought was interesting and pertinent.

 

i am no expert in foreign affairs and have no background in political science; neither am i an apologist for any government or political system. i do try to keep my eyes open and see how people fare under different political systems. i have friends holding a wide gamut of political beliefs, including anarchists, communists, socialists, and eclectic progressives not locked into any political system. (for the record, i have friends with no political persuasion at all.) i am generally anti-war and anti-military (though, decidedly, not anti-soldier) and radical concerning social issues. i attend and often support political events co-sponsored by the lefty groups mentioned above. and yes (gasp) i have written checks to the communist party to support specific planks of their program addressing workers' rights. a note for any curious readers: angela davis, former honcho (of some sort) of the communist party usa and former blank panther, along with other progressive communists, started a splinter group, the committees for correspondence, in the early 1990s because the communists would not change their bylaws to include organizing around issues including concerns of women and gays.

 

so that's pretty much my political background. i've organized around political issues ranging from stopping military aid to el salvador (and currently, colombia) to fighting oppression of people with AIDS, to supporting women's right to choice to fighting for poor people's rights for employment and a fair wage. sometimes, i have done mainstream organizing and at others, have been carted off by police after an act of civil disobedience. a saying that has kept me going for years through all of this organizing is “when i give a starving man bread they call me a saint; when i ask why he has no bread they call me a communist..” so your comments/questions were not unexpected.

 

so, on to your concerns. you indicate that leftish governments, including the former soviet union and cuba, are homophobic.

 

i would posit that homophobia and violence against GLBTs occur under governments left and right and should be challenged in all. although GLBTs in arab countries (representing some of the most right-wing political systems, many with kings and no elections) are beginning to speak up, they often face the threat of death or long-term inprisonment for their sexual orientation. to be honest, i don’t know about the former soviet union; i’d be happy to hear reports on the status of GLBTs in those countries. the case of GLBTs in this country is interesting to note: certainly matthew shepard and allan schindler would have something to say, if they could. but Ru Paul is alive and thriving, so go figure.

 

i had coffee once with a woman who had produced a documentary about the u.s. embargo against cuba and it’s disastrous effect on the cuban economy; she had film footage about drag queens appearing in a very popular heterosexual bar in havana. it was an interesting conversation about a repressive society (the ongoing presence of the CIA and right-wing cuban-americans based in miami has been posited as partly responsible for maintaining this sensibility but that lets castro off the hook too easily.). if you’ve seen “Strawberry and Chocolate,” which was an immense success in cuba and internationally, you’ve got some idea of how social (and political?) space might be opening up for GLBTs in cuba. a sad commentary is that one of the actors languishes in a cuban prison as we speak. so obviously, there is repression of GLBTs in cuba, but there has been much progress at the same time. if you follow the links on the website i’ve provided below, you’ll see discussion pro and con on the state of GLTBs in cuba.

 

onto a very sad (for me, anyway) personal experience: in 1999, i took a 10-day vacation in colombia, with a 2-day stop in ecuador for an international peace conference (about ending interference by the u.s. in the colombian civil war) in quito organized by college students. while visiting a large city (perreira) in the coffee region with the colombian friend with whom i traveled, we came to a plaza on which 6 transvestites were plying their wares. after passing through the plaza, my friend told me that he had visited the same spot a year earlier and there had been 50 or 60 transvestites working. one night in the interim, military vehicles had pulled up to this plaza and captured all the transvestites at gunpoint. they were never seen alive again; this kind of “disappearance,” experienced throughout south america is referred to as social cleansing and is an ongoing event. political activists, the mentally ill, transvestites, whoever might be considered by the right-wing powers that be as undesirable, simply disappear, never to be seen by their loved ones or families again. the armies and paramilitaries that conduct these operations are largely trained at the u.s. school of the americas in fort benning, georgia. other u.s.-trained killers include the assassins of archbishop oscar romero and the four north american nuns raped and murdered in el salvador.

 

dwight eisenhower, former republican president and general, on leaving washington, warned citizens to beware of the growing military-industrial complex. in my mind, his words were prophetic and certainly suggest that a citizen might question the role of the pentagon and white house and still be patriotic. i hope our experience in vietnam has taught us that citizens can question the role of a country we love and acknowledge that our military leadership is often less than truthful. i don’t think we should have been involved in most of the wars fought in the twentieth century in the first place. i don’t hold soldiers responsible for u.s. foreign policy and don’t question the patriotism of those who do not enlist either.

 

i think the battles ongoing now concerning civil unions and gays in the military are all the result of misplaced energy so the question of gays in the military is not very important in my worldview, although i don’t want to see violence against gays or harassment in any workplace. i would like to see all of that energy channeled into a really strong political movement insisting on an equal rights amendment which covered sexual orientation, as effective as the one passed by persons with disabilities. I think everything else is a ruse.

 

i’m including an article written by a young gay cuban man. if you use the provided link, there are articles by others less supportive of the Cuban regime.

 

***************************************************************************************

HAVANA IN THE 1990s: No Longer Choosing between Thieves or Faggots

--Amaury Fernandez Lopez, translated by Laura Arce Perez

http://www.blacklightonline.com/cubahavana.html

 

Cuba is experiencing rapid social changes and Havana, being both the largest city and the capital, is the thermometer of the island. A Cuba within a Cuba. One of the most evident changes is the attitude towards Gays. During the past decade Havana witnessed the gradual emergence of a Gay community. Given Cuba's history of sometimes brutal treatment of Gays, which forced many underground for years, this new visibility is surprising.

 

Homophobia is found in all Latin American countries, but when it comes to Cuba, it takes on special characteristics. After the 1959 revolution, the atmosphere was definitely anti-Gay. The revolutionary "Super Macho" hated homosexuals and treated them aggressively because of ideological reasons. Homosexuals were considered "against the revolution" for the mere fact of being Gay. For that reason Cuban homophobia is one of the strongest in all Latin America.

 

Cuba is a mixture of three cultures, Spanish, African and Asian. Each with different histories of development, values, and ideas regarding a heterogeneous social makeup. However, if the three groups that settled the island have anything in common, it's that they all have rigid social conventions with established sexual roles for men and women. The homophobia resulting from taboos, social patterns and Catholicism, was kept during the process of "transculturation." Added later was the dynamics of Communism, imported from the USSR, with its inflexible rules of sexuality. It's little wonder that Gays had a hard time.

 

While many Gays are still wary about "coming out," others are gathering themselves into a Gay community. Several attempts have been made at creating Gay organizations. But we have to be careful to not use American Gays as a model. The American type Gay organization, with its open challenge to the status-quo, would not be allowed to exist in Cuba.

 

The Gay theme has been in fashion since Guitierrez Alea's acclaimed film "Strawberry and Chocolate" debuted in 1993. It's about the relationship between a young, heterosexual, homophobic communist and an older, intellectual Gay man who becomes a political dissident. The film was intended to be controversial. Alea wanted to provoke a certain reaction from the Cuban public. While it caused a stir, it was not as big as anticipated. By the time the film premiered, Gays had already begun to emerge from underground, visible for all to see. Cubans knew Gays were among them. The film just placed that fact before the public for the first time. However, after the film many Gays felt more comfortable in Cuban society and appreciated having been recognized, at least once.

 

In this somewhat relaxed atmosphere there was a growing curiosity among heterosexuals, that many times ended in a homosexual experience. In contrast to its homophobic past, Cuba has been and is a "Gay" country. The different shades of homosexual eroticism can be easily identified just where the most complex mechanisms of classic Latin American male chauvinism are most rigid and it is interesting to notice in Cuban heterosexual men the contradictions to their chauvinism.

 

For example, Cuban men do not consider their butts an erogenous zone. You could say they remove it, along with their pants, to have sex with women. Nevertheless, they will pay tribute to the "forbidden" area. It's amazing to discover their eyes shining when looking at other men's butts. Now a new phenomenon has surfaced in Havana. In some sectors of society, it can almost be defined as fashionable to be bisexual. To appreciate the Gay aesthetic is considered close to the imagined, and desired, American and European norm. Both are seen as open-minded cultures, not polluted by social, economic or racial factors. When a Cuban youth compares his culture to America, from looking at the images he gets from the Western media, he considers Cubans narrow-minded. In other words, Cuban youth generally think that for an American or European man, sexual diversity is part of their make-up and could even be considered good taste, which, of course, is different from the reality.

 

Because of this, the way young Cuban Gays express their sexuality has undergone changes. At one time, as they discovered their homosexuality, they also experienced the effects of social homophobia and took steps to hide it. Today, many younger Gays don't hide anything and they don't hide themselves from others. For the majority, being Gay is something they are proud of.

 

Another phenomenon has been the rapid increase of Gay house parties in Havana. The parties are a substitute for the Gay bars and clubs that don't exist in the country. Some years ago it was impossible for Gay house parties to openly exist. Homophobic neighbors would complain and the police considered the parties both a public disturbance and an offense to morality. Now Gay parties, along with drag shows, are more common. The parties have led to a closer relationship between Gay men and Lesbians, who despised each other in the past.

 

Still more changes can be observed in the language. The very use of the word "Gay" has come into wide use in Havana. Some years back, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, used other terms such as "locas" (queers), maricones (faggots), and tortillera (dyke). In fact, the nicest word used, so as not to show rejection, was "homosexual." But it was always said with a certain inflection.

 

There is a popular saying that goes, "I prefer my son to be a thief than a faggot." But the most homophobic of all Cuban sayings is losing ground. In the 1990's it would appear that classic homophobia itself is losing ground to tolerance. But homophobia still exists, hidden beneath new forms whose real shape is difficult to define, being in a process of transformation. However, the situation has influenced Cuban youth's acceptance of Gays within the heterosexual circle. Increasingly, it is less bizarre for younger Cubans to find out a family member, or someone else close to them, is Gay. But it can't be said that Gays don't face rejection. Change in the social environment doesn't always change direct relations between individuals.

 

In "Strawberry and Chocolate" one of the characters says the best line in the film: "You can't trust a man that ain't faithful to his own sexual revolution." Cuban Gays are in the process of building a strong Gay culture and creating a Gay community. Things are not as they used to be but politics still shares the bed shared by two men

[Guest Zach DC]

RE: more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

Hey Jizz, thanks so much for your enlightening post. Your words and wisdom are inspiring, as well as those of Amaury Fernandez. Thanks for sharing.

 

My respect to all with the power to reshape the world, making it well-rounded and ideal.

[Bilbo]

RE: more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

I believe in and honor all of the branches of our military service, especially the Air Force. However, I am also aware of the idea of "cannon fodder", which means that in time of war armies will allow into themselves people who are allowed to go and fight and in many cases die (become fodder for the cannons) whom they wouldn't allow to be in the military in times of peace. We have seen many highly decorated members of the USA armed forces, who have been doing exemplary jobs for years, suddenly lose their jobs simply because they are gay. I look at younger generations of gays as in some ways my children. Do not allow strangers to shoot at my children and then toss them out once the shooting stops.

 

This may be a bit moot in a few years because our allies are going to politically force us to open our military to gays the same way that they have, particularly our NATO and other European allies.

[Guest regulation]

RE: more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

>hi, reggie. thanks for your comments.

>mine were intended as musings

>on a lazy summer afternoon,

>i suppose, concerning a very

>real riddle that I, and

>others, live with because of

>our political beliefs—if you believe

>in what this country should

>stand for but have huge

>problems with the way the

>U.S. now and historically conduct(s)(ed)

>domestic and foreign affairs, how

>do you say this publicly

>without appearing to be an

>enemy of the state?

 

 

Thanks for your reply, jizz, which was most interesting and was NOT more than I wanted to hear. Most interesting.

 

I think the answer to your question above is a simple one. In a democratic society all members have an obligation to support political decisions made by the democratic process, including those decisions with which they disagree. Such a society can't function if, the people or their representatives having spoken on an issue, those on the losing side refuse to abide by the decision. One can't live in a community with other people and insist on having one's own way on every issue, or even every issue of importance, regardless of what others think. The only existence in which that behavior is possible is the existence of a hermit. I don't think anyone can regard you as an enemy of the state if you make it clear that your disagreement with this or that action of the state in no way alters your commitment to and loyalty to our country.

 

I found your comments (and the article you cited) on Cuba interesting. I have a number of Cuban friends of both sexual orientations, all expatriates. For them, the words "socialism," "oppression" and "Castro" are all synonymous. That is, in fact, almost the only thing on which all of them agree. The gays among them regard the Fidelistas' ruthless measures against HIV victims and failure to take a stand against sexual discrimination as merely one more example of the hollowness of a revolution that promised equality before the law for all. I know several academics who to this very day defend the revolution's accomplishments. When its long history of anti-gay actions is mentioned, they always respond with the same three words: "Cuba is changing." Mmmm-hmmm.

[Guest regulation]

RE: more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

By the way, Jizz, have you ever read a novel titled "Banished Children of Eve"? I think you would enjoy it very much.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

Reggie: here's a response to the first part of your earlier post. will get to the other when i get a chance.

 

 

>(jizz)…how do you (dissent) without appearing to be an enemy of the state?…

 

>(reggie)… obligation to support political decisions made by the democratic process, including those decisions with which they disagree. Such a society can't function if, the people or their representatives having spoken on an issue, those on the losing side refuse to abide by the decision…

 

Actually, our obligation is to abide by the law, not lend it ideological support. Most of our historians/political scientists and judicial officials would regard it as a sign of a dictatorship were citizens required to take an oath of obedience/loyalty to a country. This would properly be ascribed to a totalitarian state, socialist or otherwise. I believe the Constitution calls on us to question our government. Henry David Thoreau spoke on the “Duty of Civil Disobedience,” as have any number of constitutional lawyers and civil servants. The notion of checks and balances was instituted by the Founders, just to protect against objectionable laws being passed by Congress. Amendments to the Constitution can certainly be understood as mechanisms to update/revise the Constitution. The actions of the suffragettes--in some cases, illegal—gained for women the right to vote, as the actions of anti-slavery lobbyists ended slavery, and we would not have passed any Civil Rights Acts if it weren't for Rosa Paraks and the Montgomery bus boycotts.

 

In the case of a moral dilemma with any given law, a citizen is free to break it and pay the consequences, e.g., tax resisters who refuse to pay for the war machine and frequently serve prison time for their moral resistance. The examples of the Catholic Worker, the Berrigan brothers and Daniel Rosenberg (the Pentagon Papers) immediately spring to mind—if it wasn’t for their political work and their examples, some of the most pressing moral issues of our time might not have been addressed. There is also the case for civil resisters to be granted amnesty, as did Jimmy Carter with draft resisters who returned from Canada.

 

(Now this is another matter, but…) Probably the biggest problem I have with organized religion in this country is the refusal of spiritual leaders to call on their congregations to take strong political action. I have yet to see a march on Washington called by these spiritual leaders to address issues of poverty, racism or war—I mean an action where everyone refuses to go back to work or leave the capital until the government has reversed it’s course on a given issue. Imagine the power that kind of call to moral action could have!

 

best,

jizz

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

haven't heard of this book. can you post a short synopsis?

[Guest regulation]

RE: more than anyone EVER wanted to hear from jizz

 

"Banished Children of Eve" is an historical novel set in New York in 1863 at the time of the Draft Riots. Through its characters it explores the history of several immigrant groups and their struggles in this country. I found it quite fascinating. The author is Peter Quinn.

[Guest regulation]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

>Most of

>our historians/political scientists and judicial

>officials would regard it as

>a sign of a dictatorship

>were citizens required to take

>an oath of obedience/loyalty to

>a country.

 

Like the Pledge of Allegiance?

 

 

>This would properly

>be ascribed to a totalitarian

>state, socialist or otherwise.

 

I can't imagine where you get that. The term "totalitarian" properly refers to the process by which political decisions are made, not to the decisions themselves. In other words, if it is decided by a democratic process that citizens are to take a loyalty oath, that decision does not convert the political system from a democratic to a totalitarian one. If the democratic process remains intact, citizens can always change their minds about the oath later.

 

 

>I

>believe the Constitution calls on

>us to question our government.

 

 

I can't recall any Article or Amendment in the Constitution that says anything of the kind.

 

 

>Henry David Thoreau spoke on

>the “Duty of Civil Disobedience,”

>as have any number of

>constitutional lawyers and civil servants.

 

 

Bunch of cranks if you ask me. :-)

 

>The notion of checks and

>balances was instituted by the

>Founders, just to protect against

>objectionable laws being passed by

>Congress.

 

Not really. The system of checks and balances was designed to reassure state governments that were being asked to ratify the Constitution by making it difficult to pass laws that a substantial minority of states don't like.

 

>Amendments to the Constitution

>can certainly be understood as

>mechanisms to update/revise the Constitution.

 

But they require a super-majority of states to consent.

 

>The actions of the suffragettes--in

>some cases, illegal—gained for women

>the right to vote, as

>the actions of anti-slavery lobbyists

>ended slavery, and we would

>not have passed any Civil

>Rights Acts if it weren't

>for Rosa Paraks and the

>Montgomery bus boycotts.

 

 

I don't really agree with any of those statements, but perhaps that is a discussion for another thread.

 

 

>In the case of a moral

>dilemma with any given law,

>a citizen is free to

>break it and pay the

>consequences, e.g., tax resisters who

>refuse to pay for the

>war machine and frequently serve

>prison time for their moral

>resistance.

 

And the pro-life activists who block abortion clinics?

[Guest jizzdepapi]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

Hi Reggie: I will preface this by saying I'm not a constitutional scholar and I assume you're not either. So what we might have if we went for a blow-by-blow interpretation and counter-interpretation of proposed actions by citizens would be, at best, uninformed guesses as to our rights and duties as U.S. citizens.

 

 

>J...sign of a dictatorship were citizens required to take an oath of obedience/loyalty to a country...

 

>R...Like the Pledge of Allegiance?

 

>J... funny you should bring this up. here's the first paragraph of an entry on the Pledge of Allegiance when I did a search on Google (link at end of citation). i have no idea if this is coming from a lefty or objective scholarly source: "Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897)." http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm Sorry, never ratified by states or voted on by Congress. I guess individuals decide if the Pledge is important and binding on them.

 

 

>J...this (oath of obedience/loyalty) would properly be ascribed to a totalitarian state, socialist or otherwise.

 

>R...totalitarian properly refers to the process by which political decisions are made, not to the decisions themselves... In other words, if it is decided by a democratic process that citizens are to take a loyalty oath, that decision does not convert the political system from a democratic to a totalitarian one. If the democratic process remains intact, citizens can always change their minds about the oath later.

 

you might have a point here but I think we're out of our league. We don't live in a democracy; we live in a republic. i would love to hear from someone with expert constitutional knowledge whether citizens could be required to swear an oath of loyalty to the United States.

 

 

>J...I believe the Constitution calls on us to question our government.

 

>R...I can't recall any Article or Amendment in the Constitution that says anything of the kind.

 

actually, you're right. i'm probably remembering something from

"The Sayings of Chairman Mao."

 

 

>J...Henry David Thoreau spoke on the “Duty of Civil Disobedience,” as have any number of constitutional lawyers and civil servants.

 

>R...Bunch of cranks if you ask me. :-)

 

Does your smiley face mean you're making a little joke? Of course there are thinkers and authors that inspire us or piss us off

 

>J...The notion of checks and balances was instituted by the Founders, just to protect against objectionable laws being passed by Congress.

 

>R...Not really. The system of checks and balances was designed to reassure state governments that were being asked to ratify the Constitution by making it difficult to pass laws that a substantial minority of states don't like.

 

maybe, i don't know. if a majority of states don't like a law, maybe it is objectionable. are we talking about the same thing here? i'm talking about the right of the President to overturn legislation, the right of the Supreme Court to deem legislation unconstitutional and the right of the Congress to override a Presiden't veto.

 

 

>J...Amendments to the Constitution can certainly be understood as mechanisms to update/revise the Constitution.

 

>R...But they require a super-majority of states to consent.

 

agreed. don't get your point.

 

 

>J...The actions of the suffragettes--in some cases, illegal—gained for women the right to vote, as the actions of anti-slavery lobbyists ended slavery, and we would not have passed any Civil Rights Acts if it weren't for Rosa Paraks and the Montgomery bus boycotts.

 

>E...I don't really agree with any of those statements, but perhaps that is a discussion for another thread.

 

Well, since we're not talking about Zack anymore, why don't you go for it here?

 

 

>J...In the case of a moral dilemma with any given law, a citizen is free to break it and pay the consequences, e.g., tax resisters who refuse to pay for the war machine and frequently serve prison time for their moral resistance.

 

>R...And the pro-life activists who block abortion clinics?

 

sure. constitutional rights apply across the board. anti-choice activists will be arrested for illegal behavior, as are people on the left.

 

 

interesting discussion. would love to hear some legal minds weigh in.

 

best,

jizz

[Guest regulation]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

>Hi Reggie: I will preface this

>by saying I'm not a

>constitutional scholar and I assume

>you're not either. So what

>we might have if we

>went for a blow-by-blow interpretation

>and counter-interpretation of proposed actions

>by citizens would be, at

>best, uninformed guesses as to

>our rights and duties as

>U.S. citizens.

 

 

Sorry, my statements on the subject are not "uninformed guesses." Anyone who can read English can understand the Constitution. So many people who talk about the Constitution have never actually read it or read The Federalist, a detailed commentary on its provisions by the Framers. I have.

 

 

>>R...Like the Pledge of Allegiance?

 

>Sorry, never ratified by states or voted on by Congress.

 

Are you quite sure about that?

 

>I guess individuals decide if the Pledge is important and >binding on them.

 

 

I'm afraid I don't think very much of anyone who takes an oath without intending to honor it. Do you?

 

 

>you might have a point here

>but I think we're out

>of our league.

 

Excuse me? If you are speaking about "our" knowledge of the subjects of totalitarianism and democracy, please speak for yourself.

 

 

>We don't

>live in a democracy; we

>live in a republic.

 

I never said otherwise. I referred to a democratic political system, which we do indeed have. It is a system in which political decisions are made by democratic means, if not by direct democratic action.

 

 

>i

>would love to hear from

>someone with expert constitutional knowledge

>whether citizens could be required

>to swear an oath of

>loyalty to the United States.

 

Have you forgotten that this was an issue in the 1988 presidential campaign? Dukakis was badly hurt by his objection to laws requiring all schoolchildren to recite the Pledge.

 

>Does your smiley face mean you're

>making a little joke? Of

>course there are thinkers and

>authors that inspire us or

>piss us off

 

And there are those we regard as deadly bores, like Thoreau. The man was a crank if you ask me. I put it all down to a bad case of dyspepsia on his part.

 

>maybe, i don't know. if a

>majority of states don't like

>a law, maybe it is

>objectionable. are we talking about

>the same thing here? i'm

>talking about the right of

>the President to overturn legislation,

>the right of the Supreme

>Court to deem legislation unconstitutional

>and the right of the

>Congress to override a Presiden't

>veto.

 

 

Yes, we are talking about the same thing. The Framers created a system of checks and balances because they needed to persuade all of the states to ratify the Constitution. How do you persuade people to give up political power they've just got finished winning? The big selling point was that the federal government's power would be limited to certain issues and that even with respect to those issues it would be difficult to take any action that was opposed by a large number of states. With every state given equal representation in the Senate, half the states could block almost any action by Congress. With representation in the House determined by population, a minority of the most populous states could do the same thing in the House. That's still true today. They could also prevent the election of a president hostile to their interests, since presidential electors are chosen on the basis of population. As regards the Supreme Court, its right to declare federal legislation null and void was not really settled until after the Constitution was ratified.

 

>>J...Amendments to the Constitution can certainly be understood as mechanisms to update/revise the Constitution.

>

>>R...But they require a super-majority of states to consent.

>

>agreed. don't get your point.

 

My point is simple. You seem to be suggesting that the Framers wanted to encourage changes to the Constitution. I say that the requirement of a super-majority was meant to discourage such changes.

 

>Well, since we're not talking about

>Zack anymore, why don't you

>go for it here?

 

I think the current size of this thread indicates that another one should be started for that discussion if you wish to have it.