(no subject)

[digitaldiscipline]

[spurred by something thewronghands shared vis-a-vis electoral insight]

For folks working on either campaign, there is only one rule: Get 270 Electoral College votes. That's it. Anything and everything else is secondary - vote-trashing, social engineering, the lovely smear campaigns polluting our broadcast media, what have you. When it's win-at-all-costs, because the enemy (or, if we're hell-bent on remaining civil, "opponent") will stop at nothing to do so, I look at my initial reaction to this state of affairs, and I have to wonder.

When something is -that- fucked up in our electronic lives (or maybe just mine), it's time to burn what you absolutely can't live without to CD, then nuke and pave. Start from a clean environment so that all the fragmented folderol, parasitic bullshit, and disk kipple that accumulates is blown away and you can start over.

It's this sort of thinking that makes me suggest taking the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution on tour, along with some of the spiffiest things from the Smithsonian, then make sure every elected federal official, member of Congress, and all nine justices are sitting, and make a big glass parking lot on the Potomac. Even when I lived in Arlington, the idea had a lot of appeal.

*sigh*

Being the one to play by the rules doesn't mean that when one's opponent is an asshat doesn't mean I don't want to invoke the ounce-of-lead solution for their misdeeds.

Comments

[spuriusfurius.livejournal.com]

Two words: constitutional convention.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

yeah, but how quickly would we be rounded up by the police or national guard or some cadre of black hats under the auspices of being "terrorists" as soon as it looked like we'd threaten the status quo?

some days, i'm amazed we (still get to) have elections, even the encumbered, at-one-remove clusterfuck they've become.

but, yeah, i'm big on the Top Ten as laid down by the Founding Fathers, read to include all races[*] and both genders under that nifty little "All men are created equal" proviso.


* assuming, of course, that they are citizens, or working to become so; persons in the country illegally leave their inalienable rights at the border (or offshore).

[spuriusfurius.livejournal.com]

persons in the country illegally leave their inalienable rights at the border (or offshore)

I couldn't disagree with you more. "Inalienable rights," by definition, are not to be taken away, nor can they be "left behind." They are HUMAN rights, not merely citizens' rights. In fact, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that no state may, "[D]eprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That applies to everyone, regardless of legal status.

Wherever a constitutional principle applies solely to citizens, it is explicitly stated (see Amendments 15 and 19 for examples). Anything else must apply to everyone. That's not to say that illegal aliens should not be arrested and deported to their countries of origins. But that should happen only after a fair hearing, in which all of the accused's rights are respected.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Point taken, and, yes, I agree with you.

because I don't feel like taking the time to craft an inoffensive epithet for illegal immigrants, i'll just use the term "spuds" for the rest of this post.

Spud A wanders over the border (from spudland). They are, if it were up to me, entitled to not having their stuff stolen or their well-being fucked with by other people (see also: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). they are obligated to pay taxes, and -not- entitled to government assistance, and, frankly, should big brother pay any attention to them at all, it is to ensure that they're either sent back to spudland, or to jump through the appropriate hoops to become american. (not spud-american. american. period.)

this is one instance where innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to work, because that's proving a negative. the burden of proof should be on the spud to prove they're here legitimately. *shrug*

[spuriusfurius.livejournal.com]

(not spud-american. american. period.)

Hyphenated Americans seem to most frequently be 2nd generation immigrants and later, for whatever reason. Me, I've never considered myself 'Italian-American,' just American. When I say, 'I'm Italian,' I mean, 'I'm of Italian descent.'

But when I say, 'I'm Sicilian,' I mean, 'Don't fuck with me or I'll have you tossed off a pier wearing cement shoes.' ;)

[hel_ana]

Interesting.

I don't think I'll ever be a hyphenated American, that's true enough. I don't know if I'll ever be an "American", even if I aquire citizenship.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

fair enough. my contention with the hyphen endemic is that it seems like a lot of people are putting more weight on emphasizing their differences rather than their similarities, and/or being intentionally discrete and combative by linguistically pissing on treestumps to mark their territory.

there is/was a bit of intentional "ugly-americanism" tucked into my original post to make the point.

[hel_ana]

I agree that people putting more weight on emphasizing differences can be problematic, especially in a society that espouses a melting pot as the ideal.

I am, however, perhaps too conditioned by my own culture to see the issue objectively -- growing up with multiculturalism as an ideal means, I suspect, that I'm essentially speaking a different language than an American when it comes to this issue.

I have run across people who figure that unless you're willing to become completely "American", you shouldn't become a citizen. While I don't view it as "ugly-americanism", I do think it betrays a certain set of blinders; I'm reasonably confident that if the same people were led by circumstance to become citizens of another country, there's no way they would let go of their love of America in the same way.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

playing devil's advocate slightly in your hypothetical here. . . if you want to become a citizen of another nation, that speaks to a) a desire to be there, and b) less of a desire to be where you were. unless you're fleeing hellish circumstances, chances are, you'll retain a few fond memories of your time living in $Former_Country.

"your own culture" = windsor has culture? i thought it was just where detroiters went to gamble and see _real_ strippers? ;-)

[insert ob. 'canadian ballet' comment here]

it's my (limited) understanding that taking the citizenship oath doesn't currently require brainwashing, just a lot of paperwork, some historical understanding, and (i hope) basic literacy.

[hel_ana]

playing devil's advocate slightly in your hypothetical here. . . if you want to become a citizen of another nation, that speaks to a) a desire to be there, and b) less of a desire to be where you were.

Not necessarily. Like I said "by circumstance".

I'm here for one reason only -- my husband has a child that I feel he needs to be near as that child grows. If my step-son didn't exist, we would be in Canada.

As for citizenship, I could remain a permanant resident (once I actually get my greencard) for the rest of my life. But it's a complete PITA -- I get taxed but don't get any representation, I get no say in any government, if the patriot act becomes permanant, I'd be subject to secret imprisonment, it's always going to take a few weeks to get a new driver's license, etc. All of these are annoyances that would go away with citizenship.

And if I wanted to live in Canada again, I'd lose my green card. While that wouldn't normally be a problem, being married to an American without a valid immigration status based on that marriage is a big problem. If I move back to Canada, losing my permant residence status, taking a day trip over the border would become very, very difficult. Essentially, they'd look at me and say "so you have no visa, you're married to an American, explain why we should believe that you're not going to just stay". And if we needed to move back to America a few years later, I'd have to go through the whole damned immigration process again.

However, if I become a citizen, I can move back to Canada no problem. Citizenship isn't dependant on maintaining a residence in the US, so all i'd have to do is present my US passport when visiting the States.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I thought (please correct me if I'm offbase here) that this was the sort of situation that dual citizenship was the answer to. *puzzled*

[hel_ana]

You're not wrong.

But I was specifically addressing your devil's advocate point with a counter-example. " . if you want to become a citizen of another nation, that speaks to a) a desire to be there, and b) less of a desire to be where you were."

I *don't* want to be here. Nor do I want to be here more than I want to be in Canada. I have to be here, and aquiring citizenship in the US and keeping my Canadian citizenship (becoming a dual citizen) is not a matter of where I want to be, but expedience.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

gotcha. see, i get it when you use small words. ;-)

[hel_ana]

Moving on.. the citizenship oath does require renouncing the citizenship of your home country.

However, I was talking about people who honestly believe that unless you're completely willing to give up your home country and become "American", you shouldn't become a US citizen.

"your own culture" = windsor has culture? i thought it was just where detroiters went to gamble and see _real_ strippers? ;-)

a) I'm not from Windsor. I've only been there twice in my life.
b) you've hit on one of the areas I have a major sense of humour failure, so we'll just let that one drop.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Gotcha.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

we have piers around here? :-D

[hel_ana]

Well we do on *this* side of the bay.

Complete with pelicans and everything.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

remind me not to go in against Sam when death is on the line.

hah hah. hah hah. ha---*thump*

[hel_ana]

You have no idea.

[hel_ana]

* assuming, of course, that they are citizens, or working to become so; persons in the country illegally leave their inalienable rights at the border (or offshore).

It is possible for an alien to be here legally and not be working towards citizenship.

[spuriusfurius.livejournal.com]

Yeah. What is it with you Canadians and all that anti-Americanism?

/me ducks, runs.

[hel_ana]

You mean like not engaging in the Iraq war? Yeah, I know.

Damned Canadians with their beady little eyes and flapping heads.

[angel-renewed.livejournal.com]

Damned Canadians with their beady little eyes and flapping heads.

You people eat poutine. You gave us Anne Murray and Celine Dion. Clearly, you're not to be trusted.

[hel_ana]

Wait.. the woman from the culture that gave the world gefilte fish is complaining about poutine?!?

Celine Dion I'll give you, but there ain't nothin' wrong with Anne Murray.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

you're just here for that nice, hot, american cheese, aren't you? ;-)

[hel_ana]

You forgot "sweaty".

[etcet.livejournal.com]

if there's sweating going on at the melting pot, i don't want to know about it.

[hel_ana]

Really? I would. So I could avoid that melting pot.

Of course, I don't think you'll find a commercial kitchen where there *isn't* sweating going on.. Just something to think about tonight as you're drifting off to sleep.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

they don't even cook our food at TMP! they make -us- do it. we get the fire, the melty cheese, and the raw meat. the hardest work they do is chopping up meat and veggies. . . and bringing us drinks. mmmm. drinks.

[hel_ana]

Hey, those platters are heavy!

And the boullion and oil comes out hot, so there has to be *some* cooking happening somewhere.

[kungfugimp.livejournal.com]

It's why I dislike amendments. The constitution is a fairly simple document. The statements are black and white. It's how people want to interpret them and bend them to their POV that irks me. This is why people feel the need to amend it. Assholes. Once you start fiddling with the fabric of it, it unravels and you just keep having to patch and repair or add on.

I'm over the electoral college. It totally screws any other party from getting in because in the 50's we were so afraid of a godless communist party getting in. So much so we also had to change the pledge a number of times just so we can show how Umericun we are.

We will be the laughing stock - again. But I am glad that Oliphant is out of that office. She really showed how stupid she was by trying to play the woman/race card. Her decisions have put us in this ongoing stupid mess. It won't clear up until the next election.

[spuriusfurius.livejournal.com]

Amendments are necessary. Otherwise, blacks would still be slaves, women would not be able to vote, and you'd have no right to a fair trial when accused of a crime.

And since the electoral college is a constitutional mechanism, it will take an amendment to get rid of it.

[kungfugimp.livejournal.com]

(nods) I knew someone would refer to the woman/minority issue. That's my main point with it being about interpretation. The words are simple, but people will decipher their meaning. At the time it was written (by white men) only white men were entitled to it's writings. Landholders were the only ones that could vote. Today when you read those words, it would read as all men, like mankind, the human race. Perhaps I see it through rose colored glasses - but I hate it when people have to dumb things down and spell things out.

Even though that's how it has to be in our society. Lawyers and special interest are the only ones that seek to gain power by adding on amendments (and pushing through whatever laws to benefit them). I do agree with you that certain amendments are needed - because people just don't have common sense.

And yeah, the E.C. is a part of the constitution. I may not like it (for reasons that are of length), but I do respect constitution as a whole. I just don't want to see the amendments to the US and state constitutions get to the size that Europe has. Just so we have to micromanage what people can and can't do.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

A lot of people complain about the Electoral College. The States get to choose how the Electors are chosen. Nebraska and Maine divide up the electoral votes by representative district. If you could convince enough State lawmakers it was a good idea, you could have the electors chosen by footrace.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

. . . which begs the question:

How long until -this- becomes a reality TV show?