A Conversation Over Tea

Here's a conversation from Facebook, names, photos, and identifying links have been removed to protect privacy of the participants. I'll keep this post up to date so long as the conversation keeps rolling. I honestly wasn't expecting her husband to jump in like that, but I'm glad he did, as it gives us some insight into the sort of thinking that goes on in the world of the Tea Party. Notice how points of conversation are dragged in with each successive post that were previously not even part of the dialogue, and the statements between the lines that are seamlessly filled in over time. Personally, I see a big difference between arguing about border security, and arguing for the potential violation of the civil rights of legitimate citizens of this country, yet in stereotypical Tea Party fashion, the whole thing gets bulldozed into one big sticky pile. Do we really want to start allowing for the trampling of the constitutional rights of people in this country, legal or illegal?

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

Cheri ********

ORLY??
And who are these "enemies" of which you speak, Mr. Post-Racial President, to ignite such voting fervor within the Hispanic bloc?

Granted, there are plenty of dissenting opinions out there who consider Obama to be an enemy and a threat...... apparently the feeling is mutual!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1AmezuBo4k

Obama Calls Americans ENEMIES & Illegal Mexicans to Make US Pay!

www.youtube.com

This has to be one of the most telling and frightening things a President has ever said. I cannot imagine a time in history where a leader of a country called on foreigners to attack his own people and then call his own people enemies! Illegal aliens are now an enemy in my book. The President has d

• 
  
• • 
    

    Pete ******

    I think their enemies are the crazy ass tea party folks, like the ones who want to card every bloody Latino in Arizona or what have you, even when plenty of them are perfectly legal citizens of this country. Sure plenty also aren't citizens, but that whole racial targeting is pretty menacing, especially if you've done nothing wrong. And don't give me that whole "If they haven't done anything wrong they have nothing to be afraid of" line either, because if individuals in law enforcement want to make and issue of something, the evidence keeps showing that they will find whatever they can to make someone's life that much harder.

    
    
  • 
    

    Cheri ********

    well then call me your enemy, Pete. Where does it say in the legislation to "card every bloody Latino". The racial targeting argument is pure BS. But I'm guessing that like the Health Deform Bill, you haven't even bothered to read it for yourself. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and READ THE DAMN BILL. (It's 16 pages, hope you can handle it)
    
    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
    
    And if us "crazy ass tea party folks" are the enemies instead of dissenting fellow citizens....... then what message is "the Great Uniter" sending out to all Americans?

    
    
  • 
    

    Pete ******

    Ok, first of all, I was explaining the language and the thinking, but you seemed to have glossed over that. Secondly, I sincerely doubt you read anything about the Health Reform Bill, you glossed over it at best. Where are your death panels now? And Do you really expect me to think you're not busy enough that you can just read all this damn legislation al over the country?
    
    I'm reading your damn bill, and straight off in Sec 2B it refers to determining immigration status when reasonable suspicion exists. Sec 2E goes on to say that police can arrest, without warrant, anyone who they have probable cause to believe that the person should be removed from the country. Sec 92 talks about driving without a license or permit. Who would be targeted to present their drivers licences I wonder, oh yeah, maybe Latino drivers in the state. Granted this would keep unlicensed drivers off the roads, but you asked where it mentioned carding people. Remember, valid drivers licences require citizenship. The rest of the bill deals primarily with hiring migratory workers, and doesn't seem to go too far, though I am less than happy with the wording of some things in Sec 5.
    
    Also, don't start using terms interchangeably on me here, if your compatriots are going to call people the enemy, you can't get all indignant when someone calls then an enemy instead of "dissenting fellow citizens."

    
    
  • 
    

    Cheri ********

    it's one thing when people rip each other to shreds on their own level, in the media, in public debates, etc. it's quite another when OUR NATION'S LEADER WHO IS IN POLITICAL POWER is doing it to his own citizens to divide them. not surprised, I've been called racist by him and his ilk before, they are elitist snobs who sneer down upon you and me. we are commoners to them and it enrages them when some people refuse to kiss their feet. it's sad to see that his hateful rhetoric influences so many people, especially friends.
    
    the only cases in which reasonable suspicion applies is when the individual(s) are already violating traffic law. aka, drunk driving, reckless driving, speeding, etc. what happens when you get pulled over for violating traffic laws, Pete? the police ask you for your driver's license. at that point, it will be pretty obvious whether or not someone is legal to be in the country. the courts are not going to deport someone just because a racist officer pulls over a Latino/a, and it is likely that said officer would be put on probation, or some sort of punishment. All the Arizona bill does is re-enforce the same thing that the Federal law says.... if only our government would actually enforce it, Arizona wouldn't have to do the dirty work themselves.
    
    I think it's sad that you'd rather risk the lives of citizens and legal immigrants to an open and undefended border, which countless drugs and weapons are being sneaked across, than risk offending a particular ethnic group. in case you haven't noticed, accusations of racism has always been an a cop-out argument, since the day Obama won the presidency. Don't like Obama's policies? you're a racist. potential threat to political power? you're a racist. exposure of radical associations and past actions? you're a racist. It's always the same brain-dead excuse. I doubt it's for a show of embracing ethnic diversity, more like pandering to buy votes.
    
    no, Pete, I spent weeks reading that waste of paper of Health care Deform, and it was a bloody headache. the only way to actually know what the hell everything was in that bill is if you've dumped tens of thousands of dollars into law school, thus learning the legislative language, and can make a living at the same time. sorry, but legislation should not be that extensive with pretzel-like language, it's sneaky and prevents the average American (and all those lower class poor people, the uneducated, and minorities you must be convincing yourself that you're so concerned about) from being able to decipher their fate, let alone have a say in it.
    
    STOP stereotyping me, I never once said anything about death panels. My bone to pick with it is the mandates. My money is my money, my health is my responsibility. If I choose to pay for insurance or pay the doctor myself in cash (which I have been doing for the past 3 years, and haven't DIED yet: "OMG but the President said that people would die if they weren't covered!"), that is MY CHOICE and MY RIGHT. I don't want the earnings of my time and work I invested to take care of me and my family to be further snatched away for the disposal of a faceless bureaucracy, nor do I want anyone else's earnings stolen from them.
    
    the problem that I see you having is the eagerness to group people with whom you disagree instead of being all open-minded and crap. i guess the open-mindedness ends whenever it loses it's convenience factor.

    
    
  • 
    

    Pete ******

    Where the fuck did I say anything about an undefended border?! Not to mention that border patrol is on a list of jobs I'd consider. My issue is when cops start racial profiling, and then make up their reasonable suspicion. For crying out loud, even as of the 90s we were seeing it happen to black folks in this country, what makes you think latinos aren't going to have similar problems? I see what the so called intent of the bill is, but it leaves some pretty big loopholes. Also, I love how there isn't an issue of licensing for farming equipment, what they call husbandry, but then they go into all that stuff about hiring illegals who would no doubt be using that same equipment if hired.
    
    Also, I'm not stereotyping you because you disagree with me, I'm stereotyping you because of the mindless rhetoric you spout is exactly as stupid as the rest of the mindless rhetoric the tea party spews out. It's all ideals and pictures, but lacking an element of critical thought that shows a fundamental lack of understand of the government, fellow citizens, and science in general. Don't get me wrong, there are crackpots on my side too, but they've been far less vocal as of late, and haven't tried to create some sort of silly party that divides the power on this side of the fence. I can't help that 90% of the irrational bullshit I've heard has come from the right, mostly the far right. If you're with the tea party, you're with them for better or worse, your vote in their favor is a vote for all the crazy crap they say, so even if you don't say it yourself, your vote is the next best thing. Mind you I don't type all conservatives, just your crazy ilk. Also, I can't believe that the democrats of all people are being called bourgeois when so many of the rich folk are republican, perhaps trying to pass themselves off as paupers, but rich all the same.

    
    
  • 
    

    Aaron ***** ********

    I have to say, profiling works.
    if you don't like that the majority of crime is committed by people of a certain race. then tell that race to stop being more bad so we can all get along and commit crime equally. (like that's possible)
    
    kiss my ass pete; racial profiling works.

    
    
  • 
    

    Cheri ********

    Whatever Pete. It looks like you've been absorbed into the mindless collective and have chosen to abandon civil disagreement for loathing and denial.
    
    It's quite clear that you take satisfaction in gobbling up and regurgitating every narrow-minded, hateful slur against Tea Party members that you can find, despite proof that they consist of all races, all ages, all political spectrums, and both genders. Just look at the colorful election results of Conservatives! Tim Scott (Black), Marco Rubio (Latino), Susana Martinez (Latina), Nikki Haley (Indian American), and many more! C'mon, for a guy like you who boasts racial diversity and equality, this should be a moment of triumph for you too! ;-)
    
    Feel free to keep on posting, I likely won't be responding on this thread again because I'm done here.

    
    
  • 
    

    Pete ****** Wait, so Aaron, you're saying that a) the legislation would lead to racial profiling, and b) that it would be a good thing? Am I getting this right?

    • (Updates below)
      
      

      Aaron ***** ******* A) that i don't give a fuck about racial profiling being led to or not, and B) that I agree with racial profiling.

      
      

      Cheri ********

      personally, i don't condone racial profiling.
      for all the faux fears about AZ's new law being racist, only the haters are blind to their own hypocrisy of stereotyping the Tea Parties as being a bunch of "crazy" stupid white people, all thewhile championing racial equality, HA! if the radical leftists in the media and Washington hadn't been so busy defaming and pissing off everyone who got wise to their lies, maybe they wouldn't be bitterly crying over their losses from this year's election!

Gay Marriage

I've just had an interesting thought regarding gay marriage. Has anybody come up with a coherent secular reason for why homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, or at least receive the same tax breaks that heterosexual couples? Religious arguments can be used to both undermine and support gay marriage, but I really can't think of a single argument against it that isn't based in religion. I could be wrong, and I'd love to hear such an argument, but I fail to comprehend what it would be.

Economically speaking, legalizing and legitimizing gay marriages would no doubt pump a decent amount of money into the wedding planning industry, as well as retail shopping for all the gifts, and tourism for the honeymoons. Especially in the beginning when there would no doubt be a surge of couples looking to "make it official."

Also, since these couples couldn't really have offspring of their own, not without expensive genetic technology anyway, they would resort to adoption if they wanted to have kids, a family, and I'm all for more loving homes for children to be adopted into.

I don't really think that any arguments against gay marriage that involve instances of failing marriages, or harm to children, or anything like can really apply, because all those arguments can be used against straight marriage too.

As a country, we can't espouse equal rights for all if we're going to institutionalize unequal treatment under the law. It is our destiny to provide equal and protected rights for all of our citizens, regardless of skin color, gender, age, religion or sexual orientation.

The Gulf is Screwed

According to the NY Daily News (about as conservative a news source as you can find), the US government is no longer going to rely on BP's Gulf leak estimates. It's mind numbing that the Federal government ever did rely on BP's numbers. This might be an indication that the administration wants to hold BP's feet to the fire when it starts fining the oil giant. Any fines will be based on the total amount of oil leaked. The company's estimates have been embarrassingly low since the Deepwater Horizon rig first caught fire, and have come up against public sector and academic numbers from day one. With the end of the leak nowhere in sight, and the relief well far from being a sure thing, nobody really seems to know what to do. BP has only been collecting roughly half of what is leaking with a new "top hat" apparatus, if the new Federal estimate is anywhere near accurate. That would be hopeful news, but the new Federal estimate is that more than 1 million gallons a day is flooding into the Gulf of Mexico. BP's silly and obviously self serving statement late last month that the leak's size was roughly 210,000 thousand gallons a day seems to have convinced nearly everyone to stop taking them seriously. Meanwhile, the American people are beginning to see the repercussions of unregulated deep water drilling.

I'm pissed, but I don't know who to blame. I'm betting big oil lobbyists are at the root of the problem, but that's just my knee jerk reaction. Sooner or later I'm going to have to try and post a calm rant explaining why I distrust lobbyists. One way or another, someone has to be held accountable for this:

Live video by Ustream

Want to have some dirty fun? Play with this, and keep in mind that the Exxon Valdez spilled, best case scenario, about 11 million gallons. The USGS low ball estimate, as of this posting, is clearly out of date. We've already beaten the pants off that number with the Deepwater Horizon catastro****.

Private Space Flight

I'm going to have a hard time putting this into perspective (that's going to have to come in a later post). Spacex, the private space flight company, successfully launched their Falcon 9 rocket into earth's orbit Friday afternoon. For an account of the launch, check out spaceflightnow.com's blow by blow. The guiding principle behind privately funded space programs is that free market competition will help to advance human space exploration. Still, nobody is pretending that these sort of enterprises would be possible without NASA's huge body of work and expertise. Burt Rutan gave a TED Talk a while back about the potential of private space flight.

A Series of Tubes

There seem to be a lot of misconceptions as to what the internet really is. Some people treat it as a commodity to be traded, sold or brokered. Others see it as a "cloud" of data. I see it as the information superhighway. The internet, from its inception, has been part of our nation's infrastructure. It now extending beyond us, and is a part of the global infrastructure.

Recently, there has been a large debate on "net neutrality." The term is not very well understood, and to make matters worse, it has been intentionally obfuscated and adopted by the opponents of the original concept. Although lately the opposition to net neutrality has settled on the term "net competition." Advocates of net neutrality are in favor of government regulation, via the FCC, to ensure that consumers and content providers would not be subject to corporate interests and control. These same corporations see the internet as a commodity to be sold, exclusively for their profit.

Now, I understand how important corporate freedoms are in this country. Yet history has shown us that when regulations are removed, these types of companies will gobble up everything that they can. I am referring to the deregulation of radio in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. When limits on the number of stations that a corporation could own were lifted, companies like Clear Channel and Infinity snatched up stations all over the country. This has resulted in a lack of diversity in programming and on air material. If history has taught us anything, it should be not to make the same mistakes twice.

Other aspects of our country's infrastructure, such as our highway system, our flight routes and electrical grid, are all subject to government regulation. This regulation means that we don't have to pay subscription fees to drive on the highway (you do pay taxes and tolls for upkeep though). Regulation also keeps our airplanes from flying into each other or into buildings. Regulation provides us with minimum wage, to make sure that those who are legally employed can't be exploited. It provides us with safe working conditions and standards of manufacture. Regulation sounds like a big scary word to a lot of people, but it is a constant force that effects our lives, most often for the better.

I don't wish to imply that capitalism is bad for our country, far from it. What I am saying is that without some watchful oversight, greed and human nature will take capitalism and twist it into theft, time and time again. It is in our best interest as a society, especially one that is becoming ever more digital, to keep the internet in a neutral position, where neither corporations have total control over it, nor where the government keeps them completely out of the equation. A balanced measure seems to be the most logical approach, and will protect the interests of as many people as possible. Freedom is never free, freedom comes with the price of vigilance.

Oil and Water

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is everywhere lately, and it's as potent as a political wrecking ball as it is an environmental one. As of a few months ago the Tea Party rallies were chanting "Drill baby, drill," and garnering all the more hatred for it. Even more surprisingly President Obama proposed increased offshore drilling about two months ago.* Despite what conspiracy theorists might say, I don't believe that anyone could foresee the oil spill in the gulf, even though the eventuality of such spills is a harsh and clear reality of oil drilling operations.

What I find odd in this whole scenario is where the blame falls. Sure, BP is getting blamed, but it seems to me, that the really harsh criticisms are going to Obama. That's not really a fair judgement for people to make. Presidents accept a lot of blame by nature of their office, but it's not as if Obama caused the rig to explode, he can't help it if the numerous attempts to alleviate the leak have failed, he really can't do much more than throw money and manpower at it. Perhaps people don't feel that it's enough. As a self-proclaimed "rabid environmentalist" I would love to see a solution come forward, but the reality is that this is a massive spill and clean up will take a long time.

What doesn't need to take a long time is to close off the flow of oil. The primary failure here seems to be that BP wants to capitalize on the oil, instead of taking steps to shut off the flow. From day one I wondered why we couldn't just send down a "bunker buster" (low yield tactical nuclear warhead) and fuse the hole shut. If that's politically unfeasible, a large amount of high explosives could have a similar effect. Going beyond blowing the leak shut, I can't help but feel that there are still a large number of fairly low tech options open to us.

Technical data on the leak would be helpful, what is the rate of flow, what pressure is the oil being released at, what are the relevant dimensions of the equipment on the sea floor? I have seen that BP turned to the public for suggestions to aid with cleanup and shutting off the flow, and I'm sure that there are some pretty good, inventive ideas out there, but wouldn't this extra data help those with a bit more engineering experience determine an effective solution?

My point is this, the whole political and corporate mess seem to be getting in the way of effective solutions. Political careers shouldn't take a precedent over the health of our seas, nor should saving face. For the present, oil is a necessary part of our nation's livelihood, but these games that we play in the interest of oil are excessive and dangerous. Our focus should be on the environment which is more necessary to our continued survival than any capital or fuel gained from a failed well. If and when the industry has taken appropriate measures to ensure the safety of their drilling operations, and I mean modern measures, not measures that have been in use since the 70's, they know where to look to find oil.

*He has since banned new offshore drilling.

Fired Up

It took a while to find a blog title that we both agreed on. I wanted to find one that gave us wiggle room.

On this blog we'll post well thought out opinions, opinions that cover a range of subjects. Current events, political theories, futurist speculation, and the occasional bit of cultural criticism, all these have a place here. It wasn't easy to find a blogger URL that reflected those ideas, at least not a free one. But here we are.

My hope is that the content that ends up on this site can stand up to critical thinking. If it can't, hopefully we'll earn a readership who will let us know. I believe the quickest path to a healthy world view is to subject your deepest held opinions and beliefs to criticism. By doing this while being intellectually honest, and emotionally a little detached, you can come to a fuller, richer worldview.

This is called being open minded. That's a phrase far to many people misunderstand. Being open minded does not mean you believe whatever your told, it does not mean you're willing to take important ideas at face value. It means you subject ideas and concepts to scrutiny.

That scrutiny can take the shape of conversations with friends, self reflection, and even large scale debates. The great promise of platforms like blogger, typepad, and wordpress are that they let laymen voice their opinions, and receive feedback from their peers. I'm enthusiastic about this project, and if you've managed to stumble across this obscure first post, I hope you are too.