![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ambitious_wenchFirst, this is a list of names I've harvested from my spam filters. Normally I keep them as a means of coming up with good, credible names for my fiction writing.
Denny Pena
Phillip Dutton
Matt Scruggs
Rod Myers
Imelda Vaughn
Jacquelyn Wood
Alberta Milton
Orville Bass
Shannon Spencer
Latasha Chandler
Eleanor Schultz
Moses Bliss
Jed Lovell
Darrell Richter
Rafael Ursis
Milford Gardner
Romeo Cardenas
Eunice Healy
Jerald Shepard
Vicki William
Dona Kilgore
Lucile Holman
Monica Henson
Cesar Crosby
Maryellen Prather
Betty Barnard
May Gilbert
Emilio Gibbs
Ina McKnight
Jamelle Jernigan
Weston Solomon
Lincoln Carpenter
Natasha Foster
Jason Shields
Clark McMullen
Sonny Scruggs
Brett Alvares
Lillian Quintero
Margery Watson
Krystal Alston
Janice Flynn
Ariel Shapiro
Lyle Gibbons
Kasey Hatcher
Vernon Mercer
Odell Harmon
Joan Nicholson
Dwight Griffith
Scotti Robertson
Etta Schmitz
Arlene Dixon
Effie Wheeler
Cesar Wood
Thurman O'Neil
Chance Bowden
Phillip Correa
Latasha Simms
Winston Pate
Mari Durham
Arnold Langston
Alva Walden
Merle Galloway
Kerry Stein
Kendrick Early
Athea Sampson
Lauri Sharpe
Calvin Baker
Chelsea Thomason
Chase Wiggins
Milo Mora
Carrie Benjamin
Emory I. Flynn
Faustino Reece
Fredric Ibarra
Alfredo Horner
Trey Boyer
Leona Echols
Francis Pritchard
Bradley Rollins
Dewey Travino
Wilton Kane
Bruce Alston
Travis Hancock
Elvis Gilbert
Marquis Bishop
Alexander Rocha
Jennie Hutton
Tamika McCollum
Claudio Bauer
Erica Destiny
Arnold Joseph
Fabian Bauer
Walker Hines
Devin Shepard
Annie Chung
Roxanne Fisher
Angelique Chung
Jesus Gustafson
Roberta Taylor
Jeannie Newell
Stephen Wilder
Jimmie Hamlin
April Landis
Darla Cano
Terrell McGuire
Judith Hester
Guy Hogue
Elisa T. Serrano
Clara Betts
Drew Queen
Eugenia Roman
Mitzi Valenzuela
Michael McMillan
Carson Lilly
Wayne Glover
Kenneth Reeder
Lisa Chase
Erna Funk
Evelyn Donaldson
Maude Ouellette
Issac Rowland
Hector Lockwood
Faye Olson
Peggy Escobar
Jodie Rossi
Logan Zamora
Eddie Hamlin
Johnnie Lott
Hung Fox
Alfonso Erwin
Aline Sears
Bennett Hoskins
Reynaldo Hemphill
Derek Holmes
Patricia McClain
lara Shephard
Tamra Lilly
Burt Hare
Christa Phillips
Sherman McCord
Dolores Krueger
Ferdinand McLeod
Edwardo Espinoza
Malinda Wiggins
Chester McGrath
Jean Call
Nelda Freeman
Blake Woodson
Savannah Simon
Rick Cardenas
Russel Brady
Glenn Orozco
Alisa McGill
Drake Meyer
Holly Wesley
Bette Felton
Glen Bonner
Edith Chavez
Kristie Walter
Lonnie Coulter
Brice Perdue
Dianne Paul
Freddy M. Eaton
Dion Compton
Deborah M. Norton
Gus McCray
Levi Holley
Carmella Noble
Efrain Valentine
Rick Hurley
Phillip Woods
Wilbert Hinson
Bruno Hurt
Becky Weathersby
Johanna Shaffer
Sofia Escobar
Susie Dennison
Rita Woodard
Leann Cummings
Arron Diamond
Ines Daugherty
Micheal Dominguez
Cary Kilgore
Lyle Swan
Doyle Elkins
Ginger Fontenot
Loyd Harris
Pat Jeffries
Bernadien Conklin
Sphpie Peterson
Jolen Duvall
Maritza Snyder
Danny Schmidt
Maureen Marshall
Mary Chamberlain
Milo McCarty
Joseph Burgess
Newton Dumas
Dixie Chapman
Bill Stuart
Cliff Ellis
Raul Kennedy
Vici Arellan
Albert p. Reynolds
Earline Landis
Mari Friend
Fessie Fuller
Tracie McNeal
Craig Wolff
Mari Frazier
Darrey Dyer
Ingrid Mendez
Arnold Marrero
Savannah Garret
Lenny Hooper
Truman McMillan
Jarvis McKinnon
Kyle Robertson
Hilda Weber
Cornell Good
If you would like to use these names, kindly leave a note regarding which has been taken, and I will delete it from the list.
Second: This is the URL to the Anti-gay http://www.marriagepoll.com. This is a terribly flawed "poll" in that it allows multiple votes from the same machine simply by putting in a new name, zip code and email address. Both the email address and the zip code Must be valid. However, the "pollsters" have stated that they intend to send the results to Congress. Promised, even. I suggest that you contact your members of Congress (House and Senate) to let them know about this test, and its flaw. You can find your representative by using the locator listed here:
http://www.house.gov/ You will have to put in a zip+4 code for it to work. See the next item. (This is why these items are MOSTLY unrelated.)
To find your senator, go here: http://www.senate.gov. All you need is your state for that.
Third: You can find the zip+4 code for EVERYWHERE in the US by going here: http://www.usps.com/ncsc/lookups/lookup_zip+4.html.
Fourth: One of the very best ways I have found to track sources of spam is the following: www.cotse.com offers a webmail/email service that allows for multiple email addresses. For example, I can list my email address for one of my fictional characters on alt.devilbunnies as MSgt_E_Totten@awench.cotse.net, and it will get to me. In fact, I could list Hilda_Weber@awench.cotse.net, and it will get to me as well. Yes, those are valid email addresses. Cotse.com charges $5 per month for this service. They also have a rather generous webspace allowance for that amount. (I wonder how many poll notifications from American Family Association I will get at $SPAM_TRAP_NAME@awench.cotse.net over the next few days? I wonder how many of those names will be used to vote for "homosexual (sic) marriage"?)
In conclusion: Did you know that you cannot buy nitrogen-rich fertilizer and food-grade glycerin in the same store? Have you ever wondered why?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-30 02:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-30 02:16 pm (UTC)Edie
no subject
Date: 2003-12-30 02:28 pm (UTC)One thought in passing
Date: 2003-12-30 09:57 pm (UTC)Two things that jumped out at me:
Ceasar Wood sounds a lot like a p0rn star.
IIRC, be careful of using two multiethnic names like Angelique Chung ... while it may be a real name of a real and living person most of the time Asian names (if mimiking American/English names) will stick with ones that can be re-written in thier native language. Erika for example is one. Just something I rememeber reading in my (brief) study of Japanese.
Re: One thought in passing
Date: 2003-12-31 03:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-31 07:03 am (UTC)just ordinary things, like Hilda Weber making toast in the morning or Earline Landis polishing his shoes while listening to the radio.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-31 07:45 am (UTC)Edie
no subject
Date: 2003-12-31 07:37 am (UTC)i saw your post/s in
xx
no subject
Date: 2003-12-31 07:44 am (UTC)Edie
You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 07:44 am (UTC)In fact, the recent debate of it in my comments being accounted for, I've purged another irrationality from my thinking and now support it without reservations.
But the tactic in question starts making me question my reasoning, because I've always believed that resorting to the Big Book of Dirty Tricks is a sign of not having a substantive argument in the first place.
This is a remarkably uncomfortable place to be.
(Okay, I'm wondering. The most obvious guess would require a few other ingredients, at least as far as I remember my chemistry. Enlighten me?)
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 09:11 am (UTC)Note that it's been pointed out that this "poll" is fundamentally flawed, but that its resulted cannot be construed as accurately representative of the American populace.
Notice that I have provided the information necessary for my readers to contact and make their represntatives and their senators aware of the fact that 'poll' is flawed.
I now have four response letters from AFA in my archives to PROVE to my Congressmembers that the results are flawed, and all of them have been forwared as part of an ongoing communication that includes letting them know *my* position directly.
The poll is flawed. That's a fact. But what's important isn't some silly tampering with the poll, but talking with members of congress.
Now, for "dirty tricks", what do you think of the "poll" in the first place? It's on a website for and by anti-homosexuals. That in and of itself isn't so bad, I suppose, but the intention of sending the results to Congress is another matter, passing off the results of a biased poll as the "will of da peeps" is downright dirty tricks.
Welcome to the war, Cerebrate. All's fair in love and war. Sometimes a dirty bomb is your only means of gaining the upper hand. And with results like this, do you really think the AFA will send their nasty little trick to Congress now?
We have a fucking boatload of substantive arguments. But they don't work against homophobes and irrational thinkers. So sometimes we have to use the half-brick in the sox to get their attention.
Welcome to American Politics, mate. It's never comfortable. But if you can't stand the heat, well, there's always the dining room. And beleive me, historically, politics of this nature have always been heated and violent. Take a look at the history of Civil Rights and the KKK. I knew a man who had to stand sentinel outside his home with a shotgun because of his support of Civil Rights in the 60's. He watched as a car with radio antenas and out of state plates full of men in hats and dark glasses pulled up the street in front of his house, and saw them pull away as he stepped into the light of a streetlamp with his shotgun and nodded at them.
I know a woman who was on the last helicopter to leave the embassy in Vietnam, rescuing children as the US pulled out of that country at the end. She served as a nurse. And yet in the early 80's, she was attacked while coming out of a bar in Newport Rhode Island, by a group of men who knocked her to the ground, kicked her repeatedly and with such force that her spleen was ruptured, several ribs were broken, and had such a severe concussion that to this day she can't speak normally.
This is a country where Rev. Fred Phelps wants to erect a plaque to Matthew Shephard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard) that says "MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."
I think you forgive me if I can feel little sympathy for your discomfort, moral as it is.
Edie
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 10:41 am (UTC)*wince*
Please don't be that.
However, you have made a mistake in your assumptions about the reasons behind this post.
[...]
The poll is flawed. That's a fact. But what's important isn't some silly tampering with the poll, but talking with members of congress.
This I am happy to hear. As no fan of incorrect information in general, I'm none to keen on biasable polls, and inasmuch as that's the case, I retract my remarks. However, inasmuch as there's at least some ambiguity in your post, especially in its closing, I'll stand by them for as much as they are intended to exceed that particular intent, if any.
Now, for "dirty tricks", what do you think of the "poll" in the first place? It's on a website for and by anti-homosexuals. That in and of itself isn't so bad, I suppose, but the intention of sending the results to Congress is another matter, passing off the results of a biased poll as the "will of da peeps" is downright dirty tricks.
I tend to see incompetence rather than malice, in this case. Largely because in the world in general, but especially in web development, I see lots and lots and lots and lots of incompetence. In fact, I'd wager a cent to a dollar that their web developer grabbed an off-the-shelf polling script complete with lack of double-checking and thought no more about it.
However, even presuming malice... (cont.)
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 11:41 am (UTC)For all that's said and done, we are still irrational creatures. And frankly, I'll celebrate any small victory with gladness. Which of course is irrational if you consider the sort of stuff that still exists. I'm glad you now support gay marriage. And if that's irrational, well, it's my nature.
However, inasmuch as there's at least some ambiguity in your post, especially in its closing, I'll stand by them for as much as they are intended to exceed that particular intent, if any.
Fair enough. Yes, I'll own up to intentional ambiguity. And yes, I'll own up to hoping that my readers will indeed vote many times for "homosexual(sic) marriage". Because the more responses I get sent back to *@awench.cotse.net, the more proof I will have in hand to show the lawmakers.
Regarding "malice": See next response, below.
Edie
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 11:52 am (UTC)As you might expect, I'd call that rational gladness. :)
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 12:14 pm (UTC)*snerk*
Jumbo Shrimp.
Millitary Intelligence.
Labor Day.
Rational Gladness.
Edie
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 11:01 am (UTC)Welcome to the war, Cerebrate. All's fair in love and war.
Actually, restraining orders on the former hand, and the Geneva Convention and general reluctance - since the Second World War - to use Mass Civilian Death as a tactic pretty much demonstrates that all *isn't* fair in love and war. You have to go a long way to find anyone willing to espouse the hoof-and-mouth disease solution to Islamic terrorism these days, despite it having been routine practice for centuries, and even then all you'll find are a few nutballs no-one takes seriously.
Sometimes a dirty bomb is your only means of gaining the upper hand.
That's coming awfully close - in fact, that *is* - a restatement of 'the end justifies the means'. What's the point in winning, if to do so, you cheat? But here we could get into a very long philosophical debate about the difference between the good and the right and which one has to supersede the other, so I'll leave that one there.
And with results like this, do you really think the AFA will send their nasty little trick to Congress now?
I don't know the organisation, so I can't really comment. If they have any intellectual or moral integrity, they will - however, given the nature of most lobbying organisations, I am profoundly cynical concerning their possession of either of those qualities.
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 11:47 am (UTC)Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 12:11 pm (UTC)Agreed. If popular opinion were to hold complete sway, we would doubtless still be under the old Jim Crow laws.
This is where a balance of power is important. Let the conservative fundamentalists screem about an abuse of Judicial power. I say that it's the checks and balance that will ensure that civil rights prevail for gays as it did for "negroes" in the 60's.
Then it's a matter of eradicating bias and predjudice from our way of thinking. That's the harder battle. You can't legislate that.
Edie
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 12:35 pm (UTC)As a *legal* fundamentalist myself, it's not the effect I object to, but the means. But if you'd prefer a pragmatic rather that a purist argument, relying on rather stretched interpretations in the courts to hold courtesy of stare decesis, language drift and reinterpretation to grant rights is just asking for someone to set aside your precedent or interpretation n years down the line and leave you back where you started, or even worse off. Actual laws, or even a Constitutional amendment, are rather more definite.
I say that it's the checks and balance that will ensure that civil rights prevail for gays as it did for "negroes" in the 60's.
What actually rather irritates me is that simply enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, *as it's actually written*, should be more than enough for the former case.
Then it's a matter of eradicating bias and predjudice from our way of thinking. That's the harder battle. You can't legislate that.
This is where I believe Dr. King's methodology comes into its own.
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 01:08 pm (UTC)Consider Prohibition.
Now, by the XIVth Amendment, Section 1. , I assume you mean the following:
Oddly enough, Allistair, there were folks who honestly believed that "Negroes" weren't people, that they were sub-human, that they were like children. It was for this reason they weren't allowed to vote, or when they were given a vote, it was under such strict rules that it was almost impossible to be able to vote if you were not "white".
And when you consider the phrase "...without due process of law", well that's carte blanche to pass laws and constitutional amendments to prohibit "Negroes" from voting, or a lesbian couple from obtaining a masrriage license. It's the interpretation of Judges that make for justice.
You're right. by the spirit of the law, it's not right. And that is why the judicial branch is so damn important. Because it's the judges that are the ones who interpret the law.
And thank Liberty that they are "abusing" their power by upholding liberty and justice for all.
Edie
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 01:37 pm (UTC)Short form: I believe firmly in the rule of law (as opposed to "rule of men"), strict interpretation of law, and the necessity of the both of those for civilisation to exist.
nor jusw what " stare decesis is (gimme time, I'll Google it),
Short form: it's a legal principle of common law, saying that courts are bound by the precedents established in the past. Where the problem lies is that we don't hold it as an absolute principle.
I do know this: the making of a law, or the enacting of an amendment is no gaurantee of continued legislative protection of minorities.
This is true. Laws can be repealed, and even amendments, with difficulty, as in the case of Prohibition you cite. On the other hand, precedents can also be overturned (whether this is considered easier or harder than repealing laws pretty much depends on where, when, and how long you look), and interpretations can be tossed aside without a qualm.
Ultimately, though, in a republic or a democracy, ensuring continued protection for minorities (and, let us not forget, the majority) has to be a matter of making and keeping people, in the long term, convinced of the truth and justice of your case.
Which is why I take the positions I do on the positions I do, as it were. As a sidenote, I'd add that getting an explicit law or amendment passed is a much better sign that you've got people convinced of your rightness than getting an activist judge to vote your way. :)
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 01:56 pm (UTC)This is true. However, that's now what the amendment *says* - at which point, it's the responsibility of the law to say, "You may hold whatever beliefs you like, sir, odious though they may be; but the law defines a person as 'a living human' [1], and thus if you act on those beliefs, the law will punish you accordingly."
(Now, I haven't seen US laws except in their compiled form, so I may be influenced by British practice, but ours have a glossary at the top of each bill precisely defining what is meant by any terms that might be ambiguous within the act, just to make sure no-one can argue what precisely defines 'person' or 'partnership', or 'marriage', or 'consideration', and suchlike. I am to a certain extent presuming that US law has some similar definitions buried somewhere.)
And when you consider the phrase "...without due process of law", well that's carte blanche to pass laws and constitutional amendments to prohibit "Negroes" from voting, or a lesbian couple from obtaining a masrriage license.
Um, by my reading of the punctuation there, the "without due process of law" clause applies only to "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property", not the entire amendment. And attempts to write laws to prohibit specific people or classes of people from performing an act should be invalid under the final clause, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law".
(Granted, that argument does not protect the lesbian couple, because you can define marriage as "shall be able to contract thusly with a person of the opposite sex" without violating equal protection, as I understand it. Which is why I favour an explicit legal act changing the definition of what precisely constitutes a marriage appropriately.)
You're right. by the spirit of the law, it's not right. And that is why the judicial branch is so damn important. Because it's the judges that are the ones who interpret the law.
And thank Liberty that they are "abusing" their power by upholding liberty and justice for all.
You see, as a legal fundamentalist, I don't think law needs interpretation; only application. I see the function of judges as applying the law as defined to the individual situations they're presented with, and doing as little interpolation as possible when they're confronted with something it doesn't cover. When they start *extra*polating, creating law, they're arrogating to themselves the job of the legislative branch - which is both chancier ground to lay a decision on, and takes us away from the rule of law, back towards the rule of men.
Which to my mind, for all it might increase liberty in the small - the individual case -, for as long as the individual judge extrapolates in the appropriate direction, takes away from liberty and justice in the large, because it makes the law no longer an objective system applying equally to everyone, and turns it into a subjective system dependent on the beliefs of the individual judge.
[1] And recurse this down appropriately to cover the "human" argument, 'a member of the species H. sapiens', etc.
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 11:57 am (UTC)You're young, Cerebrate, so your naivete can be excused. This isn't about the use of a ready-made polling script that doesn't have doublechecking. This is about a poll, which is supposed to be a representative sampling, as opposed to a lobby a group with a common point of view. Imagine taking a "poll" of opinion on civil rights in an all white club in the deep south in the 1950's. Then sending the results of the poll as representative of the general population.
That's bullshit.
So, we skew the results--as undoubtedly they would have as well--and make it embarrassing to present the information as planned. Then we report it with our own single valid opinions to those folks we elected to represent our interests.
Does the end justify the means in this case? Hell yes. Fucking hell yes. If that makes you uncomfortable, then don't do it. In fact, as a non-US citizen, your opinion isn't worth a hill of beans, politically. Is that fair? Not really.
Now, regarding the Geneva Convention, don't make me laugh. Five words: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. But that's another argument.
Edie
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 12:19 pm (UTC)Ouch.
This isn't about the use of a ready-made polling script that doesn't have doublechecking. This is about a poll, which is supposed to be a representative sampling, as opposed to a lobby a group with a common point of view. Imagine taking a "poll" of opinion on civil rights in an all white club in the deep south in the 1950's. Then sending the results of the poll as representative of the general population.
That's bullshit.
That's also not the flaw you're demonstrating. I addressed the one you were demonstrating. But all right:
a) That's inherent to virtually every poll - for my view on how most polls are conducted, see http://www.healthyskepticism.org/HMIHC/influen/comcon.htm . This is why, in my response, I mentioned *showing the methodology*. I do admit to presuming that most Congressmen, either not being entirely stupid or at least having someone on their staff who isn't, are quite aware of this, and that a poll supplied without an attached methodology is somewhere in the "blind guesswork" region of accuracy.
b) It's a poll conducted *by* a lobbying group. I figure they can correct for that one, too - or not, given that the people they'll be lobbying are the ones likely to agree with them anyway.
In fact, as a non-US citizen, your opinion isn't worth a hill of beans, politically. Is that fair? Not really.
Just exercising my right of free speech, inasmuch as the server is located somewhere that lets me. Inasmuch as someone might read it and agree with me, I figure that's at least one bean. I kind of hope that it's a magic bean.
Now, regarding the Geneva Convention, don't make me laugh. Five words: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. But that's another argument.
It is indeed. But: Have read it, not finding discrepancies yet.
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 12:44 pm (UTC)No offense, Cerebrate, but I hope you grow a thicker hide soon. I dislike wounding allies.
That's also not the flaw you're demonstrating
True. But while it's one that should be alarmingly self evident, the brahmin in power won't see it. Just like them good-old white boys in the club down south won't see that their poll excludes the black help, and the blacks excluded from joining as members. So, we find something that can be used, that will be listened to. It's an "any-weapon-that-comes-to-hand" mentality. As a RPGer, I am sure you can appreciate that.
Have read it [Geneva Convention]
No offense, Cerebrate, but I hope you grow a thicker hide soon. I dislike wounding allies.
<i>That's also not the flaw you're demonstrating </i>
True. But while it's one that should be alarmingly self evident, the brahmin in power won't see it. Just like them good-old white boys in the club down south won't see that their poll excludes the black help, and the blacks excluded from joining as members. So, we find something that can be used, that will be listened to. It's an "any-weapon-that-comes-to-hand" mentality. As a RPGer, I am sure you can appreciate that.
<i>Have read it</i> [Geneva Convention]<i., not finding discrepancies yet.</i>
*snerk*
Which means that there are loopholes large enough so that in the long run, all *is* fair in war.
Edie
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 12:57 pm (UTC)Not really wounded, just circumlocuting around "Perhaps that wasn't quite what I meant."
Which means that there are loopholes large enough so that in the long run, all *is* fair in war.
It's just very carefully written so as to avoid giving anyone a crippling disadvantage, game-theory-wise. After all, one can obtain a considerable advantage by not following it while your opponent is obliged to, and so it's specifically written so that you don't have to play ball with them if they refuse to do so with you. If the Taliban and the Iraqi regime had scrupulously obeyed its provisions, then they'd have benefited from its protection. (Even though the former was not actually a state, that being what the Convention was intended to apply to wars between.)
But, even though Iraq defected from the Convention, it's interesting to note exactly how much crippling delicacy we *are* conducting the war and occupation with. In the Second World War, we carpet-bombed cities flat to break the morale of the enemy; now, we're court-martialling people for non-physically threatening prisoners, something which they're taking great advantage of.
If we really *did* believe all was fair in war, there'd be a lot less of that, and a lot more smoking wasteland.
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 11:46 am (UTC)But, if I may quote Martin Luther King, "There is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."
The things that I oppose - all coercive methods, all deception and theatrics, all legalistic interpretation and linguistic trickery to support the rights of the moment, are not just morally wrong in themselves, I believe, for setting things on a plstform other than reason, persuasion, and free agrement, but also because they're ineffective. What I believe they understood is that it takes a very special and determined kind of irrationalist to oppose simple dignity, reason, and politely standing up for your rights, whereas the other tactics only polarize people against them, especially the ones who may not have thought too much about the issue, but have a good sense of when they're being gulled.
And they make even the most rational minds around (no, I don't mean me) start wondering if they're on the right side, like I said.
This is a country where Rev. Fred Phelps wants to erect a plaque to Matthew Shephard that says "MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."
I definitely class the Rev. Phelps in the class of nutballs whose only currency is other nutballs, not anything even approximating a mainstream view. Certainly the only time I ever hear him referenced is as an example of such, when the media's out looking for outrage stories - and, equally certainly, no-one on this side of sanity can possibly take him seriously. I mean, the guy thinks federal disaster aid is a sign of the Wrath of God (!).
Unfortunately, while I personally wouldn't mind seeing the odious man thoroughly quashed - and while despite believing firmly in property rights would feel a little frisson of pleasure were this monument, should it be erected, disappear one dark night - unless we actually want to come out and endorse silencing speech and thought we disagree with, we're more or less stuck with the odd nutball that will always be with us, alas.
Re: You know...
Date: 2004-01-03 12:07 pm (UTC)And while his methodology is one way, it is not the only way.
In some cases, the ends justifies the means. You don't have to agree with that. There are a myriad of opinions. And in this struggle, there is latitude enough for all sorts of fighting styles.
I woud urge you, Allistair, to find the method you can use with honor and pride, and use it.
Edie