The Arrogant Shall Inherit My Wrath...

Irritation of the afternoon:

A co-worker comes in and asks if I will type a letter up for him. I say yes. He hands me a letter that is for the governor, expressing his desire to serve a second term in an appointed post.

Fine.

I see that the letter is formatted as though written by a grade-schooler. The governor is not properly addressed, nor is his proper, full name used. So, I format the letter in keeping with all of the rules of business correspondence and etiquette. I hand it to him and he proceeds to gleefully point out my "mistakes" - only reading as far as one "mistake" before making me "correct" it, print a new copy and then continue. He was arrogant and completely irritating. I was tempted to explain that I was trying to save him the embarrassment of appearing a total ignoramus to the governor that he was asking to appoint him, but suspected that he would not have taken it well (he was much older than I). Instead I bit my tongue and have been fuming all afternoon...

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."

Just got back from a demonstration here at work. One for a new, improved, 'this will wash your car, satisfy your wife and babysit the kids" software package.
Everybody has the TOTAL answer to corporate systems integration with THEIR product. It's THE BEST!!!

Then someone always asks "How many companies has this been fully and successfully implemented in?"
And it's like watching that first spark hit the Hindenburg....

Xen's Picture of the Week

This week's picture comes from the "between a rock and a hard place" category.
It's a photo taken of a single flower growing out of a sheer rock wall overlooking Moxie Falls in Maine. Xen took this shot in "mid-plummet" during his final attempt at winning the Kennebec River Belly Flop Competition. The EMT's thought it was a very nice shot....

TV or Not TV

So I went to the TV Guide Listings ...
Almost all shows on the air tonight are repeats ... Oh, well.

What I found interesting was this ....
They list "NEW" in red next to every new episode that's on.
They also list everything up to date, unlike the Projo or Cox.
This means they had the President's speech on Iraq listed there....
Only there was no "NEW" indication in red next to it ....

Is that a political statement about what he's going to say?
One can only wonder ... LOL

"The Profiler"

From today's Projo blog:

ACLU sues state police for alleged racial profiling
PROVIDENCE --
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court today challenging what it calls the illegal detention of a van of Guatemalans on Interstate 95 in July.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 11 of the 14 immigrants, argues that "the actions by the state police violated the state's Racial Profiling Prevention Act, as well as the driver and passengers' constitutional rights to be free from discrimination and from unreasonable searches and seizures," according to an announcement released this morning by the ACLU.
The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the constitutional rights of the driver and passengers, and an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.
Today's lawsuit stems from a July 11 traffic stop on Route 95 southbound in Richmond. State trooper Thomas Chabot said he stopped the van, because the driver failed to signal a lane change. When the driver and 13 occupants could not produce immigration documents, Chabot called federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities.
The 14, who now face deportation, allege that Chabot threatened to shoot or kill them if they tried to escape the van on its way to ICE headquarters in Providence.
Chabot was cleared of wrongdoing in September after an internal state police investigation, which found that the trooper "acted professionally and appropriately in this traffic stop," including his seeking involvement by federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.
The head of Rhode Island's ACLU said there's no doubt that the incident was a result of racial profiling. “Since the license and registration papers of the van’s driver were valid and there was never any suggestion of criminal activity, the questioning and detention of the passengers was clearly based on one element: their ethnic appearance," ACLU executive director Steven Brown said. "This is the essence of racial profiling."


Sassette:
But they were here illegally, right? Are people who are not in this country legally really afforded the same protections under the law as those who are? What is irksome about this article is that the short version that is on the "breaking news" section of projo does not mention that the people are now facing deportation - you have to click the link to continue the article in another window to find that out. Also, if all 14 are facing deportation, that must mean that the license and registration paperwork that were "in order" must have been fakes, right? If the driver and the 13 passengers could not produce immigration documents, then the driver must have actually been in possession of fake license and registration paperwork.
So, what is the deal? What did the police do wrong?

Xen:
This is a ludicrous lawsuit as far as I can tell.
How is it racial profiling?

Was there a traffic violation?
How can an illegal immigrant have a valid license? Is an out-of-the-US license valid here? If not, then you are right - it must have been a fake.
If I am in the country illegally, it doesn't matter WHAT I am detained for initially - I am here illegally.
If a bank robber is stopped for speeding and he's got that big canvass bag next to him with the "$" on it and a black robbers mask across his eyes, is it profiling? Bull.

The ACLU is all over this police profiling thing and it's out of control as far as I can see.

Sassette:
The worst part is that no one in the article is disputing, apparently, that the traffic offense occurred. I am very interested to see if the law in RI allows the use of traffic violations as a pretext for police to stop a vehicle. I believe they do, and if so it doesn't matter - the stop was legal. In theory you could offer up the argument that any member of a minority is always profiled any time they are stopped. It is ludicrous.

I honestly am curious if people who have entered this country illegally are entitled to the same protections as legal citizens. Do you know?

This whole thing seems to be half *ssed reported. No mention has been made as to why they are in RI; are they living in the state, or perhaps in CT? Do they have relatives also here illegally?

"The Surge"

Xen:
Below is an excerpt from letter to the editor in the Projo ...
I left off most of it because I am sure you are tired of hearing from people like me, and this person, who believe Bush is a problem.
But I like this person's phrasing as cited below.... To me, it is a VERY true statement about the treatment of the military, the press' approach (as witnessed by their almost universal switch in 'opinion' in the 3 weeks leading up to the election), and the way we have accepted manipulation as a way of life
(The point of the article is that the administration has been hell-bent on increasing the troop level in Iraq from the beginning, and will not be deterred from it. Of course, they DID come up with a new "phrase" to describe it: "a troop surge"

"The administration is once again proceeding from an ill-conceived conclusion and bullying the military into backing them. The press accepts whatever script the White House hands them, and the American people seem to be too conditioned by the consumer culture of endless manipulation we live in to see past even the cheapest sloganeering and knee-jerk appeals to a patriotism and sacrifice."


Sassette:
I totally agree. Where do the administration think these troops are going to come from? You would have to be crazy to enlist right now.
And do you know what infuriates me (and that is NOT hyperbole)? Every single commercial for the armed forces (I am specifically thinking of the current army ad campaign) features middle to lower middle class families, many of them minorities.
Where is the commercial where the ivy leaguer comes home on break and tells mumsy and dads that he/she has decided that there is no greater honor than that of serving one's country? Where is the scene with the CEO and his son where the father tells the son that going out and seeing the world and getting discipline and working hard to accomplish a goal are worthwhile?
These ads SICKEN me. They are targeting a very specific demographic, and assuming no one notices that the entire rest of the country is off the hook. If they were being honest and decent instead of deceptive and elitist they would ask for people TO ENLIST, TO SERVE, TO SACRIFICE because it is a worthy thing to do, and the country needs its men and women to step up and answer the call. But they are not. They are carefully couching these appeals in offers of things that moderate to lower income families want for their kids (and the kids want for themselves) but cannot offer: travel, education, money, etc.
Why is no one calling attention to this?
(FYI: I don't necessarily believe that serving in this particular conflagration and climate is a worthwhile thing to do, but my point is that is what the government should be saying)

Xen:
Oh, so you don't think the sudden opinion piece by the former military chief was planned? The one that said he had rethought his original 'don't ask - don't tell' policy and that now, well, we should embrace (OK, maybe he didn't say 'embrace') gays in the military? And how was it that the exact number of military personnel that were tossed because they were gay was known? And it was 11,000?
ITA with your observation about the ads. Again...we are not supposed to notice this manipulation .. this level of subterfuge.
I actually thought it was a VERY interesting point on The Colbert Report the other night where he called for the reinstatement of the draft ....because ONLY THEN will there be enough impetus for young people to actually get involved and question the leaders of this country PROPERLY again.

Sassette:
I've been saying that for a while. Can you imagine this country being led to war on flimsy evidence if our sons and daughters were forced to participate?

Discussion ~ Race

Sassette:
OK, I wanted run something by you that has been percolating in my brain for a little while now. The zygote of this musing came into being as a result of the Michael Richards situation, and it has grown into a healthy baby preoccupation from there as I have puzzled over it.
The subject of my musing is the idea of language that is exclusively racist. Is it ever possible to use "racist" language without being racist? Is there a difference between someone who is indeed racist who uses the "racist" language available as verbal extensions of his passionate bigoted beliefs; and someone who is simply angry who uses the most hurtful and insulting language available to cut down, to injure, to vent frustration and rage, but who does not hold those racist beliefs? Can such a person exist?
I guess my question is this: Is it the beliefs a person holds or the language a person uses that determines racism. And if it is the language, does this apply to other forms of bigotry (misogyny, homophobia, ethnic and religious, etc.)?
I have been mulling over why the media and the public immediately discarded the possibility that Michael Richards got very angry with someone (who was black) and used the most convenient and effective language available to hurt the person who had upset him. I am not saying that either way is an "OK" thing to do, but it was never really even considered. He was immediately branded a racist - which he may be. But, would the outburst have been taken as seriously if it had been equally insensitive words aimed at a different target? A woman? A Muslim? A Mexican? A gay person? Would some of these be considered less egregious breaches of the social contract (assuming that the language used was as equally offensive to each group as it was to the black audience member) than others? And if so why? And would he still be considered bigoted and become a social pariah as a result, or would it be chalked up to a loss of temper?
Just wondering what you think. It amazes me the ridiculous things that will take up residence in my brain - often to the detriment of more pressing matters...

Xen:
I understand your 'theory'. My example in the purest sense would be one who didn't know that the language used WAS racist. (When I was a wee lad, I told my sister to "screw" and my father lost his sh** on me because if meant f*** ..... but I only knew it in the way that meant "leave, get out of here). So in the purest example, I believe that a person who is ignorance of what they are saying can utter racist language without being a racist.
The thing of it is: We have to define purely what is a racist.... and by that I mean at what level is something merely "crude" and when is it an indicator of racism - even at the tiniest level. And - as imperfect beings, there is a level of prejudice in everything we do. What level do we tolerate and exclude? If I become angry ... ultimately, explosively angry ... and use the worst swear words ever, or say the most hurtful (but clean) things to someone, then it is considered rude, crude and not permissible ... but acceptable. If someone gets violent, well, we have written laws that say you must curb your behavior or you will be punished and labeled a criminal. If I cannot restrain myself, that is what happens.
And likewise, a person who knows that, say, the "N" word is an indicator of racism (use any example you like) ... but is so mad that they use it ...that they can't restrain themselves ... well, the will suffer those consequences for saying it.
Are they a racist? Well, because those words are associated with racism ... expressions of those people who ARE racist, and you aren't able to restrain yourself - then you must think at some level that it's acceptable to use them.
My mind is trained by either upbringing or self control and learning not to use the certain horrible words in front of people. If I let loose, then I am wrong. I will be ostracized accordingly. There are some people, for example, who will NEVER EVER SAY THE "C" word. EVER. If you come across someone who does, you think of them as being a certain type of person. Suppose someone just snaps and says it, but doesn't usually? It means it's in their head - and it has a meaning ... otherwise they wouldn't be able to quickly come up with it when emotions take over.
Michael Richards knows what those words mean. He was trying to hurt those hecklers.. He saw they were black. He knows that that is a hurtful set of words that are as offensive as any ... Would he have used those same words against white hecklers? No. So his brain made a conscious, differentiating decision. That, I think, points to a level of racism.
By the way, it might be completely ingrained. It might be WAY under the surface. But it's there. That's the problem.
I might be rambling... but this is a very interesting subject, as you have presented it.

Xen Again:
But what about "intent" ?
What about the underlying base belief that ALL people of a certain race (creed, nationality, color, etc) behave a certain way, or should be treated a certain way .... or are inferior, or superior? Isn't THAT racism?
See? That's now different from my earlier rambling argument....

Sassette:
That was more along the lines of my question. If the person's intent is to hurt by using the most hurtful language available, is that person a racist if the most hurtful language available (most hurtful towards the person you want to hurt) is considered racist?
When you mentioned that MR would not have used the same language if the heckler had not been black - I agree. He would have grabbed the most hurtful language available for that person (weight comments for a fat person, etc.). Does it make him a racist that he employed hurtful words that are considered racist? Or is he a racist because only a racist would employ such words?

Xen:
MY HEAD HURTS NOW !!

Sassette:
Sorry. I don't know where this came from. I guess I can trace it back to an old George Carlin routine about how words are neither good nor bad, in and of themselves...

Xen:
Oh, no .. I find it VERY interesting.
These are the discussions that should be going on. Otherwise nothing changes for generations on end.