The Golden Rule

[ehowton]

Compassion isn't a political agenda item. Peace and conservationism aren't Leftist ideas, yet modern-day pundits decry it as a Socialist movement - something which threatens to tear the fabric of Democracy from our fingertips. Mention "giving" or "helping" or "recycling" and young Conservatives immediately close their minds to the liberal propaganda which is sure to follow, when in fact its these very ideas - peace, love, giving - that all people, regardless of political alignment, strive for and promote every single day. Conservatives tend to just not want it legislated. That's different than not giving.

Compassion is not a political weapon to be wielded. Its not to be denied, nor assigned to any group of people. Its a universal label, to be applied freely by all. Where then lies the stigma?

The problem isn't necessarily the Right and Left Wing talk show hosts equally stewing feverishly in their spun tales - for anyone with any level of maturity will soon come to realize neither camp is ever completely honest. In fact the very basis of that hosts existence, no matter which side they're on, is to accuse the other side of doing it wrong. My conservative friends don't listen to Olbermann, and my liberal friends don't listen to Rush. Unless its to get inflamed about something - because its the perfect environment for that; An emotional powderkeg. They don't listen to their respective personalities out of anything more than confirmation. Justification for their thoughts and actions.

No, the problem (as always) is people. People who are too busy lining up to be labeled to listen to what's being said. I am by no means advocating "vote for the person instead of the party" rather, I'm asking everyone to just take a step back from politics for a moment and consider the harm its doing to our opinions of one another by way of these labels, and the part you're playing through the propagation of this myth - the myth that your politics or religions are making this world a better place.

If you really wanted to make the world a better place, you'd lay down your political party and your religion and you would follow the ethic of reciprocity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I don't follow this advice more than when I'm behind the wheel of my car. I treat everyone how I wish I were treated, and my short commute is filled with the happy thoughts of a nation of drivers who aren't rude, careless, ignorant, angry, or stupid. Hands down its one of the more difficult things I do during the course of my day because it hurts my soul that most people simply don't care.

These same people, they've labeled themselves and call themselves by any number of names: Republican, Christian, Democrat, atheist, liberal, conservative...and they all pride themselves on being more open-minded than those who disagree with them. How wonderfully flawed.

Truly living by treating others as you yourself would like to be treated would culminate in a whole host of other little problems given our diverse nature, but it would be a damn fine start to a better world.

All of them, better worlds.

Comments

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

However, you can't be so naive as to believe an overzealous officer wouldn't pull someone over simply in order to check citizenship.
The Officer has to have probable cause before he can pull someone over. If the local police department has a problem with employing racists, that's a problem for that department to deal with, not a scapegoat for declaring a law un-Constitutional.

Furthermore, since all people in the State of Arizona would have to show ID, I don't see how a Fourteenth Amendment argument can be made–the law treats everyone equally.

If you want to make the claim that statically those of Latin American decent will be targeted more frequently and therefore the law is unfair, then you must also be willing to say that those who drive are more likely to be asked to show their ID which is also "unfair" because those who don't drive don't have to show their IDs as often, ergo, driver's licenses should be illegal for the same reason you attack SB 1070.

Those who don't like the law can move to one of forty-nine other States, not including territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, Midway, Rota Island, etc. If you personally don't like the law, you don't have to conduct business with anyone or any entity that resides in or is incorporated in the State of Arizona. And for those illegals who feel like they are being illegally profiled, they can enter the country via California where there are entire cities set up to be a safe haven for illegals.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

The Officer has to have probable cause before he can pull someone over.

Tomas, please. No one, not even you, is that naive. While your statement is factual, it is not practical, and only the most foolish among us believe it. This goes to show exactly *why* I disagree with the law despite it being "constitutional." This is not superfluous! (http://ehowton.livejournal.com/350291.html?thread=8602963#t8602963) Its illegal, and it happens, whether its supposed to or not.

The last time it happened to me I asked my lawyer why. You know what he said? "Profiling." So don't you dare tell me its okay because the Officer has to have probable cause. And you accuse me of not living in the real world?

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

If you're worried about racists officers, you're barking up the wrong tree. Racists don't exert racism simply because the law allows them to (which SB 1070 does not). What is preventing this officer sans-1070 from racially profiling? Even better, how does passing a law prohibiting racial profiling stop this officer from performing his duties from within the context of his racism?

The fact of the matter is that the law is not racist nor does it promote racism. What the law would have done is assert Arizona responsibility to secure its sovereign land against foreign invaders, which, in a sense, the State always had the power to do. SB 1070 served two purposes: it redundantly defined what was and wasn't required of law enforcement and, more importantly, it served as a Nullification law and hence a check on the Federal government.

When dealing with law, you have to take the literal meaning of the text, not attempt to stretch the language to suit your purposes.

This is exactly what Madison meant when he wrote the following in Federalist 53:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

You've completely lost me, though I can appreciate the Madison quote.

It really seems as if you're on some sort of personal vendetta where race is concerned - I was profiled because of my long hair, and illegally pulled over.

I just don't think you should put a lot of emphasis on what cops *should* do versus what actually transpires, especially in an argument of this magnitude as it works in favor for my argument - that it raises the potential for misconduct.

[schpydurx.livejournal.com]

You've completely lost me
I know that Constitutional Law can be tricky, but I would expect someone with your intelligence to be able to keep up.

It really seems as if you're on some sort of personal vendetta where race is concerned
I have no such thing. If anyone has a vendetta, it is you granting rights of American Citizens to non-US Citizens.

I just don't think you should put a lot of emphasis on what cops *should* do versus what actually transpires,
Here is where we fundamentally disagree. I think that emphasis should be put on what a officer of the law should do vs. what does happen. Law is Codified for a reason: to have a list of things that should and shouldn't transpire and the reward and punishment for following this code. If an officer engages in discrimination, that can then be sued by the person discriminated against.

This is the basis of Anglo-Saxon law: to judicate offenses between people over the breach of rights, not for the State to be all-powerful and turn its citizens into criminals. Furthermore, we have a Democratic-Republic. We elect representatives to make our laws but we also have ballot referendums and due process by which new laws are judged. Our system is not one of mob rule, it is the rule of law.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

I know that Constitutional Law can be tricky, but I would expect someone with your intelligence to be able to keep up.
And I would expect someone with your intelligence to understand it wasn't the Constitutional Law I was having trouble with, rather your argument.

If anyone has a vendetta, it is you granting rights of American Citizens to non-US Citizens.
I have no such desire whatsoever, but what a great segue into the problems inherent in your arguments: false assumptions. Your arguments would be more effective if they covered the actual points of contention. Someday, I'd like to not have to remind you that just because I disagree with you, does not make me a supporter of the opposition. Yet despite how many times I've reminded you of that, somehow I'm still amazed at your ability to completely short-circuit comprehension of that idea. It detracts from your ability to effectively communicate when you do that. I don't think anyone here, reading this, is ignorant enough to think I want to grant citizenship status to non-US citizens based on my caution of the Arizona Immigration Law, and if that's what you honestly believe, you have no part in this discussion.

Our system is not one of mob rule, it is the rule of law.
Yes! And that is why we must be very, very careful as to what we put into law.