Saturday, March 25, 2006

Not Against the Pro-Illegal Immigration Rally

I’m not angry. Really. I’m not. Not angry. At all. Now, why don’t you believe me? Because I’m not angry. It’s not anger.

And I’m not racist. Really. I’m not. Not racist. At all. Now, why don’t you believe me? Because I’m not racist. It’s not racism.

Tonight, tens of thousands of, um, people are crowded about the Los Angeles City Hall, protesting pending legislation in Congress. The law would criminalize those who assist the, um, people who enter this country unlawfully. There are, apparently, at least some tens of thousands of, um, people who believe that it should be legal to assist law-breakers, and that it should be legal to enter this country illegally. And these ... people are protesting.

It is the right of every citizen of the United States to petition the government for redress of grievances. Surely a protest is a form of petition. And even if some number, large or not, of these protestors are not citizens of the country they presently occupy, it is still entirely fitting that the free expression of opinion be allowed. That they hoot, and chant, and shout and disport themselves, and wave the flags of alien nations, and carry banners and signs that call racist those who would have the laws, of the country they currently occupy, obeyed – well, offensive speech (for so this would be categorized) is lawful. That they don't have the ... I won't say intelligence ... I won't say honesty ... that they don't have the clarity of expression to call it what it is - illegal immigration, well, perhaps there is a political purpose, in this inaccuracy. And political purpose, lawfully pursued, is the right of every citizen of the United States - and of our guests.

That they come to this country and are free to express their opinions, brings honor to us. We are glorified, when compared to, say, the countries from which they are fled - countries of economic oppression and rampant corruption - countries of poverty and backwardness - countries they don’t want to be in, as proven by their presence here. They have fled like Lot from Sodom, from the Third World to the First, and are comfortable enough here to loudly voice their political opinions, about what they think our laws should be. They have transformed themselves, with the crossing of a border, from peasants into participants in the greatest political enterprise ever undertaken by mankind.

All who cross our borders and lawfully petition for the right, may be citizens of this land. We are the envy of the world, and even our enemies would join us if they dared. We are not a race, not an ethnicity, not the children of some necessary heritage. We do not call ourselves, say, la raza - "the race" - imagine people who call themselves "the race" calling others "racist" ... but there is no need to imagine it. We, however, are not a race, and to say otherwise would diminish us. Our heritage is the birthright of everyone who would cherish liberty as we do - that balance of rights and duties. We come from every habitable continent, and we join together to build something that endures, to defend something that is worthy, and to make and enforce laws that are just and necessary. How beautiful and fine. How blessed we are, and how noble, to share our blessings. God has smiled on our shores, and we must be thankful for it.

Ingratitude is an ugly thing. Flouting our law is an ugly thing. Calling decent people racists is an ugly thing. How shameful, to call what is lovely by an ugly name. But not every people is a great people, and no race is great. Perhaps, if they stay long enough, they too will, each of them, individually, take on some of our greatness. Perhaps they will learn gratitude. Perhaps they will thank God for their blessings, rather than curse their hosts with curses.

So, no. I am not angry. I am proud. They make themselves small, by calling us names – but we are great enough to bear the insult. They reveal themselves to be hypocrites, by entering unlawfully but demanding the law’s full protection – but we begrudge the freedom of no man, and understand their burning ambition. They show themselves to be ingrates, by spitting on our laws and then exploiting our tolerance. But we are not who we are, that we might receive gratitude.

All who obey our laws are welcome. Come, and be a blessing to us, as we are to you. But obey our laws.



Éireann said...

Hey, J...I've never been here before, but Miroslav sent me over, thinking I might be interested in your most recent post. He also asked for a response from me, and so here that is, as well.

First, your writing style really *is* lovely, and I certainly understand where you're coming from...I'd like to just point out a few things that you might take into consideration, if I might...agree or disagree.

First, I would argue that most of those people who have crossed into our country *illegally* will willingly tell you that they did so only because they were not able to do it *legally*. Yes, we have laws, and it is important for people to obey those laws, but not every person who has crossed illegally is a criminal in the way we normally think of criminals. If someone must commit a crime to feed your children, perhaps the law that makes that action a crime should be rethought. I think of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables here, for example. To be thrown into the Bastille for stealing a loaf of bread seems a bit harsh. Yes, what these people have done is a crime in the most objective sense. I do not disagree with you. Neither do most of these people. We simply believe that the particular legislation Congress is moving to pass: making that crime an aggravated felony, is perhaps looking at the issue from the wrong way round.

One of the groups that is being most harshly punished by the illegality of crossing the border is the children who are brought here. I will not say against their will because what child would choose to be seperated from their parents? When you are young you do not think "going to live in a different place makes me a criminal. It will make it impossible for me to get an education, to excel in life, to do better than my parents." You go because your parents go. And your parents go so that they can feed you, feed themselves.

Yes, the Mexican government is hopelessly corrupt, and we are the only country like our own that borders an impovrished third world country like Mexico. We are a special case, unlike any other in the world. I would urge you to read a book called "The Open Veins of Latin America," however, which might give you some idea as to *why* the Mexican country cannot support its own people. Why most Latin American countries cannot support their own people. Is it because they lack for resources? No. Is it because those resources overwhelmingly are stolen and go to people whose actions seem far more criminal than border-crossers? Read the book.

Also, an overwhelming number of these people come to this country because they think it will make their lives better, but like all of our ancestors it is not because they want to LEAVE their home country. The friends that I have whose families come from Mexico are all desperate to return. They wish they COULD go back. They love it there. They leave family, friends, sometimes even children, spouses, grandchildren, to come here. They cross deserts and die of heatstroke. They drown in rivers. They are shot in the backs as they run back to their native country. They are desperate. We should wonder *why* they are so desperate.

This legislation that Frist has proposed would also make federal criminals out of anyone who would offer "charity" to an illegal. Think about that for a moment while you ponder why they are protesting. Why I am protesting. There are Church groups that leave jugs of water in the desert to prevent those who come from dying of dehydration. Those people would be federal criminals.

Didn't Jesus say that whosoever gave a glass of water to even the least of these, it would be as if they were giving it to Him?

Yes, some of the signs are awful. Yes, not everyone who turns against these people is a racist. Yes, we have laws that must be followed. But when the laws make criminals out of innocents, out of children, out of the hungry and helpless... maybe we should rethink those laws.

Additionally, to dispell some commonly held misconceptions... Illegals do overwhelmingly pay taxes. They do pay into social security (10% of the annual payments in come from illegals who cannot get money back out. This is counted in the budget. SS admits to it), they pay into medicare. Not only those who use fake SSNs to get work, but nearly everyone who works in the U.S. - Money is taken out of their checks just like it is out of yours, they pay into federal and state taxes. As well as property and sales taxes, rent, etc. In North Carolina, where I go to school, illegal immigrants put over 9 billion dollars into the state economy while taking out just over 100$ per immigrant per year in social security. This is a nationwide phenomenon. These people pay taxes just like you, only they have no legal recourse when they are treated badly by employers, when they are blackmailed, when their landlords leave them in wretched living conditions. Being illegal leaves no one with recourse. The least we can allow them is to speak up against a law that would make criminals out of us all. And felons of them. I have documentation on these numbers if you'd like, and am willing to send them on to you if you would like to read a bit further into this topic.

I apologize if this did not cover all of the issues brought up in your post. Immigration, especially illegal immigration, is a huge topic - vastly unstudied in our universities because of its interdisciplinary qualities. It is something we certainly need to begin debating on a larger scale. I only hope that while we do that, we try as best we can to educate ourselves on the facts- more than the emotions.

Thanks for your time,

Éireann said...

Just over 100$ in social benefits, it should read. Meaning health care, and etc. paid by the state.

Also, to go back to the beginning, the number of openings for workers/immigrants to come into this country is very, very small. Visas are few and far between and people must be very well connected to get one. Student visas are offered to a very, very small amount of people in all countries, and the process is a long and arduous one to get through - this is why so many people cross without papers, because it is nearly impossible to ge them. Just for clarifications sake. :)

Miroslav said...

"All who obey our laws are welcome. Come, and be a blessing to us, as we are to you. But obey our laws."

Love the writing as usual J. I stand with you 100% on the last statement.

Éireann said...

Miroslav, do you think it's always possible to obey the laws of a country?

What about, for example, Afghanistan, where someone recently narrowly (and only for now) escaped a death sentence for converting to Christianity... which is against federal law?

Are all government laws to be obeyed, or only certain of them?

Jack H said...

Ah, greetings then, A, and welcome to my wonderful fairyland of delight!

No, I’m sorry. Wrong tone to take, entirely.


Greetings, A. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to share your ideas. This really is a tough issue … which, honestly, is why I’ve avoided it so far. It has an almost-only-theoretical, or statistical, importance to anyone not directly affected by it, and what with the level of emotion likely to be encountered, it isn’t worth the hassle, to debate. In fact, it is only the emotional element that moved me to write on it at all. So, despite the seeming-simplicity of my little effort, it really is rather complex. I don’t address the impact of any sort of immigration. I don’t discuss in any detail their yearning to get ahead. I have one point, which is too obvious to need to repeat. You bring in quite a few of the other issues.

What is the impact of mass and unregulated immigration - *illegal* immigration? I don’t know. I know the schools are crowded – I was a teacher for many years in East LA. I know the emergency rooms are closing. But these problems are as much a matter of poor planning from local government, as a failure of national government to secure the borders. I know the ethnic diversity of my region is shifting markedly toward a Spanish-speaking background, but when has that not been the case? – regardless of language. In the part of the northern Midwest that my people settled a hundred years ago, there were German towns and Polish towns and Norwegian towns. America is great enough to accommodate, and assimilate, our new citizens. Both of my sisters-in-law are of Spanish-speaking backgrounds – my nephews and niece are half Guatemalan. Point being, the issue is in no way about race, color, language. Not even about culture – for the most part, Mexicans (for this is the majority) are a diligent and industrious people, as individuals (pardon the stereotype – I feel justified in making it). Lousy government, corrupt system – but they don’t bring that here.

I would abandon, A, the *emphases* on “illegal”. It *is* illegal, and integrity would require admitting that. Whether or not it should be is a matter of debate, but *this* is a device incongruent with reality.

That they crossed illegally “only because they were not able to do it *legally*” - um, yeah. And people steal only because they don’t pay for it. Most crimes are committed from a sense of perceived necessity. It’s more important to get your own way than to honor the law. Very understandable. Not an excuse. Not a mitigating circumstance. The Bible has it, somewhere, that it is understandable that a man should steal bread. Of course. Is this the same? Debatable. But they certainly profit from the crime. That there is risk involved is a commonality with all crime. I use the term “crime” – but as you say, “criminal” doesn’t really apply. We agree. But your Bastille example is not entirely apt. There is no punishment, for this crime. If the argument is made, and demonstrated, that positive harm is done by mass illegal immigration, then punishment would be appropriate. But this is a bread-stealing crime, perhaps, and mercy is appropriate.

I believe the pending legislation would make a felon not of the illegal immigrants, but of those who abet them. As far as I’m concerned, hang ‘em high. Maybe the drug-addict shouldn’t be in jail, but the dealer should receive daily beatings. Grrr.

“We simply believe that the particular legislation Congress is moving to pass: making that crime an aggravated felony, is perhaps looking at the issue from the wrong way round.” Well. This is not an issue I have a huge interest in. So perhaps there is some multitude of legislation, pending. But the specific legislation I know of is the “Secure America’s Borders Act (SABA),” introduced by Bill Frist. The language of this bill contains nothing whatsoever about making illegal immigrants into felons. Nothing at all. Whatsoever. Period. I think you’ve been getting your info from some unreliable sources. Items specific to your concern, of criminality, would include a minimum five-year incarceration of the coyotes or smugglers. Not the smugglees. It increases the penalty for document fraud. Document fraud, you will agree, is a serious crime – regardless of any perception of necessity, to facility one’s illegal stay. It undermines a great deal of the full faith and credit we might feel in the adminsistration of our government. Identity and documents are a foundation of the orderly running of our civilization. I trust we agree. In any case, it seems likely that it is the supplier of the fraudulent documents who is targetted. This info may be found from Frist himself, author of the bill, here:

Point being, we do need to get our facts straight. No mention of agrivated felonies.

Your discussion re the children in heart-felt, but irrelevant. Parents are responsible for their children, and fault for the harm that comes to a child from the unlawful conduct of the parent is easy to attribute. This may sound cold, but I like to live, as much as I can, in the real world. Just as an aside, I have been heavily involved, in my life, in foster care, and I trust that this gives me some credibility here. I’ve seen the harm scummy parents do to children. I’ve cleaned up the mess, as best I could. But I’ve never heard anyone say the child is a criminal because of what the parent has done. I think your reasoning is unsound, or your point unclear.

When I was an undergraduate, many years ago, one of my favorite instructors was a Marxist professor of Latin American Studies. I took many – all – of his classes. I think I still remember something about Latin America. Point being, I don’t suppose Mexican corruption, and its reasons, and its effect, has changed much. Mexicans somehow imagine their Revolution was a good thing. Maybe they need another one. In any case, if I have white trash for neighbors, their kids are still not allowed to play in my yard. Unless I invite them. We have not invited illegals in. They are not welcome.

“We should wonder *why* they are so desperate.” No need to wonder why. We all know all sides of the issue. Of course they love their homes. The beaten child loves the father who beats it. Home is home, no matter how abusive. America is not paradise, despite my panegyric. There is no paradise. But in the real world, what we have here is a pretty good thing. Of course they want to make some money here and return home. Some people here have a problem with that – exporting money. I don’t. If they earn their money, they can spend it as they please – support their home village. You’d do it, and so would I. Is it bad for our economy? I don’t know. But they’d do the same, whether they were here legally or illegally. Job one is to care for you family. Honorable.

Your characterizing of Frist's proposal is not objective. I read no hint of any criminalizing of Good Samaritans. The language had to do with “smugglers.” Please, A – rationality. Demonizing the side you disagree with is unworthy. You need to broaden your sources of information. Not every voice that whispers, or shouts, in your ear is the voice of truth. Maybe I’m wrong. Provide authoritative documentation, as I have done, and I will change my position.

Your discussion of Jesus is touching, but not relevant, given facts in evidence. Of course we give water to the thirsty. Laws that “make criminals out of innocents, out of children, out of the hungry and helpless... maybe we should rethink those laws.” Hmm. What law would that be? I know of none. Again, please provide evidence. I’m serious. Because I would not tolerate such injustice, any more than you would. I believe, though, that you are a dupe, lied to and manipulated by cynical and corrupt forces. I can be wrong, and will know it, if you prove it.

That you join yourself with the mob – for so I see it – that can’t even get the reason they’re there straight … this diminishes you. Love truth enough to recognize it. We know it by evidence, not by passionate speech-making and scurrilous accusations.

Your info as to taxes and the like is interesting, but, again, that has never been my own concern. That we might cynically prosper by taking taxes from their earnings is no inducement, no enticement, to me. What you earn, is yours, and I do not want it. Again, it’s a trade off. Schools are crowded. But Social Security is helped. The math is too complex for my poor brain. I stick with the basics. Obey laws that do not violate your conscience (which addresses your query to M - I go into this in my post, Piety: ).

I find arguments that point out economic benefit from questionable behaviors to be unconvincing. Prostitution puts billions into the economy of Nevada. Liquor, gambling – take your pick. Is the analogy valid? Take your pick. But the point is that regardless of any benefit we might receive from law-breaking, let's obey and enforce all just, reasonable and necessary laws. Or change them. But hypocrisy and double-standards hardly recommend themselves to a life of integrity. Agreed?

You close with an offer of numerical facts and an appeal to rationality. We are on the same page, then. As I’ve said, the numbers aren’t all that important to me. As for emotion – well, the conceit of my little piece was that I am *not* angry. I trust my tone, here, as clarified that. Of course there’s going to be emotion. Part of being human. But self-control, also. And fact-checking.

If you were protesting for a cause I considered just, I’d join you. But these folks are line-jumpers. They thrust themselves forward for reasons of personal ambition. Rather than stay and strive to change their own corrupt land, they have fled to this refuge. Understandable, but not, I think, honorable. Do they bring some positive good? Of course. They are, mostly, here to work. Do they take jobs nobody else wants? Debatable. But they certainly take them for a lower wage. Maybe that’s good, and maybe not. I don’t know. As individuals, they are the same as me or you. As a social force, they have whatever economic impact they have, good and bad. It’s all a trade-off. But what is not a trade-off is that they have shown a profound disrespect for laws of which they are not ignorant. Disrespect of our law. If I did the same, in Mexico, I’d be in jail, for years. That disparity of justice is in itself hateful – but there it is. That they have the brazenness, the shamelessness, the ill-grace and ingratitude, to attack with racist slurs, to misrepresent their political counterparts, to, frankly, lie ("agrivated felony") about the supposed cause of their protests – this is such a low thing.

I don’t suppose there’s much more I can say, without being insulting. I attempt to live a compassionate and honorable life. To be vilified because of a reasonable and carefully thought-out opinion, held in good faith ... it is contemptible. But, as I’ve said, I’m not angry. Really. I’m not. It’s not anger.



Éireann said...

I don't recall vilifying you. I don't recall accusing you of anything, other than being one-sided, and perhaps, occasionally a bad speller. :)

The fact that you say you care little for numbers, or for those things upon which my argument fully rests, implies to me a lack of ability to discuss this topic rationally or logically. I suppose one may pick and choose what one cares about, but to dismiss as unimportant another's opinions on something one has thought out, no matter how thoroughly, is absolutely unacceptable when entering the fray of debate over any topic...

I disagree with you and you call me ill-informed, while dismissing all valid points I make as being outside the sphere of your concern. I think this is why I avoid blogs like this.

Read the text of the Frist bill. You seem to be set on proving the saying "the singular of data is anecdote," through your assertions that you know of which you speak due to your having Guatemalan family members, having taken courses from a Marxist professor...being involved in foster care. You throw stones at a phantom that does not exist- your arguments are straw men, easily vilified, easily dismissed. I am saddened at your lack of understanding, as well as the ease with which you dismiss the informing of ones beliefs by ones faith (Jesus is not relevent to this discussion of law...).

Thanks for the time you spent in responding to my comments. I admired your intensity of thought on the subject at first, but am now disgusted by the dismissive tone you take in your response. I am sure you are glad to know I will not be back.

Jack H said...

Well. I see there's been a misunderstanding. Several. Big ones. Hmm. So, no, no, no, you certainly did not vilify me. Your tone was cordial and gracious, and entirely appropriate. You relied on evidence and practiced generally sound logic. You impressed me as a sensible, balanced person. I respect what you have said.

When I referred to those who "demonize" their opposition, you most assuredly were not meant. Rather, I meant who represent the other side as wanting people to die in the desert – that would be, we will agree, a frankly insane position. Reading back, I can see how my syntax could be misunderstood as applying to you. Not at all. Communication is such a difficult thing, we must be tolerant of the limitations we share.

I make no apology for my disinterest in numbers – not, however, because of some “lack of ability to discuss this topic rationally or logically.” I think I was clear, here, and the responsibility for misunderstanding lies with you, I believe. It’s not that I don’t care about facts – I think that should be clear. It’s that I don’t care about the economic impact of the numbers, whatever they are. The issue is one of law and ethics, with me, not cynical manipulations of numbers, to win or make a point. If every statistic demonstrated the salubrious effect of illegal immigration on the US economy, I would not change my position, that they have broken a reasonable law for selfish purpose – disregarded the regulated process of immigration – dishonored those who do honor our society by applying for legal entry. Where, in this reasoning, is there an appeal to economic numbers? That was my point. I don’t think it demonstrates any lack of rationality.

Again, of course we pick and choose what we care about. No apology there, either. But nowhere have you heard me dismiss your opinions as unimportant. Some of your points are unimportant to me, as I’ve explained, but there is no insult, in my honesty in this regard. Should I lie? Should I pretend to be moved when I’m not? Not my style. Your point re what is “absolutely unacceptable” may be heart-felt, but in the real world, we have the right to not care about someone else’s arguments, and there is no insult in it. I don’t care about the economic impact of illegal immigration. You will find no slight against you, in this.

Did I call you ill-informed? I don’t see how I could have, since that is not my opinion. You seem informed, to me. If you’re referring to “You need to broaden your sources of information” – the specific intent there (in that frankly unclear paragraph … sorry) is in reference to your claim of criminalizing of Good Samaritans – charities that leave water in the desert. I’m sure that’s a rumor going around. Is it true? Not if Frist’s bill is the object. That’s what I mean. You can’t … I mean, *one* can’t listen only to one’s own side. Go to the source. But that’s the kind of misunderstanding that raises blood pressure, and I apologize for my lack of clarity.

Your second-to-last paragraph is a bit unpleasant, frankly, and I don’t quite know how to deal with it here. I think you feel you’ve been insulted, and are reacting to that. I think I’ll overlook it. But if you feel up to pointing out some specifics – what straw-man, what stones, I will clarify or apologize for any fault. You have clearly misunderstood any meaning I could have had, with regard to Jesus and faith informing one’s views. But you say you won’t be back, so chances are I won’t be benefiting from your clarification. I will point out that as things stand, it has not been a satisfactory exchange. I don't like unfinished business, or the feeling of not only being misunderstood, but somethings worse. It feels like I've wasted my time. But if you do drop by, you’re welcome, of course, and perhaps you’ll cite some specific article in Frist’s bill, that demonstrates your point.



Miroslav said...


Somewhere in here I think I was addressed. I shall respond and say that No, not all laws can (or should be) complied with.

Of course, there is much more to the question (and my answer) than that. The two-second version: Live by the law unless it violates your conscience and moral compass ... at which time you make a judgement call as to how you will act in the immediate situation (sometimes you must submit to the law, sometimes you must violate it)... and then you act to change the law that caused the violation.

Example: Suppose an illegal Mexican guy comes to me broke and hungry. I feed him. I care for him. I love him. And then I send him on his way and advise him that he needs to get right with the law or go back to his country. Then, if I was so compelled, I would try to affect change in the law that kept him from becoming a citizen. ...

Uninspired writing here. Sorry to ruin this (until now) passionately debated topic.

Work is for jerks,

Miroslav said...

ok damnit, I'm back.

one thought that does strike me after reading all of this ...
Its about the misplaced angst. Yes, be mad. Rally the people. Go demonstrate. Revolutionize. ... Revolutionize MEXICO.

Its not the U.S. that is the problem in all of this. We have our crap together. It is here that people are FREE to demonstrate and make a difference. It is here that there is fair economic opportunity and (relatively) minimal corruption. That is why they come is it not?

I don't like the sense of entitlement that is held on to by protesting illegals. Its just so backwards. They are NOT entitled to citizenship. My grandparents came here LEGALLY. My grandfather risked his life to defend this, his new country. He did not complain about it.

And with that said, I would like to see our system developed to allow more immigrants. Really. I like them.

Once again, I'm sorry for the crappy quality of this entry. I'm tired.

ok. that is all.

Jack H said...

Oh, M - how crappy, your entries. It's only by dint of my powerful self-control that I haven't deleted this pollution.

No, just kidding. I'm such a comedian. I'm in a lighter mood, it seems, having vented myself - evacuated my intellectual colon, so to speak, in "Just As I Thought." I feel so ... so "light!* Is this what it's like to be ... happy?



Jack H said...

Well, I gave it some thought - I am, after all, a brooding dane - and here's the reason what A did bothered me. She took the three personal things I said about myself, she lumped them together, and she used them against me in a personal way. At best, it was a rhetorical trick to score points. At worst, it was a betrayal of the implied trust, and trustworthiness, expected between serious corresponants. In every case, it was an unworthy thing to do. I am owed an apology, which it seems there is no chance of receiving. What ever shall I do? Well, for one thing, I'm going to be a racist from now on. The world will pay, for what she did to me!

But seriously, it isn't only the forms of civility that we need to guard. There is a spirit, a willingness to go out of our way, to understand the point the other person is trying to make. Of course we will fail, sometimes. But honestly, in the over-all context of my first comment to A, is it reasonable to take those things that were misunderstood, and give them the ugliest interpretation? Were some of my sentence inept? Of course - the internet is the wild west of communication, and however careful we may be, these are, essensially, first drafts. Given this, to slam the door ... after the manifest effort I'd invested (I do write quickly, but that's no mitigation) ... on further communication seems, well, petty and rude and cowardly. So, note to future correspondants: I'm a nice guy. I'm cordial and courteous, and I get insulting only way down the line. Dig?


Miroslav said...

You are venturing ever so close to asking for my opinion on your manner of discourse. :) Should you want me to speak openly, feel free to ask me (via email even if you'd like ... can be found on my blog under my bio thing.)

Miroslav said...

Following the detour signs here... I have to say that yes, there have been several times that I've been surprised to find a strange sort of a hint of humor and light-heartedness in your entries lately (strange in the sense that it is NEW).

How long have you been writing like this? I mean, man... you are good with words... and I am amazed at the sheer VOLUME of stuff you are able to get out on all of your blogs. Have you been writing this much stuff just recently or?

Jack H said...

Oh oh. Was I too harsh with you, M, in those gray December days? Most likely. But it's not opinions I'm talking about here. It's tactics. A close reader will notice that I have a huge problem with issues of disloyalty and betrayal. When we engage in a conversation, I see it as a compact, in which we each work toward understanding, if not agreement. Thus my disaffection with what A has done.

Honestly, M, if I was too harsh with you - I recall something like, "Now, liar is such a harsh word" - it was a referrence to what I saw as self-deception. I am an arrogant bastard, you know. Huge ego, even if it's under control. That's cool. I can be wrong. If I'm rude, point it out and I'll apologize, and mean it. What more can we hope for? Perfection? I'm not even trying, anymore. I need to be more human, not less. :-) But sure, I'm open to it. If you have any fair-minded observations, feel free to share them. If I can't stand it, I'll just delete you. And never respond to you again. And find where you live and pour salt on your lawn.

Oh, I'm such a card. I'm a hoot.



Jack H said...

Oh, you've found Bloated Monster, then? I write that sort of stuff when the mood hits me. None of it's more than a year old. All of FP is new - couple of older things - just as the spirit moves me. It wouldn't be hard to write a lot more - I actually limit myself. It doesn't really seem worth while, what I do here. Just an odd hour here and there, between crying jags. But thanks for the kind word - you can see there's not much feedback here, and even though this is mostly just a place for me to practice having opinions, it's still nice to get some input, now and then.


Miroslav said...

You have made me laugh out loud (in a good way) with your confession that you may in fact delete me and follow it up with a salt pouring expedition. Soon I will have to call you Sunshine Jack.

Ok... I shall make an endeavour in the next several days to track down some examples for you to consider regarding your method of dialogue. A (actually E ... your computer must show the symbol incorrectly) is not the first to have been put off by your tendancy to use harsh, overly blunt tactics during a discussion. I, also being a dour and blunt person by nature, have had the same accusations levied against me from time to time. Still do, actually. But I'm workin' on it. I will teach you Danielson. (sarcasm intended)

Jack H said...

This is what my screen shows: a^%@927!!!40)#*4ireann. For you, it shows m(18&!^%6&17^!6slav. You don't expect me to type *that,* do you?

As for being too blunt, screw you.



christine said...

Eireann, I hope this finds you. I am a mother of one and another one on the way. We live in N.Carolina also. I have been having a tough time as I do not fit in well here. I am on a board with other mommies and I have been trying to fight this topic, with not much luck. I couldn't agree with you more on all the topics you brought up. I also see the flip side. I think your writing is beautiful and you should be very proud of yourself for sticking up for people who sometimes do not get the chance to voice. You have given me faith in humankind agian, and I hope you don't mind if U share your words on my board. Your writing an the fact you put down are much better then I could have done. Thank you, keep it up.

Jack H said...

My, that was odd. I'll leave it up, as a meaningless courtesy to the delicate and not-at-all-likely-to-find-this E. Sorta makes you wonder If young C has a brain capable of critical thought, though. Or is that rude? And here I was, trying to be courteous.


christine said...

sorry, I am not too familiar with responding to blogs. I do not appreciate the insult. I thought this was someone elses. It was an honest mistake. Sorry if that makes me brainless. My goodness. I am just new to this that all. So sorry. I will find the person I was looking for.

Jack H said...

My dear C -- please pardon my flip tone. It has been over a year since E left in a snit. My reference to your brain hinges on the fact that you seem to think she had good arguments. I do have a bit of a problem with people who think with their feelings. Feelings matter, but the don't count as thinking. I cannot imagine that you read or understood my several responses to her emoting. That's the context.

The world needs feelers. But it needs law as well. No crime is committed, in the final analysis, because of logic. It's feelings. As with, say, illegals, and those who cosset them.