maarmie's musings

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

ACLU SHMACLU

A long time ago, the ACLU targeted me to join the organization and send them some cash for the honor. While I am grateful to the ACLU for defending everyone's right to free speech, I can't help but dislike them for defending EVERYONE'S right to free speech, everyone including every hateful bigot that crawls around in this godforsaken world. I guess another way to say what I just said is that I would like them a whole lot better if they would defend only the people who say things I agree with and put tape over the mouths of those I don't. Makes me sound like a fascist dictator, doesn't it? I guess I am.

A couple of clods have recently been thinking it wise to express themselves here with comments against both me and my blog. I would take these criticisms a whole lot better if the one who is tired of my pity parties didn't choose to remain anonymous and if the one who HATES my choice in favorite movies and thinks Betty Frieden is being driven around in a limo by satan even as I type this wasn't some kind of inbred Nazi with an IQ of 12. In my opinion, nothing he could ever say should be allowed to be said. To take it one step further, his balls should be severed so he can't decide to procreate. When he dies, it would be nice if we could all heave a sigh of relief that his genes stop with him.

The ACLU TRIED to be great during the protests of the Republican National Convention in August 2004. While protestors by the hundreds were having their civil liberties ripped away by the thugs with machine guns who called themselves cops, the ACLU was handing out little white cards to protestors telling them what to do if ever a cop tried to rip away their civil liberties and handing out the phone number of a lawyer that could help you out if you got arrested. I wrote the phone number in red ink on my arm, where it stayed for the duration of my visit. But the little white card, which I carried in my back pocket, might as well have been shoved up my ass for all the good it would do against the cops. When they want to create chaos and violence, they certainly do a good job of it. While I was there, and I was there most of that week, I never saw one hint of violence from any protestor. As a matter of fact, we were so docile, the cops got to herd us like cattle, lie to and mock us, corral and arrest us and hold us captive for days without reason or a lawyer. Where was the ACLU? Where are they now? Where are the lawsuits?

Bullies suck.

13 comments:

Immanuel Kant said...

You said: "While I was there, and I was there most of that week, I never saw one hint of violence from any protestor."

That's part of the problem. Your government doesn't fear you. It should. A little violence now and then goes a long way. It is the only thing they respond to.

maarmie said...

Unfortunately, I agree. Sometimes, violence is the only way to get the government's attention. Liberals act like lambs while this government runs over them like a bulldozer. In the immortal words of Rage Against the Machine: It's time to "take the power back."

Doppelganger Throwback said...

You say, "Sometimes, violence is the only way to get the government's attention." Doesn't the example of history mean anything to you? The non-violent resistance in India, the civil rights movement in America? Oh, and not to mention Rage's ol' pal el Che, who got ripped picking off as many Bolivian conscripts as he could, ending up the peculiarly apt icon for many a socialist dead-end. The crucial feature of all successful endeavours is a plan, and some serious thought, not an adolescent partisanship along the lines of a "I wanna kill 'em all or die trying" mentality.

maarmie said...

Did I say anything about killing? The Muslim immigrants lived for years and years in squalor in the suburbs of Paris, marginalized and discriminated against like black people are in the U.S. Then, one day, a bunch of them decide to break things and burn cars. Then you've got the NY Times and other huge papers writing stories about their living conditions and how they have been treated and the next thing you know the French government is saying they're going to look into what can be done to fix the situation. I think some people died in all that - I don't agree with that - but the upheaval certainly got some attention in a hurry, didn't it? Could the same conclusion have been arrived at peacefully? Maybe. But I guess we'll never know.

immanuel kant said...

Doppelganger must not be from the U.S. or he'd recognize that the only reason this country is here is because of a little violence against the government once upon a time. The government should be afraid to usurp the rights of the people. When it is no longer afraid to do so, it has started down a road that will ultimately end in either despotism, or be terminated by sufficient violence to start anew (as we have done once before). If you disagree, I would think you do not know much about the history of countries and governments in this world.

Throwganger Doppelback said...

"Ultimately end in despotism"? Pardon me? That's like saying, "If we keep on producing CO2 at this rate, ultimately we'll damage the environment." By the way, don't pile too much credit on the founding fathers for their political originality. They went back almost 2000 years for their model of government. Nothing new under the sun, my friend.

immanuel kant said...

Now you're disagreeing with things in a nonsensical way, and disagreeing with things that nobody said.

There is nothing wrong with "ultimately end in despotism". Despotism is absolute power or authority; tyranny. We aren't there yet. But we're working on it. Thus the world "ultimately", as in "some day".

And where did anybody say anything about the founding fathers' "political originality"? I don't care if they stole the idea from a book from K-Mart, it has worked fairly well so far. Too bad some of them set it up to ultimately go where it is going now by cleverly hiding some sneaky provisions in the Constitution. Ah well. Humans are naturally evil, power grabbing critters, no reason they should have been any different.

P.S. It is not possible to damage the environment -- only to make it so it is not suitable for us and some of the life forms currently here. There was a time when the environment had little oxygen and much CO2 and it wasn't "damaged", it just better supported different forms of life.

Anonymous said...

You're not THE Immanuel Kant, are you? Just AN Immanuel Kant. I had heard you're available in six-packs now.

I like nachos.

D.G. T.B. said...

Apologies. That was me. Didn't mean to make my important annoucement anonymously.

immanuel kant said...

Actually, I am *the* Immanuel Kant. Official reports that I died in 1804 were actually falsified.

D.G. T.B. said...

Excellent. In that case, I have a question to ask of you. No, it's not whether or not you enjoy nachos. It is, rather, what your take is on the dispute about the relationship between your writings on aesthetics, and those on teleology, especially with your fascinating *Kritik der Urteilskraft* in mind. I assume you've been taking an observor's role on this crucial debate. Well, now's your chance to set the record straight, my good man.

maarmie said...

I'd rather talk about nachos

immanuel kant said...

Much as Dr. Spock contemporarily disavows his early writings (for which he is so famous), I too realize that in fact much of what I wrote those hundreds of years ago is pure hogwash. Truth be told, I'm not certain I believed what I was saying even then. As a testament to your intuition however, you'll be thrilled to know that these days, I prefer to limit my expositions to the topic of nachos.