Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hahaha, I know, that would be awful. Phones, *shudders*. Hehehe. Thanks, I'm very excited.

They kind of are... razz

*dances*

Ok it's funny you mention that because my friend posted a photo on Facebook that I was thinking about asking you to explain. And that explains it.

Photo:



Anyhow yea that's just awful, please don't be personally offended as I shake my head in shame at your state. Plus that sounds worrisome, I mean I don't know about you, but I certainly don't carry around proof of residency on me wherever I go. I mean are they going to make it a law to carry it? And if not how exactly do they plan to penalize someone who has it but just not on them? Will they follow them home while they get it? That's just so backwards in so many ways. Here's to hoping your governor will not be so bigoted, though I know nothing about the AZ governor so I can't say. I guess I really don't have to worry about the "governator" doing such a thing here, considering his roots and all, haha. Though he'll be out of office soon (thank God though, I mean he's not a bad guy, but he just really doesn't have the fiscal sense for the job, and his priorities have never reflected mine).

Guess it depends on her definition of fair...and people.

But yea, I mean residency is a touchy subject, but regardless, that does not make racial profiling fair. Even just looking at it from the perspective of people who are legal residents. I mean they have done everything they are supposed to to obtain a "legit" status (either by being born here or going through proper channels), so it's not fair to put them through scrutiny as if they were some sort of criminal.

As far as I'm concerned though, as long as you aren't committing crimes and are paying taxes (even if it's under a fake name, which many do) then I'm perfectly fine with them staying here undisturbed. Not being a criminal and paying taxes are my only qualifiers over who should stay here - i.e. being a contributing member of society. Because it's a country made up of immigrants anyhow, as long as everyone is working to the aide of the whole, then I think everyone should be able to be here. However sadly the mentality is more preemptive, so rather than "innocent until proven guilty," we do act in ways more reflective of a police state. People who don't have legal residency are harder to control, and thus we look to keep out what we can't control. Rather than try to do a better job of integrating them into society. But especially for the less wealthy, it's difficult to obtain legal status today without being born into it.

Well, her definition of fair is from the conservative/Republican (even if she's not conservative and/or Republican) mentality, which is what I was afraid it might be when you quoted her to have expressed her sentiments in such a manner. I.e. it's what's most fair for the "legals" in order to attempt to get rid of those who have not gone through proper channels and are benefiting from a nation that is not "theirs." That is that mentality. From her quote then people = legals (but probably to be racially crass, whites), and fair = law enforcement by any means.

Anyhow sorry to hear that, hopefully it will be overturned in the near future? I mean hey, we approved gay marriage in CA and then overturned it *dies*. ******** governments, and people wonder how I could be so eager to take a trip away from this "great" nation? xd

Yea, well again I'd have to hear a tone to judge, but the way that sentence read to me - even if it was to Latino protesters, was "hey, you people, I'm sorry, but I've got to do what's best for the majority, ya know, the legal majority." I mean really, if you hear "fair" and for the general "people," you gotta know it's a brush off. Politics ya know?

It is just irritating, I mean I don't believe in marriage anyhow. Personally, I'd like to get that overturned, make sure nobody could get married. I mean yea we can have legal unions of stuff when there is a legal reason to do so (kids, other mutual interests)...and weddings are fun and all...but marriage? I mean that's what really annoyed me about the whole thing, the argument to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage. What sanctity? This is La la land (reference to LA and Hollywood), where you can marry someone you've known a day, have a marriage that lasts a day. If marriage is so east to dissolve, and so easily entered into, I can't really say I can really stand behind it as a creditable institution for the general populous.

Anyhow, my lack of faith aside - if we aren't going to get rid of this freak show (and yea, I know we aren't), then really it shouldn't be restricted from any person's of legal age and the ability to consent. Regardless of race, gender yada yada yada. I mean marriages were connected to the church in the way EVERYTHING was connected to the church back in ye olden days. But it doesn't change that it isn't a religious ceremony, it is a legal one. A medieval chattel agreement relating to the exchange of property. If people want to agree to be each other's property, they should be free to do so.

But whatever, I vote in favor of gay marriage and all that of course, but I don't get involved in actively campaigning because it seems hypocritical. I mean at this point in my life it is my goal to abolish marriage...now if I can find some people preaching that, them I might go stand with. Or well, near. I mean I'm not a fan of protests anyhow. On the one hand they can get out of control, and on the other hand they often end up being more about hate than cause. And I don't like hate, not outside of fiction anyhow.

EDIT

So my friend who posted the picture I copied here a few posts back has just joined a group boycotting Arizona. I get the sentiment, but it seems like a ludicrous way to go about the issue. In the first place, boycotts of states never work, in the second place, I mean think about it. You are effectively proclaiming a boycott on a giant piece of land. I mean yes the idea isn't to spend money, but generally, people outside of a state aren't actively contributing to the fiscal situation of another state. The ways in which they do, they aren't exactly aware of. I mean unless you are one of those people who are actively going to Oregon to avoid the sales tax, but that's pretty much it. You can't control where your local grocers and business owners pull inventory from, and chances are, they aren't going to change policy for a cause. Especially in a recession, where pretty much policy is going to be strictly what is most affordable.

However they also link a phone number, email, etc for the governor, now that is probably a better pressure method. Media attention of course would be another big one. But a boycott? Eh.

Anyhow just thought that was interesting and related.

Haha, I know, I probably wouldn't either that's way to extremist, I was just making the point to my inability to get behind marriage as a cause. I mean it is a legal institution, not an expression of choice - which was my problem with the sanctity arguments, because that's not at all addressing what a marriage actually is (despite the motivations behind one going to get one). However yes, it is a contract people should have an option to. Though I do think stricter regulations should really apply. Not in relation to who can get married mind you, there shouldn't be stricter regulations in regards to race/gender/sexual orientation/etc. But in regards to capacity to enter this contract, length of commitment/acquaintance before the contract (you really should not be able to marry somebody the day you meet them), an awareness of all barriers (financial, social, etc - I mean marriages are things that are run as a criminal fraud scam, you shouldn't be able to hide things from someone going into a marriage, thus someone can't be defrauded), and especially sobriety. People REALLY should not be able to say "I do" in an altered state of consciousness. Pretty much the law should just stop people from making stupid half cocked decisions about such a heavy contract/commitment. Other than that though, yes, I just don't care.

And I'm not saying I won't ever get married either, I'm not that silly naive. Just like the government, there are few perfect systems in the world. And I'm not avoiding all system on the basis of imperfection. I'll just mock it as much as possible. rofl

I dunno if I agree with smoking though, I mean I won't get into it, but THAT is a health hazard that they expose others to, particularly people with asthma or allergies. Now what you do within your own home is one thing, but laws concerning the public domain are quite another. However again I am not fighting that battle, I just hold my breath a lot when I wander around SF.

Exactly...and at least a boycott of your own state might be more beneficial than outsiders boycotting your state. I mean you aren't Paris, you aren't losing grand tourism dollars here, hehe. However that would be very costly and inconvenient for yourself. And yes, protests can maybe make a statement, better than a boycott, but again it's about media attention. About representing that "hey, this is not what we want." Making a statement to an elected office. I mean the people here in CA don't vote for AZ congress, so it's really a non-issue what they think. This was something done to your state, and so it's your state that will have to attempt to do something about it.

Exactly, but it's a special kind of young person who can admit they are too young to be decisive. I try to be this person...and yes, I think marriage should be illegal in Las Vegas. So many of them get annulled as drunken mistakes anyhow, they really should just put a stop to the debauchery.

Yea I'm all for people killing themselves...err... ninja ...or something that sounds less evil. I just wish I didn't have to suffer too, I wish my dad would quit. Blah!

Haha, BILLIONS!! I don't even know if just starting a protest would help, I mean protests show an opinion but don't often do a good job of getting a message out - unless they become violent. But on the one hand I don't perpetuate violence, and on the other generally inciting violence tends to work AGAINST a cause. Nobody listens to crazy violent people, I mean they are crazy violent people. Again interviews, articles, petitions, etc probably do more. I mean protests are loud and angry and awkward and people tend to duck their heads and run. A petition however is a more quiet method to get people to address a point (even if the actual signatures do nothing, it's a pamphlet of information). I mean generally people have an opinion one way or another, so a loud mob chanting what they already agree with is doing nothing, and chanting what they disagree with is making them angrier.

As for the swastikas, I'm not a fan of vandalism, so I can't say I'd really support people who did that. I mean even though this would be a rather easily cleaned up vandalism, it's a waste of food. I don't approve of wasting resources to make a point.

The passive-aggressive stance would be to just acquiesce to the law. If good "law abiding" citizens are constantly seen to be harassed and persecuted for no reason, it's more likely to turn people off against this law than anything else. It'll be seen as cruel and unnecessary.

Life is not fair, you can fight it or overcome it. I do not mean give into it, but one has to learn to pick their battles, and the battles they do pick they must fight in the best manner possible. If you are weak in conviction, cruel in manner, disorganized in action, you will not be taken seriously. You won't be respected and your cause will falter. One must not only learn how to make their voices heard, but how to make someone want to listen. Yelling in the streets and smearing food onto walls would not make me sympathetic. I mean I'm already sympathetic to the cause, but were I not, none of these actions would sway my opinion. They would serve as convoluted proof to a contrary argument. I mean think of all great acts of courage, all actions to fight for equal rights. They were mostly passive in nature, they were built upon brave words and a convicted spirit. Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony - these were not people hurling food at buildings. There is a reason these people are famous in history for the changes they brought. It wasn't what they fought for, it's how they fought. When it comes to securing freedom, the how is just as important as the why. It is the proof for why freedom is deserved.