Words Mean Things
The Language Police appear to be AWOL right now. Time for a few citizens’ arrests. The following three individuals are hereby placed under arrests for crimes against the English Language.
- Kerry Gonzalez, Executive Director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials. On or about Thursday, February 26, 2004, Mr. Gonzalez publicly objected to the practice of calling illegal aliens “illegal aliens” rather than “undocumented [though many do have documents to prove their illegal status] workers [though not all of them work].” Quoth Mr. Gonzalez:
- Peggy, a Blogger. Peggy has committed the same offense of hijacking the n-word to benefit an unrelated cause. In her case, the theory seems to be that today’s legal non-recognition of gay “marriages” is equivalent to enslaving a people for centuries, freeing them only losing a civil war over that issue, and then continuing for another century to force them to live in certain undesirable parts of town, use separate restrooms, attend separate and substandard schools as children, drink from separate water fountains, and ride the back of the bus. Sorry, Peg, but your cause - right or wrong - just doesn’t measure up to that. As I noted above, calling the n-word “the n-word” is not a mitigating factor for this crime. Actually saying the word, however, is an aggravating factor. That aggravating factor applies here, as Peggy, unlike Mr. Gonzalez, did not refer obliquely to “the n-word,” she actually used it.
- Rosario Marin, Candidate for U.S. Senate. Rosario Marin is under arrest for torturing the word amnesty in violation of at least one, probably several, of the Geneva Conventions. When I blogged the convention last week, I implied that Rosario had not staked out any positions on the issues that set her apart materially from the other three Republican candidates, who are Bill Jones, Howard Kaloogian and Toni Casey. Actually, that was not quite true. At one point during the debate, the four were asked to comment about President Bush’s dreadful non-amnesty amnesty proposal which would extend non-amnesty to every
We do find that term very offensive and liken it to the “n” word as well.
That analogy to the n-word is definitely an aggravating factor. It’s bad enough taking offense as the word “illegal” at all, but to compare it to the single most offensive racial slur that has ever entered the English language is beyond the pale. That he referred to that word as “the n-word” rather than actually saying the word itself is not a mitigating factor; we all know which word he had in mind. [Well, most of us do anyway. To any Dog Trainer or Daily Pundit readers who don't, here's a hint: it's neither nigh, nosh, nincompoop, Neverland nor naughty. No, it's not neither or nor, either. Perhaps it is no? Negative.]
I probably should arrest Uncle for linking favorably to that entry, but there’s so much good stuff on that blog right now that I just can’t bring myself to do it. Plus, I have to give him something for providing the information that lead to Peggy’s arrest. So I’m letting him off with a warning - this time.
illegal alien undocumented worker who can actually document that he is a worker. Marin went first, and appeared to convince everyone in the room except me that she opposed President Bush’s amnesty plan. She was very clear on the point that she opposed “amnesty,” and everyone seemed to take that at face value. Privately, I wondered to myself whether she was playing a Clintonian game over the meaning of the word “amnesty.” When the other three candidates did not call her on it (even though all three opposed Bush’s proposal unambiguously), I wrote off my lingering doubts as paranoia.
Well, it seems I was wrong. Not to harbor doubts about Marin’s position on amnesty, mind you, but to dismiss them solely because no one around me seem to share them. I only learned Marin’s real position on the issue today, upon reading this article in today’s Orange County Register. Money quote:
On immigration, Messrs. Jones and Kaloogian oppose President Bush’s recent proposal for a kind of guest-worker program, but the program is supported by Ms. Marin. Mr. Jones said the Bush administration “has not protected the border.” Mr. Kaloogian wants to stop illegal immigrants sending money back to their home countries by requiring banks to check for “the proper identification” - a matter we believe is separate from the immigration issue.
Ms. Marin supports President Bush’s guest-worker program and insists that critics are wrong in calling it an amnesty program. “Some of the candidates want to trash our president,” she said. “I want to help our president.” She also favors prodding Mexico to reform its anti-business policies to encourage job growth there so immigrants feel less compelled to go north.
For one who wants to help our President in his endeavors to shove illegal immigration down California’s throat, Ms. Martin - oops, I mean, Mar
February 27th, 2004 at 12:26 pm
“Illegal aliens” is the term used in the U.S. Code.
Georgia appears to be in bad shape; a state rep there (Pedro Marin) looks like he might be in the pay of the Mexican government.
Let me repeat that: a GA state rep appears to be in the pay of the Mexican government.
The complaint is not going to be investigated until early May.
The Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials was co-founded by Pedro Marin. Hopefully it’ll go down with him.
February 27th, 2004 at 12:59 pm
The post of mine that you cite was not prompted by some general reality, such as “todays’ legal non-recognition of gay “marriages,”" it was prompted by Bush’s call for a federal amendment to our constitution that would codify such discrimination.
Nor was my use of the n-word at all literal. As I have said to you, in Uncle’s pages, the bigotry behind this legislation is quite clear to me and is quite reminiscent of times when blacks were considered (by law) 2/3 of a human being, times when blacks were routinely (and “legally”) discriminated against in all aspects of their daily lives, and times when it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry. These things were all condoned by white society that referred to that group of people as ‘niggers.’ My use of the word was a metaphorical reference to those times and to the kind of people who could so blithely oppress another group of people, through the self-serving laws they fought to pass and maintain.
Words do indeed mean things. Just ask any black person. They still hear it all the time.
I can’t help it if you don’t know a civil rights issue when you see one, (much less this administration’s blatant attempt to quash it!), and I cannot help it if you don’t get a simple metaphor.
February 27th, 2004 at 1:12 pm
I tend to agree with her post as metaphor. Was it over the top? Sure. But sometimes you need to be.
I’m just disappointed that the gay movement is giving the Ds a pass. It’s just partisan poo.
February 27th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
Peggy, the problem lies with your insistence on using an extremely inflammatory metaphor, not on my failure to “get” that metaphor. I got it, all right, and it stinks.
February 27th, 2004 at 1:21 pm
Uncle: I can think of few better ways to ensure passage of the FMA than to make over-the-top analogies to slavery and the Jim Crow era. One can only push the “everyone who disagrees with me is an evil bigot” rhetoric so far, before legitimate federalism and separation of powers concerns will fall by the wayside, and FMA will be widely viewed as a national referendum on gay marriage. Once that happens, gay marriage is doomed.
February 27th, 2004 at 1:59 pm
Thanks for understanding why I intentionally used the word. And I know you don’t think I presume to speak for all gay people when it comes to facing up to the realities of what we are going to achieve (and not achieve) during this presidential election season.
The poo I smell is the bigotry of the people who champion this amendment, and Bush, for so blatantly using this issue to divide people, rather than letting it run its course in the courts across the land.
p.s. Uncle, will you at least buy my prison letters, now that I’ve been arrested? :)
February 27th, 2004 at 2:03 pm
Xrlq,
Be bothered all you want with what I wrote, ok? It’s certainly your right.
But back to the issue at hand, please tell me you’re not one of those people who would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would deny me the right to marry my chosen loved one.
Surely you’re not that kind of person, or are you?
February 27th, 2004 at 2:48 pm
Xrlq,
Were you perhaps using hyperbole, “a deliberate exaggeration for emotional effect”, when you said you were going to “arrest” Peggy?
What a great device for getting your point across!
February 27th, 2004 at 3:24 pm
Peggy: The way I see it, everyone has a right to associate with whoever they want, live with whoever they want, love whoever they want and hate whoever they want, but no one has a “right” to have the state recognize it, except as provided by law. Of course there are exceptions, if the criteria violate the U.S. Constitution or a valid federal law; testricting marriage according to religious or political views would obviously violate the First Amendment, just as doing so by race violated the Fourteenth. Perhaps a law prohibiting gun owners from marrying would violate the Second Amendment, I don’t know. But this does not include efforts to expand the concept of marriage to accommodate gays, swingers, polygamists, blood relatives, or even straight couples who are simply too cheap to pay the marriage licensing fee. Here’s what it boils down to: I have no power to deny you any right to marry whoever you want, even if I wanted to do so, which I don’t. If you live in a state that allows gay marriage, you have that right. If you don’t, you don’t. If that doesn’t suit you, call your Legislator and tell him/her to change the law. That’s what the Legislature is there for.
For that last reason, I do not support the Federal Marriage Amendment. I’m mildly opposed to gay marriage in principle, and neutral on civil unions, but strongly opposed to needless federal usurpations (by Congress or the courts) of a power traditionally reserved to the states.
February 27th, 2004 at 4:37 pm
Xrlq,
I think our discussion is a microscosm of exactly the questions the country faces, now that we’re grappling with the complexities on a national stage. Bottom line: I’m glad you do not support the FMA. Honest.
Within your opinion I think I hear the reaction of many right now, i.e., “you gays don’t have the freedom to marry just because a couple of mayors (well, and those ‘activist judges’ in Massachuesetts) say you do, and besides, that Mayor in San Francisco is breaking California law.” I don’t mean to say that those are your exact thoughts, I’m just saying (and this dovetails back to the post on my blog with which you took exception), a couple of things:
a) Yes, Mayor Newsom has maybe broken the law (the courts are trying to rule on that, as we speak)
b) We saw people breaking the law in the early 60’s too, to effect change. Eventually the courts agreed with those very same rabble-rousers, and granted the freedoms that blacks should have had decades before.
c) The FMA, as it is currently written, eliminates any court say-so on the matter of marriage and civil unions from any state, nowhere, no how. (And I think that’s a fact many Americans sympathetic to at least civil unions may still not know, by the way).
I guess the framers of this amendment are too afraid even to follow their own traditional ’states’ rights’ path, on this one, that is.
Anyway, again, I’m glad you don’t support the thing. Hey, we have some common ground here. Hmm, maybe George Bush really is a ‘uniter, not a divider.’ Ya think?
February 27th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
The way I see it, as long as you have a lawful means at your disposal, there is no excuse for resorting to lawless means instead. Gay marriage advocates in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts all found a way to get their issue before the courts without breaking the law in the process. Newsom could have done the same in California, and would have if he were serious about winning this suit rather than simply making a mockery of California law. And he would have alleged a violation of the federal constitution, not just the state one, which is a pointless exercise in itself even if he won (which he almost certainly won’t).
Also, most of the laws people flouted in the 1960s were not changed. For example, pot is still illegal, as is resisting the draft, although a lot of 60s activists were really, really sure those laws were wrong, too. Putting oneself above the law is a dangerous game, especially when you consider that sooner or later, others will stop obeying the laws they don’t like. Imagine the outrage if California did provide for gay marriage, and certain right-wing towns refused to recognize them!
February 27th, 2004 at 5:10 pm
Maybe. If this FMA exercise causes liberals to rediscover the value of states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment, definitely.
February 27th, 2004 at 5:58 pm
Personally, I like the Constitution the way King James wrote it!
February 27th, 2004 at 6:30 pm
I just tried to post a reply and was barred. Game over for me?
February 27th, 2004 at 6:47 pm
No, unless I inadvertently banned your IP address rather than that of the comment spammer that hit this site today. Then again, your last comment made it through, so I doubt that happened.
February 27th, 2004 at 6:56 pm
If you’ve listened to/read Newsom’s statements on why he took the action he took you know that it was as a direct result from sitting there, live & in person, as Bush gave his hinted approval of a federal marriage amendment, during the State of the Union Address. Newsom was outraged by that, and immediately set about to challenge not only the president’s implied attack on same-sex marriage freedom nationally, but in his own state. Newsom decided to challenge laws he thinks are un-constitutional, simple as that. Oh sure, he could have done it the slow way, but since Bush called upon Congress to “promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification” this vile amendment - one begins to get a sense of urgency on this side, too. I admire Mayor Newsom for having the courage to challenge a law he thinks is un-constitutional. That’s how the worst laws in our country have always been challenged, by people taking to the courts.
I’ve tried to enjoy our common ground, but you seem to want to bicker, and I’m frankly not interested in bickering. I will say also that you’ve trivialized this issue twice, first by talking earlier about “polygamists” and “swingers,” when I’m actually trying to talk about the freedom for two same-sex people to get married. Then you trivialized my comments about the civil rights movement of the 60’s by bringing up pot and draft resistance, as if those matters were even remotely equivalent. I lived through those times, so don’t tell me what people were fighting for then. You cheapen the discussion, and I don’t know why.
February 27th, 2004 at 11:53 pm
I don’t know what you mean by “bicker.” I don’t bicker for bickering’s sake. I do, however, respond with counter-arguments to points I disagree with. So fisk me.
February 28th, 2004 at 8:10 am
No thanks. Think I’ll move along.
March 1st, 2004 at 3:33 pm
Come, now.
“Newfie” isn’t nearly that insulting, eh?
March 2nd, 2004 at 7:54 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:The Mank…
March 4th, 2004 at 6:45 pm
The Council Has Spoken!
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are A Visit by the FBI by Spiced Sass, and…
March 24th, 2004 at 10:50 am
Watchers Council
A belated post linking to the January 15th results will be accepted if it also links to all entries nominated for…
March 24th, 2004 at 9:14 pm
Making It Up to the Watcher
All hail the Watcher of Weasels, a most benevolent and kind blogger without peer. Allow me to explain.Over the Christmas holiday’s I had a flash of inspiration, or rather, I had a the rather foolish notion that a man of mature years could successfully …