discussion comment
16 years ago
Here's an older thread about the same topic.
http://www.tuscl.com/discussion/58874
Or just type 58874 over the current digits in the address bar and hit enter.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
The primary fraud inherent in US history is that we have, in the Emancipation Proclamation and the XIIIth Amendment to
the US Constitution, outlawed human enslavement, when in fact in the USA there has never been, and is not now, any law against slavery. 1.) The Emancipation Proclamation did not actually result in any single named person who ever received the emancipation document which it had promised. 2.) the Emancipation Proclamation, as an action of the executive branch of the federal government, was rendered null and void retroactively by the XIIIth Amendment which placed exclusive powers to regulate slavery in the legislative branch thus denying them to the executive branch. 3.) the XIIIth Amendment was merely an enabling act, empowering
the federal congress to outlaw slavery, but then the southern states were allowed back into the federal union before this enabling act was acted upon, and that therefore the federal congress has never in fact actually enacted the envisioned law against slavery which it had in this amendment been empowered to enact.
Now there comes a new book, Douglas A. Blackmon's 'Slavery by
Another Name,' which has been reviewed by the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/books/10masl.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin
http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/index.php?section=15
Mr. Blackmon is a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. What he very clearly understands is that despite this historic constitutional amendment, there has never arisen any statute law or body of precedent which would define what human enslavement is, and therefore there has never in the USA arisen any legal way in which actual slavery can be actually interdicted. We keep struggling to contain the situation by enacting various particular laws, such as dysfunctional laws against "peonage," although these various particular laws would be entirely unnecessary -- were we ever to actually do something which we are never actually going to do, which would be, to actually enact here a law against human slavery.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
Consider this term "peonage."
There is only one reason why this term exists in federal criminal law. It exists because, without an ability to prosecute for a crime of enslavement, there was no way for the feds to deal with local southern sheriffs who were selling black men out of their local jails. They would arrest a black man for public drunkenness, or something like that, and then sell him to the highest bidder among the local white men, to work out his fine at $5 a day
minus room and board, on a work crew on a plantation in the Mississippi bottomland. This sort of arrangement could last a lifetime. So, the feds enacted this law about "peonage," in an attempt to create a way to prosecute and prevent this sort of situation.
The feds made one attempt to enforce it, and the white plantation
owner killed something like eleven black witnesses. The peonage case collapsed, but they were then able to get the man for multiple murder after they had dug up some of the bodies. He was sent to prison for life, and in a prison riot, the black prisoners took his rifle away from him and killed him with it.
What, you ask, how did a *life convict* get a rifle? The warden gave it to him! He had been functioning not as a prisoner but as a guard.
The 13th Amendment "gave Congress the power of enforcement." Since the federal legislature had never defined what slavery is, however, the courts have been powerless. In the one case that reached the Supreme Court, for instance, a case involving some white seamen, the court refused to consider that they might have been enslaved, on the sole basis that they were not black. The Supremes declared, eight over one, that whatever a freedom *not
to be enslaved* might be, it was a freedom that black people might have *maybe* (they couldn't say, because they had no legal idea what it was) -- but it was not any sort of freedom that any sort of white American might claim no matter *what* had been done to them.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
I withdraw my previous acknowledgement to NJSCFAN that any American has ever been convicted specifically of "slavery". And notice is now given to AbbieNormal:
"...the 13th Amendment granted the power to abolish the institution of human enslavement in the USA to the federal legislative branch --thus forever denying that power to the federal judiciary and executive branches. Subsequent to being granted the power to abolish the institution of human enslavement in the USA, the representatives of the Southern states have been allowed to return to the federal legislature, and therefore the federal legislative branch has deliberately failed to create a definition of enslavement -- with the result being that *no American enslaver has ever been arrested, arraigned, tried, convicted, and punished for the crime of enslaving another American*.
Why is it that no American enslaver has ever been arrested, arraigned, tried, convicted, and punished for the crime of enslaving another American? Well, before the Civil War, of course enslavement was no crime. --And then, after the Civil War, enslavement has not been a *defined* crime. Nobody knows what the elements of such a criminal offense might be, because the elements of such an offense have not been specified in criminal legislation.
No *state* judge, such as, say, in California or Massachusetts, would ever find you guilty of enslaving anyone, irregardless of what you have been guilty of doing to another human being, because under the 13th Amendment any such state action has been entirely pre-empted by federal jurisdiction.
No *federal* judge would every find you guilty of enslaving anyone,
irregardless of what you do to another human being, because no federal judge, ever, has been given any idea, any idea at all, just what this offense of "enslavement" might consist in.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
Shame on the US! I want to see convictions!!!
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
Slavery by Another Name
By Harper Barnes
SPECIAL TO THE POST-DISPATCH
03/23/2008
In March 1908, an unemployed black man named Green Cottenham was arrested in Alabama and found guilty of the vague charge of vagrancy.
Unable to pay exorbitant fines and fees that accompanied the conviction, he was sentenced to a year at hard labor and "sold" to a mining subsidiary of U.S. Steel, which agreed to pay his debts in return for his services and sent him in chains into a coal mine.
There, as Douglas A. Blackmon writes in his groundbreaking "Slavery by Another Name," Cottenham and more than a thousand other black men "toiled under the lash." In the mines of northern Alabama, "convict slaves" were beaten viciously, shackled to their beds at night and literally worked to death. In 1908 alone, almost 60 convict slaves died in the mine where Cottenham labored.
The story of Green Cottenham, his ancestors and his family's descendents form the central thread of Blackmon's extraordinary book. The writer, Atlanta bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal, weaves a horrifying tale of Southern convict labor policies that perpetuated slavery for almost a century after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Almost as soon as the Civil War ended, powerful white politicians, plantation owners and industrialists began reinstituting slavery through laws intended "to criminalize black life," Blackmon writes.
Countless thousands of blacks were arrested on the flimsiest of charges, thrown into jail and, in effect, sold to plantations, railroads, mines, factories, mills and lumber camps.
Comment:
Tell me NJSCFan, where are the convictions?
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
You're right, I haven't been keeping up with the papers. My bad. So the first slavery conviction in the history of the US takes place in late 2007.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"...Zerzan has made the logical falacy common to much of our media, which is to judge some bygone historical period according to today's standards. That's comparing apples to oranges."
Excusing our forefathers the ownership of slaves is a total copout. Anybody with half a concience knew that it was wrong to hold somebody a slave. There is plenty of evidence that Washington and Jefferson were uncomfortable with holding slaves, and yet they did it anyway.
And by the way, to this day, there is no law on the books that says I cannot hold a slave. Amazing but true. Nobody in this country has ever been brought to trial and convicted of holding a slave! I challenge you to name one person who was ever convicted of slave-holding in this country. The worst you can be convicted of is kidnapping or wrongful imprisonment. But not slave-holding. Why? Because legally, it's not a crime.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"So, in the interest of fairness, I would like to extend this invitiation to Zerzan. Post something about the USA that you think is great, or good, or even something about the USA you love."
The U.S Patent system is something to be proud of. A very ambitious mechanism to lever the power of individual freedom. And it works.
"Modern patents originated in Europe where European sovereigns commonly awarded "letters patent" to favored inventors. These letters had their royal seal on the outside, with the writing open (or patent) for all to see. The first U.S. patent laws were enacted by Congress in 1790 as part of the Constitution. Before then, the King of England officially owned all the intellectual property created by the colonists. Prior to 1790, it was necessary for an inventor to make a special appeal to the governing body of the Colony or State to protect an invention. The first such patent on this continent was granted by the Masachusetts General Court to Samuel Winslow in 1641 for a novel method of making salt. George Washington signed the First United States Patent Grant on July 31, 1790, and the patent examiner was Thomas Jefferson. The first U.S. patent went to Samuel Hopkins of Pittsford, Vermont for a new method of making Potash, an industrial chemical used in making soap, glass, fertilizers and gunpowder. In 1790, the fee for a Patent was four dollars.
In order to ensure that the invention would be understood by all parties concerned, drawings of inventions have generally been required from applicants for patents since the first patent statute was enacted in 1790. A total of 55 patents were issued betwen 1790 and 1793 and there were nearly 10,000 United States patents granted between July 31, 1790 and July 2, 1836. These patents were not numbered but were referenced only by name and date.
After the Patent Act of July 4, 1836, patents were numbered, and patent No. 1 was issued on July 13, 1836. The patent office went back and numbered the older patents, and an X suffix was used to distinguish them from the newer patents. The first patent ever issued became patent number 1X.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
njscfan, I don't think you really understand where I'm coming from. When our country does something wrong, I call a spade a spade, regardless of the misdeeds of other countries around the world. Just because Germany or Iran did something wrong doesn't negate our own wrong-doing of a totally unrelated matter. And I don't support the Palestinians. If Israel wants to kill them off like the Nazis killed their own Jewish ancestors, then I say let them do it. But not on my dime, or my concience. I am an American. Not an Israeli. But you sound like an Israel-firster to me, which makes me wonder why you care so much about the fourth of July. If you recall, what I said and meant was that our American tax dollars shouldn't be spent on the construction of genocidal ghettos in Gaza; and I get a lecture on how bad every other country is. Fine. I get it. What does that have to do with my tax dollars being spent on the construction of genocidal ghettos in Gaza?
And what is up with this "maturity" argument? Do you mean to say that anyone who happens to disagree with you is immature?
On a side note, I notice you didn't say anything bad about Iceland or Holland.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"..I'm just curious, do you believe that our federal gov't was directly involved in committing the attacks of 9/11/2001?"
No, I don't believe that. I saw the evidence, and I still don't buy into it. Though I'm open to all possibilites. Maybe if more evidence comes out?
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the American Indians. I assume everyone is familiar and okay with the fact that one culture had to die so that ours could expand and prosper. But it's not over by any means. Your tax dollars today are going toward the establishment of a ghetto reservation in the Middle East on which the Palestinian people in whole are expected to die slowly over several generations for the benefit of the greater state of Israel. All compliments of the USA. But I seriously doubt that even 5% of the people on this board are aware that this is going on, and that we are subsidizing it. Yes, we are so good!
By the way, this was one of Bin Ladin's top three reasons for attacking us on 9/11, as stated in an interview with him prior to 9/11, in which he declared war on the US. He didn't attack us because we are "free". All this freedom nonense (i.e. they hate us because we are free) is Bush/government propaganda to stir up hate and fear in the average American zombie. And apparently it worked pretty well.
Imagine the lackluster response if instead Bush had told the American people, "Bin Ladin hates us because we are subsidizing ghettos in the Middle East in an attempt to exterminate an entire race of poeple." Sure, we would still hate Bin Ladin, but our way of life would not feel so threatened as when told the lie "He hates us becaue we are free".
That one lie paved the way for the American people to be duped into invading Iraq, for the sake of insuring our "freedom".
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
All I'm saying is that if it were absolutely necessary to drop those A-bombs to protect the USA, then I would be more open to it. But how come me and Eisenhower, and Secretary of state Byrnes, and a slew of others who were close to the situation all agree that it was a huge mistake? So Truman is right and everybody else is wrong. Very well then. As long as you can live with the fact that we are the only country in the world to have dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, then everything is cool. But I caution you that what goes around comes around.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"...Again. I have the money. Just tell me where want to go."
Shadowcat, your willingness to help out a total stranger who holds contrary opinions is rare and admirable. I find it all quite un-American of you. Thanks for the sentiment.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
President Harry S Truman had instructed that the atomic bomb was to be utilized in such a manner that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. He flat out stated, "Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and I are in accord. The target is a purely military one."
Actually, President Truman knew very well that the targets for the A-bombs were not military at all, but were instead cities full
of civilians, cities that had been selected primarily because so far in the war they had not sustained significant bomb damage. He also knew very well that his Secretary of State, James Byrnes, was very much opposed to this use of the bomb on civilian populations. While he was aboard the USS Augusta waiting for the first bomb to be dropped, therefore, Truman hid out from his Secretary of State in a marathon poker game. Another player in that fateful shipboard game, United Press International reporter Merriam Smith, would report on this, that the President of the United States of America "was running a straight stud filibuster" against his own Cabinet member.
200,000 innocent civilians had to die because some pussy hid out in a card game and didn't want to be disuaded by more rational minds. Does that remind you at all of the chimp we got sitting in the White House today?
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"Unfortunately, I doubt the Japanese would have surrendered without us invading them had it not been for those bombs..."
Misterguy, that's what they teach in US history books. Makes us feel better about vaporizing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Fact is, Japan was on the verge of surrender prior to Hiroshima, and the US military knew it. What's worse, the second bombing (Nagasaki) was rushed before a surrender could even take place, so that a cautionary signal could be sent to the Soviets. Nagasaki had nothing to do with making Japan surrender - it was about keeping the Soviets in line.
On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on the people of Hiroshima.
Early in the morning of August 9th Manchuria was invaded by the Soviet Union. The Soviets had notified Japan's Ambassador to Moscow on the night of the eighth that the Soviet Union would be at war with Japan as of August 9th (Butow, pg. 153-154, 164(n)). This was a blow to the Japanese government's peace-seeking efforts. The Russians had been the only major nation with which Japan still had a neutrality pact, and, as such, had been Japan's main hope of negotiating a peace with something better than unconditional surrender terms (Butow, pg. 87). To that end, the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today. (Butow, pg. 118-120, 130).
Late on the morning of August 9th, the U.S. dropped a second atomic bomb without a second thought, this time on the people of Nagasaki. Rather than wait to see if the Hiroshima bomb would bring surrender, the atomic bombing order to the Army Air Force stated, "Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff." (Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 308). Word of the second nuclear attack was relayed that day to the Japanese government (Leon Sigal, Fighting To a Finish, pg. 240).
What did Eisenhower think of all this?
"...in July 1945, Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"...I can see clearly the many flaws of my country and still love my country, much the same way I can love my family and friends even though I can see they are deeply flawed individuals."
Unconditional love is a feeling that should be reserved for mothers toward their offspring. Frankly, I am chagrined by the zombie-like affection that seems to permeate this country. I think perhaps what you and most Americans are in love with is merely the ideal of what America stands for on paper - and not actually what America *is*. Can we agree that these are two different things, and apportion our love accordingly?
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"..I strongly believe America is a garbage country that is one government fraud after another."
Garbage in --> Garbage out
Would you expect any better from a country founded on slavery and subsequent Jim Crow laws?
In 1850, half the country thought that "freedom" actually meant the freedom to hold slaves (i.e. property). So when you celebrate the 4th of July today, consider such particular "freedom" that our great forefathers were celebrating so long ago. And try not to laugh at the hypocrisy, or you might choke on your barbecued hotdog.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
"...The best way to be patriotic is to effect change in your own back yard first then spiral outward with it."
Parodyman, if you truly believe this, then you should start by setting the best example you can. A portion of your federal taxes is being used to pay off the interest on the debt that we borrowed to fund the immoral war in Iraq. So you are complicit in this global tragedy. Start there!
"...I use my time to work on things that will help bring the soldiers home as well as make their tour of duty better."
It's funny how you make yourself feel better by demonstrating or writing letters or sending "care packages" to the troops; at the same time your money is being used to help keep them there. And you think you are "doing" good. When really, you are not "being" good.
Henry Thoreau went to jail for purposely not paying the poll tax - monies to be used for an immoral US war with Mexico. Do you have the balls to do that? Perhaps not.
But by all means, do continue to ease your conscience by sending those care packages. That is really important. (Easing your conscience, that is.)
"A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose."
H.D. Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
Parodyman, clog together with me, and I'll meet you in prison.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
founderslip a dollar in her g-string for me
I am so proud of being an American - and knowing that I live in the only country in the history of the world to have dropped a nuclear bomb on a civilan population - twice. Unnecessarily.
I also feel blessed knowing that our forefathers had the foresight to break with England and adopt black slavery as the economic engine of the colonies -- maintaining that peculiar institution longer than any other western civilization. Now that is leadership for you!
We are SUCH a good people. Oh, it brings tears to my eyes, knowing how much better and smarter we are than the rest of the world. After all, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, then who would?
Yes, show me a more civilized people amongst all the Western nations! My God, they've all abolished the death penalty long ago. Whereas we, like Iran and other fundamentalist states, are decent enough to embrace the necessity of capital punishment.
Yes, I love this country. And I show it every day by wearing a flag pin on my lapel. It saves me from the effort of having to think for myself.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Dancers with disproportionate implants get the least tip from me, while dancers with 100% natural breasts get the absolute highest. If I wanted to feel silicone or saline, I'd take a tour of the DOW Chemical plant on my way home from work. Too bad I am in the minority, otherwise the free market would have corrected the silly "dancer boob-job" mania by now. Maybe someday, that bubble will burst.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Well, the title of this thread is, after all, "The Battle of the Sexes" :)
From Thoreau to Schopenhauer, you gotta love it!
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
This is a really interesting thread. There is a lot to take in. I will agree with the comments about double standards with women. It is rather amazing to me how blind the female gender is to their own condition in regard to beauty. A fat ugly pig spends $200 to get her hair and nails done, and she thinks that makes her beautiful? I've never met a man so gullible to think that beauty resides mainly in pieces of plastic and dye coloring. I've also yet to meet a woman who understands how silly this really is to (straight) men.
In a similar vain, you have a majority of women who think that a balding man with a hairpiece, regardless of its quality, looks utterly silly, and should just accept the fact that he's going bald. Without exception, these are the same women who think that a woman with "small" or sagging breasts has every right to get "enhancements" to improve her self-image; when in fact 4 out of 5 times the boob job actually ruins her natural look and feel, and most guys would have preferred her without the implants. And yet...AND YET.... do we guys huddle around and ridicule all boob jobs? Or do we accept it as a woman's choice, and display a little sympathy and class in understanding that societal pressures can make people do things that we might not agree with?
I think it was Schopenhaur who wrote: "The fundamental flaw of the female character is that it has no sense of justice."
To wit, observe Hillary Clinton's total lack of understanding that you don't change the rules in the middle of the game (election) -- a prime example of Schopenhaur's female in the highest degree.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Henry David Thoreau went to a party on November 14, 1851.
"In the evening went to a party. It is a bad place to go -- thirty or forty persons, mostly young women, in a small room, warm and noisy. Was introduced to two young women. The first was as lively and loquacious as a chickadee; had been accustomed to the society of watering-places, and therefore could get no refreshment out of such a dry fellow as I. The other was said to be pretty-looking, but I rarely look people in their faces, and moreover, I could not hear what she said, there was such a clacking -- could only see the motion of her lips when I looked that way. I could imagine better places for conversation, where there should be a certain degree of silence surrounding you, and less than forty talking at once... These parties, I think, are part of the machinery of modern society, that young people may be brought together to form marraige connections. I confess that I am lacking a sense, perchance, in this respect, and I derive no pleasure from talking with a young woman half an hour simply because she has regular features. The society of young women is the most unprofitable I have ever tried. They are so light and flighty that you can never be sure whether they are there or not. I prefer to talk with the more staid and settled, settled for life, in every sense."
journal entry, Nov. 14, 1851
(note: Thoreau was 34 years old)
discussion comment
16 years ago
If there's hair, I'm there!