Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Norcal you know the secret.
Treat people kindly and they return the favor.
It really doesn't matter where your from.
Hey, I know plenty of a-holes and they are from texas
Nah, New York has got them all beat. I've got alot of corporate transfers around me here. They don't speak, they spit venom, especially the realtor I bought this house from 12 years ago.
Nah, New York has got them all beat. I've got alot of corporate transfers around me here. They don't speak, they spit venom, especially the realtor I bought this house from 12 years ago.
Yeah, I was born in New England and then I moved to California and now I am in Idaho. Moving from New York to SoCal was a huge culture shock... people actually said hi at cash register check-out lines, were dressed really casual, and moved 5x slower when doing anything. Everything back east is really fast paced and more formal. I'll never forget the time when I saw a woman and her child in shorts and a T-shirt shopping at the grocery store with no shoes on lol. Idaho is slower too but not like California. I think it is the warm weather that makes people lethargic.
You see, that's exactly what I mean...the above posters proove my point....they bring that city bitterness with them up to Idaho...that resentment...that political rhetoric talk...all that left vs right garbage...and all their racial anomosity and resentment...they bring all that with them from cali...and make it hard for native Minority Idahoians or Eastern Washingtonians...who happen to be of color.
That's excatly what I'm talking about...then as soon as they see a racial minority, they automatically assume the worst...that's exactly the imported hostility I was talking about... (Post 120 post 119)
Last edited by Time and Space; 01-25-2010 at 09:19 PM..
You see, that's exactly what I mean...the above posters proove my point....they bring that city bitterness with them up to Idaho...that resentment...that political rhetoric talk...all that left vs right garbage...and all their racial anomosity and resentment...they bring all that with them from cali...and make it hard for native Minority Idahoians or Eastern Washingtonians...who happen to be of color.
That's excatly what I'm talking about...then as soon as they see a racial minority, they automatically assume the worst...that's exactly the imported hostility I was talking about...
T&S,
Thanks for your posts. I think your comments are important. They touch on the idea that many people who move from one place to another are not moving for the attractions of the destination but to leave the origin. Many leave with huge baggage and bitterness and then try to impose their "old world" order on an environment that is really designed on different rules.
I saw a "City Confidential" episode that seemed to illustrate this point even without race. A White Georgian from a big city moves to Tennessee and buys property in a bucolic area outside of Chattanooga. He is obssessed with property rights, his property's rights, in an area in which considerable accommodation is given to local traditions, one of which was to enjoy a swimming hole that had been part of local folklore for 100+ years.
But this "outsider" puts up No Trespassing signs and begins to interrogate every kid and adult heading to the hole, forcing them to register in his log book. Finally, he threatens two guys with a shotgun. What then follows does not surprise: three local guys are gunned down in cold blood. He is convicted for the triple murder.
They were locals playing by locals' rules in which property rights were not violated but bent to accommodate local traditions. The new owner and outsider was there to assert strict enforcement of his legal rights, damned be anyone in the way.
A lot of people have left their home states jaded by an assortment of factors. Some of these factors have a racial dimension to them, whether justified or not. My concern is that they bring the rules and history of that "game" over here, where neither the history nor rules are shared. These people then come into Northern Idaho to impose on her a "New Order" ignoring the local rules of the game and forcing NID to play a game that was never needed to be played.
The leaders of the Aryan Nation were two out-of-state businessmen who wanted to remake Idaho into a White homeland. Heck, when they arrived, Idaho was already 95-98% White! Yet its Whiteness was born of its history in timber and mining and natural beauty and not from design, fear, anger or escapism. People settled here because it was the "here" that was attractive.
I hope that those with baggage move elsewhere. I don;t want to see gated communities here. I don't want to listen to ignorant and intolerant people yap about straw men. I told want to see a community that it essentially independence minded and very much about judging people on the content of their character turned into something far more superficial and mean.
Instead, come here for "here." This is a special place on this earth. Blessed by nature and maintained by natural forces. It is a place that humbles and yet allows us to celebrate that humility with community and goodwill. While it is conservative, internal character rather than explicit membership is the metric most use.
And beyond race, I would hope that those who are staunch supporters of their Constitutional rights also take note that respect for one's property rights need not require gates or boundary lines guarded by vicious dogs or shotguns as if we are in a state of war with our neighbors. While technically within our rights, it would be a lesser quality equilibrium.
T&S,
Thanks for your posts. I think your comments are important. They touch on the idea that many people who move from one place to another are not moving for the attractions of the destination but to leave the origin. Many leave with huge baggage and bitterness and then try to impose their "old world" order on an environment that is really designed on different rules.
I saw a "City Confidential" episode that seemed to illustrate this point even without race. A White Georgian from a big city moves to Tennessee and buys property in a bucolic area outside of Chattanooga. He is obssessed with property rights, his property's rights, in an area in which considerable accommodation is given to local traditions, one of which was to enjoy a swimming hole that had been part of local folklore for 100+ years.
But this "outsider" puts up No Trespassing signs and begins to interrogate every kid and adult heading to the hole, forcing them to register in his log book. Finally, he threatens two guys with a shotgun. What then follows does not surprise: three local guys are gunned down in cold blood. He is convicted for the triple murder.
They were locals playing by locals' rules in which property rights were not violated but bent to accommodate local traditions. The new owner and outsider was there to assert strict enforcement of his legal rights, damned be anyone in the way.
A lot of people have left their home states jaded by an assortment of factors. Some of these factors have a racial dimension to them, whether justified or not. My concern is that they bring the rules and history of that "game" over here, where neither the history nor rules are shared. These people then come into Northern Idaho to impose on her a "New Order" ignoring the local rules of the game and forcing NID to play a game that was never needed to be played.
The leaders of the Aryan Nation were two out-of-state businessmen who wanted to remake Idaho into a White homeland. Heck, when they arrived, Idaho was already 95-98% White! Yet its Whiteness was born of its history in timber and mining and natural beauty and not from design, fear, anger or escapism. People settled here because it was the "here" that was attractive.
I hope that those with baggage move elsewhere. I don;t want to see gated communities here. I don't want to listen to ignorant and intolerant people yap about straw men. I told want to see a community that it essentially independence minded and very much about judging people on the content of their character turned into something far more superficial and mean.
Instead, come here for "here." This is a special place on this earth. Blessed by nature and maintained by natural forces. It is a place that humbles and yet allows us to celebrate that humility with community and goodwill. While it is conservative, internal character rather than explicit membership is the metric most use.
And beyond race, I would hope that those who are staunch supporters of their Constitutional rights also take note that respect for one's property rights need not require gates or boundary lines guarded by vicious dogs or shotguns as if we are in a state of war with our neighbors. While technically within our rights, it would be a lesser quality equilibrium.
Best,
S.
Ok, let me try this again..my first response to you mysteriously vanished...and now the second response won't be as good...but I'll try...
First off...thank you...thank you for understanding my perspective as a person of color from that area...even though I grew up in that area...it's hard for me to blend in with the 'majority' for obvious reasons.. D'oh...
And as a result...I'm an easy target for those fleeing other areas...who come up here with lot's of political and racial anomosity and stereotypes...
I'm an easy target....but they don't realize there are some, as myself, that were raised in the area...and we in no way shape or form...are from the same mold of people or enviornment their 'fleeing'...
So their first reaction when they see us or me is one of 'disdain' 'anger' and 'hostility'...for they see me in the same light they saw those they fled from...and they project the same stereo types on me, that they would some inner city crack head...
And then they whisper...and spread the hostility...Mark furman is a perfect example of that...he came to Idaho..and brought with him all that disputed Los Angelos racial strife with him...
But what made him think that somehow Idaho could be his refuge?
That's what scares me...as a native to the area...I never really encountered hardcore racism from the natives...they really had no reason to be racist cause as you mentioned...the minority population is so low that the issues that plague Chicago don't or didn't idaho...until the scare mongers came a rolling in...
I always felt at home in Idaho...freinds grandparents use to invite me to their cabin...had a blast...but if you have a 1000 Mark Furmans at the lake...they would probablly all think I was there to sell drugs...like their former enviornment in LA or Chicago...
I'm not saying all transplants are like that...most probablly aren't...but the ones that are make it hard on a fella like me...
Anyways...a hug...and once again..thanks for your kindness...even though I probablly did not deserve it...I currently reside in the SE...
I'll tell you a funny story in the next post....
Ok, funny story...when I was a kid growing up in that area...a friend of mines parent was like a hippie of sorts...I guess...and there was a anti-aryon nations rally...well she asked if her son and I wanted to tote along...we agreed...not cause of the rally...but cause it would get us out of a day of school...hurray!
Anyhow...we get up there...and go to a park with people protesting and all...me and my friend could totally care less about that...to us that was 'adult stuff'...all we wanted to find was a video arcade....so in the park...we notice a bunch of shave headed guys with black leather jackets...we're like..'hey...maybe they know where an arcade is'...
So we stroll over there to the court...and walk right in the middle of them all...(again, to us they were just freaky punked out teens, a new fad or something) we ask them where a arcade was...and believe it or not...they were as polite as could be...and told us....but as we were leaving...like all these cameras decended on us...abc, nbc, cbs...and started asking questions about race this race that....and I answered the best I could...but on the inside I was thinking about pac-man...
Ok...here's what really happened...my friends mother dropped us off in the middle of a skin head aryon nations rally...and the large group of shaved headed youth were skinheads...duh....
But in all honesty...I did not know what a skinhead was back then...was probablly to young to even care...(sometimes bliss can be heavenly)...and when the reporters saw two minority youth walking right in the middle of 'hostile, dangerous skinheads'...they thought we were being haraced...and or trying to start something...so they rushed over to get our exclusive story...and me and my friend were on the national news...all over the country since it was a national story...
T&S,
Thanks for your posts. I think your comments are important. They touch on the idea that many people who move from one place to another are not moving for the attractions of the destination but to leave the origin. Many leave with huge baggage and bitterness and then try to impose their "old world" order on an environment that is really designed on different rules.
I saw a "City Confidential" episode that seemed to illustrate this point even without race. A White Georgian from a big city moves to Tennessee and buys property in a bucolic area outside of Chattanooga. He is obssessed with property rights, his property's rights, in an area in which considerable accommodation is given to local traditions, one of which was to enjoy a swimming hole that had been part of local folklore for 100+ years.
But this "outsider" puts up No Trespassing signs and begins to interrogate every kid and adult heading to the hole, forcing them to register in his log book. Finally, he threatens two guys with a shotgun. What then follows does not surprise: three local guys are gunned down in cold blood. He is convicted for the triple murder.
They were locals playing by locals' rules in which property rights were not violated but bent to accommodate local traditions. The new owner and outsider was there to assert strict enforcement of his legal rights, damned be anyone in the way.
A lot of people have left their home states jaded by an assortment of factors. Some of these factors have a racial dimension to them, whether justified or not. My concern is that they bring the rules and history of that "game" over here, where neither the history nor rules are shared. These people then come into Northern Idaho to impose on her a "New Order" ignoring the local rules of the game and forcing NID to play a game that was never needed to be played.
The leaders of the Aryan Nation were two out-of-state businessmen who wanted to remake Idaho into a White homeland. Heck, when they arrived, Idaho was already 95-98% White! Yet its Whiteness was born of its history in timber and mining and natural beauty and not from design, fear, anger or escapism. People settled here because it was the "here" that was attractive.
I hope that those with baggage move elsewhere. I don;t want to see gated communities here. I don't want to listen to ignorant and intolerant people yap about straw men. I told want to see a community that it essentially independence minded and very much about judging people on the content of their character turned into something far more superficial and mean.
Instead, come here for "here." This is a special place on this earth. Blessed by nature and maintained by natural forces. It is a place that humbles and yet allows us to celebrate that humility with community and goodwill. While it is conservative, internal character rather than explicit membership is the metric most use.
And beyond race, I would hope that those who are staunch supporters of their Constitutional rights also take note that respect for one's property rights need not require gates or boundary lines guarded by vicious dogs or shotguns as if we are in a state of war with our neighbors. While technically within our rights, it would be a lesser quality equilibrium.
Best,
S.
As much as I disagree with how the property owner handled the situation, the man is not in total violation. If the property owner purchased the land with the sink-hole in it AND put up no trespassing signs and the people still went to the sink hole, then not only did they break the law, they showed no respect for the owner. If the community sink-hole was so important, the community would have legally set up the land as public property making it illegal to purchase in the first place. If you disagree, then John Lock's definition of property along with its inherited rights has no meaning to you and you probably are not much of a constitutionalist.
Come to think of it, Karl Marx was one of the few individuals to critique Locke's theory on property.
My concern is that they bring the rules and history of that "game" over here, where neither the history nor rules are shared.
As far as I know, the rules never changed. I believe our founding fathers believed in strict rules regarding property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandpointian
And beyond race, I would hope that those who are staunch supporters of their Constitutional rights also take note that respect for one's property rights need not require gates or boundary lines guarded by vicious dogs or shotguns as if we are in a state of war with our neighbors. While technically within our rights, it would be a lesser quality equilibrium.
You have a point but you sound like no walls or fences should be able to be built. The fact of the matter is that they can and should if the property owner wishes it. If you want to create a "mandate" that prevents it than there is no point to ownership of property in the first place. The Native Americans had the philosophy that man should not "own" land and the result... Manifest Destiny from a more powerful foreign intruder. If you can't own and defend then others will take. What makes the Native American philosophy hypocritical is that rival tribes often competed and even annihilated each other for food and territorial rights to that food. In practice they did the same thing but in a very unsophisticated manner which resulted in their demise.
[quote=Time and Space;12613964]And then they whisper...and spread the hostility...Mark furman is a perfect example of that...he came to Idaho..and brought with him all that disputed Los Angelos racial strife with him...
But what made him think that somehow Idaho could be his refuge?
That's what scares me...as a native to the area...I never really encountered hardcore racism from the natives...they really had no reason to be racist cause as you mentioned...the minority population is so low that the issues that plague Chicago don't or didn't idaho...until the scare mongers came a rolling in...
I always felt at home in Idaho...freinds grandparents use to invite me to their cabin...had a blast...but if you have a 1000 Mark Furmans at the lake...they would probablly all think I was there to sell drugs...like their former enviornment in LA or Chicago...
quote]
Time and Space, since your whole point seems to be to break up perceptions of stereotypes, I think I need to step in here and let you know that you yourself are perpetuating a false stereotype—not out of malice, but (I assume) simply buying into a common misconception. The name of Mark Fuhrman has come up from time to time on this forum, and now I think it is time to set some things straight: Fuhrman, for one thing, is not from CA—he grew up in the Northwest, and he simply returned to his roots when he retired from the LAPD. For another, I fail to see how he has brought "racial strife" to ID, or made life hard for black minority residents, as you implied in your first post. You may not know it, but he spent 20 years fighting crime in LA, most of the time protecting citizens in predominantly black neighborhoods against gangs. I used to listen to his radio talk show online. For those of you who don’t know, Fuhrman had a very successful radio show out of Spokane for 9 years. It was in-depth, engaging, and pretty courageous, challenging the listeners’ preconceived notions regardless of whether they came from the extreme political left or right. Not even once did I hear any sign of a hostile attitude toward minorities, on the contrary: During the Idaho trial against Richard Butler, the Neo-Nazi leader that Sandpointian is referring to, Fuhrman interviewed people (including people of ethnic minorities) who had been victimized by Butler, welcomed call-ins about the perfidy of Butler and his ilk, and in a series of shows tore apart the white supremacist ideology with scathing criticism. On his show he would repeatedly take a stand defending victims of crime, regardless of their ethnic background. Same thing goes for his books. Your posts, in perpetuating a "Fuhrman" stereotype—which was initially concocted by lawyers to sway the outcome of a murder trial—only promote further hostility, and are as such essentially hurtful to the entire North Idaho community. You need to see that in evoking the Fuhrman stereotype you are speaking with the same kind of prejudice that you are criticizing others of harboring.
As much as I disagree with how the property owner handled the situation, the man is not in total violation. If the property owner purchased the land with the sink-hole in it AND put up no trespassing signs and the people still went to the sink hole, then not only did they break the law, they showed no respect for the owner. If the community sink-hole was so important, the community would have legally set up the land as public property making it illegal to purchase in the first place. If you disagree, then John Lock's definition of property along with its inherited rights has no meaning to you and you probably are not much of a constitutionalist.
Come to think of it, Karl Marx was one of the few individuals to critique Locke's theory on property.
Well now, I have not been labeled a Marxist since I was 18 and feeling my way through different ideas! LOL!! My beard is long but not that long!
But more seriously, the are several ways of approaching the law. There are two worth exploring. One is the intent of the law: Here the fundamental distinctions are: letter of law, spirit of the law, and desired use of the law.
Two is the execution of the law. Here the fundamental distinctions are: Real time 24/7 enforcement; consistent application of law but selection execution; nonenforcement of law; and inappropriate application of the law.
On #1, constitutionalists or strict constructionists try to find the right balance between letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Since the entirety of modern society was addressed by the Founding Fathers 221 years ago and because our legal system is based on non-codified common law, not all rules of the game are written into the Constitution. I do not believe in an activist Constitution, but I can accept that many issues require discussions that are very much about contrasting notions on the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. So the reference to not being a Constitutionalist is both misplaced and irrelevant.
On #2, I would argue that not all law is strictly enforced 24/7 nor desired as such. The reasoning is partially an issue of economics and partially one of social pragmatism. The former is obvious via examination of city budgets. The latter should be clear by observation of law enforcement. But enforcement is really not a question of being a Constitutionalist or not! Rather the answer lies in the economics and pragmatism.
With the Tennessee case, let's be clear: the property manager had the right to have his property rights respected. But pathway taken from that acknowledgment/realization to the death of three innocents was one of arrogance, stupidity, and complete immoral disregard for civil society. Will I mount a tripod on my roof and summarily execute each school kid who dare cross into my yard? Should we expect citizens with radar guns issuing identifying speeding violations for driving 26 in a 25 zone? Should I taze or shoot every dog that crosses within a 3 foot circle in a way that can be perceived as one tiny shade toward threatening? The list of questions on enforcement of rights goes on and on.
Fortunately common sense, pragmatism and economics help narrow down situations that require intervention into a relative small number. Of these several are best handled by law enforcement, officers hired by a given community to enforce the laws of that community. Hopefully at this point, there remain non or perhaps a handful of cases which force the property owner to strictly and forcefully enforce their rights. Murdering three guys atop their ATVs without conversation or warning over access to a swimming hole is not on any such list!
America used to be a country which masterfully combined rights and pragmatism. Management required intelligent use of discretion and not the blind application of rules. Increasingly however, not only are we trending away from intelligent discretion and into codified behavior (which is the basis of France's Napoleonic Code--no thanks), but we are no longer allowing society its crucial role in settling disputes through communication and cooperation.
Civil and free society requires this intelligence or it can and will decay something which will make socialism and communism appear as more attractive than they should be.
S.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
