We have previously discussed how the effort to control language that has been prominent on college campuses has now spread to city and state legislation like Berkeley getting rid of “manholes” in favor of “maintanence holes.” Now San Francisco has mandated that the use of felons, offender, and criminals is no longer correct. Instead, a convicted felon will now be referred to as a “justice-involved person” or “returning resident.” A juvenile “delinquent” will now be called a “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.”
Given the recent wave of criminal (or “justice-involved”) activity, one would think that the Board of Supervisors would have a few more pressing matters on its hands. Yet, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the leaders of the city want to reform language as a public priority.
Supervisor Matt Haney insists that the city is removing “scarlet letters” so that “people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done.” Of course, that is also a reflection of your past record.
The interesting thing is that there seems to be an effort to make the reference so awkward that people just will not refer to criminal records. They could have used a newly available word from Germany, which got rid of its longest word: Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz. Now that is one no one would use for a felon.
Just image the “APB”: “All cars, all cars, be on the look out for a Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz . . . “
It is however going to cause great damage to our literary and cinematic works. “The Ordinary Decent Criminal” must now be “The Ordinary Decent Justice -Involved Person” and the classic Claude Rains film “They Made Me A Criminal” must become “They Made Me A Justice-Involved Person.”
Even famous quotes need to be changed like Marie Antoinette “I have just been condemned, not to a shameful death, which can only apply to [justice-involved persons], but rather to finding your brother again.”
I would call that a crime but not in San Francisco.
San Francisco Declares That Convicted Felons Will Now Be Called “Returning Residents” Or “Justice-Involved Persons”
And what euphemism has the San Franciscan Board of Supervisors concocted to make the innumerable human poop stains decorating sidewalks and vestibules across town more enjoyable for San Franciscans and their visitors to step-in and smell?
Why that’s not a pile of poop – it’s a bouquet of human rose petals that must be smelt in order to savor.
Why not simply re-classify all convicted felons as:
Politicians (or vice versa)
Or is that term more offensive than convicted felon?
“I’m gonna take a wild guess that the communists are prepping the proletariat for the potential to allow felons to vote while in prison, on parole and on probation. Democrats (i.e. communists) need voters.”
Wild guess, eh. Judging by the free associative verbal diarrhea that seems to flow from your keyboard, it seems pretty clear that wild guesses are your stock in trade.
San Francisco, once a world class city and cultural treasure, has been turned into a physical and intellectual cesspool, thanks to the idiots who run the city & county government, and who line their pockets with the proceeds. Too bad.
Oh Happy Day, More New Speak from the Left! Surely, if we call a tomato an orange, it will taste like one.
The same people represented by that city council also sent Nancy Pelosi to Congress to control how our laws are made. They are among those who sent Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein to the US Senate.
The evidence is strong these folks can’t even run their own city. Yet, they want to make our laws.
And California’s city councilpersons are “reality-impaired”.
California is a beautiful state, in terms of weather, terrain, culture, etc., etc. – The list goes on and on.
But the state, as a whole, has some serious issues.
Instead of worrying about political correctness, which is ridiculous in and of itself.
The state has a major homeless problem, for one, and a dysfunctional DPSS system.
“Pass the Buck; Stick Your Head in the Sand; Put Your Blinders On”
With an incapacited mentally ill brother who simply cannot work, the solution would be have him living in the parentals house in perpetuity.
However, when the parents are too immature, refuse to take responsibility, and want to live out their retirement years pretended to be in there 20s again parading arounf the country, refusing to give shelter to their own children…it leaves their son, struggling to swim…no, let me re-phrase, that is being too kind… drowning, as a homeless person with no support system in a large city.
Add on the absolutely infuriating system that is Health and Human Services, DPSS, HUD, various Housing Authorities, all of which will not help at all, after 4 hours of phone calls you’re left wondering why the system even exists at all, if you can’t get help for those in need.
And I think SF has the samr very serious homeless problem.
So, why is the leadership in SF focused on word choice? Should be the last of their concerns.
To provide jobs for the people who work within it, of course. What, are you new here?
I am so green. I guess I should drop the remaining diminutive hope and optimism about the system wanting to actual help those in need.
How selfish!?!?! Your parents spent years raising you & your sibling (plus any other siblings).
Why can’t YOU and any other siblings take care of him?
You sleeze bag… Take care of your brother.
You are the problem.. You are concerned then you take care of him.
There exists perhaps a small benefit to politicians wasting legislative time on fool’s errands such as this–they consequently devote less of their greatly limited faculties toward attacking or damaging the public as they usually do.
When a municipality suffers governance by demagoguery or charlatanism, supplying city councils with rather inconsequential raisons d’être such as proclamations, (and useless gestures that they mistakenly but truly believe grants them relevance and accolades among their sycophants and benefactors), this actually allows residents the ability to retain more of their liberty, property, and money that would otherwise be likely stolen by politicians.
Some people may not wish to know who the Commie/Fascist Domestic Enemies are that we’ve have been facing for decades here inside the US.
Yet I remember the public be warned in the early 70’s
Here’s a large piece of refresher info some may wish to know.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397386-Was-Lincoln-a-Marxist
Marx published in 1848 and “Crazy Abe” Lincoln inhaled communism in Illinois beginning with the concept of the elimination of classes – he became obsessed with abolition and the elimination of the slave class. Communism in America then PROGRESSED to Taft, Wilson and Roosevelt who were confirmed communists – read Witness by Whittaker Chambers – and has achieved virtual completion through Johnson and Obama.
The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
___________________________________________________________________________
Lincoln/Marx Timeline
– Lincoln born: February 12, 1809
– Marx born: May 5, 1818
– Marx publishes a book about Emancipation: 1843
– Marx expelled from France as a radical: 1845
– Lincoln elected to US House: 1846
– Marx publishes the Communist Manifesto: February 1848
– Marx is a contributor to the New York Tribune (Lincoln’s favorite newspaper), 1851-1861
– Lincoln runs for U.S. Senate vs. Douglas, famous Lincoln-Douglas debates occur: 1858
– Lincoln becomes US President: 1860
– Civil War Starts: 1861
– Emancipation Proclamation: January 1, 1863
“A quick Google search of Lincoln and Marx points to a relevant article. Who better to describe the connections of Lincoln and Marx than the International Socialist?
Unless, of course, we bother to examine the tattered copies of the American outlet for Marx’s revolutionary preachments during the period when Lincoln was preparing to leave the political wilderness and make his march to the presidency. That journal, the New York Tribune, was the most consistently influential of nineteenth-century American newspapers. Indeed, this was the newspaper that engineered the unexpected and in many ways counterintuitive delivery of the Republican nomination for president, in that most critical year of 1860, to an Illinoisan who just two years earlier had lost the competition for a home-state U.S. Senate seat…
…
Lincoln’s involvement was not just with Greeley but with his sub-editors and writers, so much so that the first Republican president appointed one of Greeley’s most radical lieutenants—the Fourier- and Proudhon-inspired socialist and longtime editor of Marx’s European correspondence, Charles Dana—as his assistant secretary of war.
…
Long before 1848, German radicals had begun to arrive in Illinois, where they quickly entered into the legal and political circles in which Lincoln traveled. One of them, Gustav Korner, was a student revolutionary at the University of Munich who had been imprisoned by German authorities…
…
Within a decade, Korner would pass the Illinois bar, win election to the legislature and be appointed to the state Supreme Court. Korner and Lincoln formed an alliance that would become so close that the student revolutionary from Frankfurt would eventually be one of seven personal delegates-at-large named by Lincoln to serve at the critical Republican State Convention in May 1860, which propelled the Springfield lawyer into that year’s presidential race. Through Korner, Lincoln met and befriended many of the German radicals who, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, fled to Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin. Along with Korner on Lincoln’s list of personal delegates-at-large to the 1860 convention was Friedrich Karl Franz Hecker, a lawyer from Mannheim who had served as a liberal legislator in the lower chamber of the Baden State Assembly before leading an April 1848 uprising in the region—an uprising cheered on by the newspaper Marx briefly edited during that turbulent period, Neue Rheinische Zeitung—Organ der Demokratie.
…
The failure of the 1848 revolts, and the brutal crackdowns that followed, led many leading European radicals to take refuge in the United States, and Lincoln’s circle of supporters would eventually include some of Karl Marx’s closest associates and intellectual sparring partners, including Joseph Weydemeyer and August Willich.”
“Marx published in 1848 and “Crazy Abe” Lincoln inhaled communism in Illinois beginning with the concept of the elimination of classes – he became obsessed with abolition and the elimination of the slave class, et cet. ad naus.”
Looks like the John Birch Society is rearing its ugly-looking head.
You launch the slings and arrows of outrageous ad hominem entirely bereft of facts and evidence. Please, by all means, counter the definitive, recorded history of the escape and migration of Marxists to New York and Illinois and the extensive interaction with “intellectuals,” “journalists,” his ilk and even “Crazy Abe” himself. No coincidence that timeline, huh? BTW, the fact that no other nation in human history ever ended slavery by total war proves “Crazy Abe’s” psychosis, obsession, insanity and absolute disrespect for American freedom and its Constitution (George Washington ended slavery passively by granting his slaves freedom in his will and the CSA had no future given oppositional advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc.). See? It’s easy…and then along came “Crazy Abe.”
You might begin your research at this link:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397386-Was-Lincoln-a-Marxist
“You might begin your research at this link”
Then again, I might not.
You bore me, sir.
Lincoln was a railroad lawyer. He represented the interests of Yankee industry. Not the Northern workers. they were just his cannon fodder.
In many ways equality was achieved mostly be lowering everyone to the level of poorly paid wages earners like the teeming masses up north.
Of course Marx approved of the Civil war as a necessary step forward from feudalism to capitalism, which was he considered necessary to the eventual victory of the working class
somehow it didnt work out that way. Yankee capitalists are still in charge for sure. And they never liked Ron Paul, either.
Darren:
No you’re seeing an attack on language as a precursor to an attack on culture and ultimately thought. Don’t underestimate the power of changing language to change thinking.
I can appreciate your argument, though I wouldn’t see it as a precursor. What their end goal is I tend to agree with you but I see the language attempt as more symptomatic rather than procedural. Perhaps these councilmembers, if they are actually capable of individual research at some point during their lives/education continue to somehow support the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis (which is mostly discredited today).
If they somehow also succeed in redefining nomenclature related to crooks and sewer drains in this incidence it will remain in the minds of most people as another example of buffoonery or in the long term simply forgotten–leaving a legacy confined to a definition statute buried in some blue law codebook. If that was the only damage and it saved us from another brilliant idea to take away our property or raise the excise tax on businesses it was certainly worthwhile.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-liberals-need-self-criticism-11566428129
We Liberals Need Self-Criticism
We won’t beat Trump by blaming others and boasting about our own supposed virtue.
By Ioannis Gatsiounis Aug. 21, 2019 6:55 pm ET
President Trump greets supporters in Manchester, N.H., Aug. 15. Photo: jonathan ernst/Reuters
I’d love to see Donald Trump beaten in 2020, and it should be easy enough. His list of accomplishments is short, most Americans express strong disapproval of his behavior, and he has done little to win over people who don’t already support him. Yet he stands a good chance of re-election. One in five registered voters is up for grabs in 2020, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, while Mr. Trump’s approval rating among independents has risen from 35% to 42% since June, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. What gives?
I blame my fellow liberals. Rather than figuring out a way to beat an unpopular president in 2020, most have spent the past 2½ years blaming everyone but themselves— Hillary Clinton, Russia, the Electoral College, “white supremacists”—and expecting to win on the strength of their hatred without putting together a winning coalition.
Part of the problem lies with the unpopular positions prominent Democrats have taken—from decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings to banning private health insurance. The main problem, though, has less to do with policy than with attitude. To many ordinary Americans we appear unhinged, haughty and out of touch. What can we do to change?
First, stop obsessing over identity. We can and should support policies that benefit disadvantaged groups, from criminal-justice reform to a higher minimum wage and affordable health care. But our tendency to insert race, sex and sexual orientation into everything gives the impression that we are more committed to narrow groups than Americans as a whole.
Second, change the Manichaean outlook. Liberals increasingly tend to shame and “cancel” anyone who doesn’t conform to our thinking on complex social issues. We wield political correctness like a club. It’s been well-documented that voters in 2016 saw Trump as an antidote to political correctness—and it isn’t only conservatives. Eighty percent of Americans—including three-quarters of blacks and more than 80% of Asian-Americans, Hispanics and American Indians—disapprove of political correctness.
Third, cultivate a fuller understanding of justice. Our fanatical embrace of the oppressor-victim narrative finds us quick to assign guilt or innocence based on narrow identity markers like race and sex, seeing women as always victims, men as always aggressors, minorities and immigrants as by definition innocent. We’ve rightly drawn attention to disparities in everything from police brutality to mortgage lending, but we’ve become reckless in the process. Think of the way progressives believed Jussie Smollett ’s preposterous hate-crime claim and condemned Al Franken without evidence.
Fourth, progressives need to be progressive—pluralistic rather than tribal, compassionate rather than hateful, thoughtful rather than reactive. “Progressive” has become a dirty word to many Americans, more closely associated with intolerance and double standards than with free thought and due process.
Fifth, those who work in the media need to stop abusing their authority. I am grateful for rigorous investigative work that uncovers Mr. Trump’s abuses of power. But there’s a reason so many Americans think much of the media is “fake news”: The left-of-center figures who populate it stop at nothing to demonize their political enemies.
This is a shame because our side’s media is basically alone in drawing attention to pressing issues like corruption, climate change and income inequality. We’ll have a better time reaching people when our approach to delivering the news is more credible.
We liberals have hidden behind our professed goodness and lost our capacity for self-criticism. We’ve insisted that everyone else adapt to a changing world but have refused to adapt ourselves. If we don’t change, we’ll continue to inspire more suspicion than hope, and pay a price for it in 2020 and beyond.
Mr. Gatsiounis is an Austin-based writer who reports on race and politics.
Interesting how all of these euphemisms take longer to say/print. They’ll never catch on without force in the form of punishments for not using them. As we have seen in the EU and Canada, there’s no anti-freedom absurdity that SJWs will not go to in order to control our thoughts.
Well it is bizarre if you’ve actually completed your sentence that you should be referred to as anything at all. As far as I’m concerned you’re equal to everybody else once you’ve served your sentence. I don’t understand the thinking. If you’re still on probation, that should be taken into account — although not disqualifying. But people who have already served their debt? I mean I just wasn’t brought up to think that way. I don’t know what to tell you.
Steve J:
“As far as I’m concerned you’re equal to everybody else once you’ve served your sentence.”
“I mean I just wasn’t brought up to think that way.”
Really, you don’t think that way? Would you be fine if a convicted pedophile coached girls sports, or babysat kids? Would you want a convicted identity thief to have access to your SSN through work? If you go out on a date, would it matter to you if the other person had been convicted of falsely accusing a man of sexual assault or burning his house down? I do not believe that you would view everyone exactly the same whether they were convicted of a violent crime or not. It is also true that people are more willing to be forgiving when transgressions occurred in youth, and were not of a violent or destructive nature.
If none of those things would bother you, then you are lacking in the instincts honed by evolution.
One of my favorite indie movies is First Time Felon. I was strongly moved that some felons deserve a second chance. There was a manager of a restaurant whom I knew to be a convicted violent felon. He was devoted to the restaurant owner for giving him a chance, and I think he’d rather set himself on fire than cause him any trouble. However, there are only some jobs that are suitable for the risk. As a business owner, if you hire someone to work inside a client’s house, and he has a history of theft or sexual assault, then the liability falls upon you.
Actions have consequences. Criminal convictions do impact your reputation with employers and prospective friends and significant others. They have less trust than they would in someone without such a record.
Those who engage in crime now have the uphill battle to re-establish themselves in society. People like Martha Stewart who engaged in non violent crime had an advantage in that their reputation in their fields were firmly established, and had nothing to do with their crime, in her case insider trading. She served her sentence, and remained successful. Others are not so lucky, or their crimes were more egregious.
Your examples involve at least 20 years in the klink. And even if you get out by then, you are still on probation. My comment took account for that.
I just don’t think a 20 year old punk who stole some tennis shoes worth 300 bucks ought to be paying for it by the time he’s 80. My comment says nothing more.
You are one dumb, lying lefty. When a convict has finished his/her sentence, there’s no probation. And then you compound your lie with another by saying that you’re actually concerned that a $300 theft will be held against you 60 years later- b.s. You were brought up to be a dumb liar.
I said that if you’ve completed your sentence, which means you are not still on probation, you shouldn’t be referred to as anything at all. Such a person is equal to the rest of us. And that’s all I said. There isn’t anything wrong with that.
Read your own posts. You make no sense. You must have a very low IQ.
SteveJ – you made a blanket statement that you were not raised to judge someone any differently who served time. When pressed, you qualified it to youthful indiscretions, which makes more sense. There is in fact a process by which someone may have their record expunged. Otherwise, it’s on the record forever, and searchable on ancestry websites forever.
San Francisco’s dictate does not only refer to non violent offenders, as far as I know. It applied to both adults and juvenile defendants, and the original article had no qualifiers.
SteveJ:
“As far as I’m concerned you’re equal to everybody else once you’ve served your sentence.”
**************
Really? the judgment and character that got someone caught and convicted of our most serious crimes are equal to your own after they pulled a year perfecting their craft? Interesting. You wanna buy a bridge?
Again, this is unreal. I’m not talking about murder here. I accounted for people who are still on probation, assuming they ever get out of jail. You’re putting words in my mouth and I don’t appreciate it.
Steve, a lot of people that are convicted and jailed were originally charged with a higher degree crime. Not only that but many were involved in more crimes than the prosecutor had on record. They admit guilt for a lesser crime and serve less time and less probation because of the plea deal. When you say they served their sentence and are equal to everyone else one starts to think about all the other crimes likely committed and the fact that many of those under your umbrella didn’t prove themselves to be an asset to society. Therefore one cannot say they should be “treated as an equal” (whatever that means) especially since recitivism is a known problem.
You have an odd idea as to how plea deals usually work — particularly against poor people. You are overcharged and you’re in jail, and you can’t afford bail. So you cop a plea. That’s the standard.
Steve, you are entitled to believe what you wish whether true or not. Sometimes that might help you justify your positions in your own mind. That is fine.
Well Allan, I don’t necessarily like to bring national politics into this, but when it comes to a special council, there are no rich people. Everybody is poor by comparison.
And what happened to people like General Flynn, who pled guilty for no other reason than that he was going bankrupt, was a disgrace.
If you don’t think that’s going on all the time at lower levels, you’re entitled to your opinion.
Steve, what happened to Flynn and numerous other people over the decades is a disgrace and that is one of the reasons prosecutors sometimes need to be reigned in. I don’t dispute that some people aren’t railroaded but your naive comment wasn’t realistic. I’m one of those that likes Alan Dershowitz because he keeps the proscutors more honest but that doesn’t mean the one that got off was innocent. Think about how many crimes are committed before a person is caught and think about all those caught that have settlements for lesser crimes. I’m not saying prosecutors shouldn’t do that only that I don’t know that they are the same as everyone else who never committed a crime and never will.
By the way when a murderer is realeased early for good or bad reasons his victim remains dead.
Well again Allan, I wasn’t talking about murder. When you are released for murder — if you ever are, you are still on probation.
I said that repeatedly above. You’re just trying to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. And I don’t appreciate it. You’re the second guy that’s done And it’s. It’s bologna.
Steve, instead of trying to protect what you said you would have been better off admitting that the way you phrased your statement inaccurately portrayed what you believed. There are a lot of other people that you shouldn’t have been talking about either so now setting your limits at murder only continues to leave you open for more criticism.
I understand your feeling that a man committing a crime and paying the price deserves to have the ability to have a life afterwards. But is that man a changed man or the same as he was before jail? You don’t know. Someone else brought up the child predator criminal who serves his time. Should that person be the baby sitter of your children? Of course not and I know you agree.
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. I am trying to show you what happens when you take your own words to their logical conclusion.
I’m gonna take a wild guess that the communists are prepping the proletariat for the potential to allow felons to vote while in prison, on parole and on probation. Democrats (i.e. communists) need voters.
Funny thing, not only are felons appropriately restricted from voting, “birthright” citizens are also. The 14th Amendment requires “…all persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” to be “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof,…” in order to become “…citizens of the United States…”
Children born in the U.S. of illegal aliens were/are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and were/are not citizens and were/are not eligible to vote. To demonstrate, were there a military draft, illegal aliens would not be subject to that draft because illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
_______________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
__________________________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum. America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos and anarchy. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional. Congress has only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…,” Congress has no power to regulate anything other than trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States…” and private property is possessed and disposed of “…in exclusion of every other individual.”
President Abraham Lincoln seized power and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.” President Donald J. Trump must seize power and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.” The restricted-vote must be restored as the restricted-vote has been the case since the inception of “democracy” in Greece, its perpetuation by the Romans and its perfection, in the form of a republic, by the American Founders. Generations of illegal aliens, illegal citizens, etc. must be deported. The “manifest tenor” of the Constitution must be re-implemented.