Adonis Diaries

Archive for October 7th, 2012

You have your Gods. I reserve mine: All for myself…

Let the people who need to re-read the old Books for stories, which are actually happening everyday and everywhere, do what they please: I prefer to read fresh versions, rooted in the current realities. Truth is uncovered by getting engaged in the reality, with all its miseries, injustices, indignities…

Let people who feel this urge to continually re-interpret the outdated and obsolete notions in old Books, abstract notions that you’ll never be able to experiment with and that you’ll never comprehend, do what they please: I have this one life to experiment with and a rich reality to investigate, at my reach everyday…

The live-forces in society have challenges to tackle, and difficulties to prosecute, while still healthy and full of energy and curiosity…Fictional abstract notions of the after-life are for the weak-minded and those witnessing serious degradation in their health and mind power…

The live-forces in society need to:

1. Confront injustices on all fronts: Elite rich classes of exploiters, dictators and oligarchies, totalitarian regimes, absolute monarchies…

2. Demand and capture their rights, civil, political, and human dignity…Free preventive health care, retirements, educations, opportunities to all…

3. Shoulder their responsibilities to the common good of communities…

4. Keep practicing their talents and skills that they invested countless time and energy to acquire and enjoy…

5. Keep acquiring comprehensive knowledge in order to make sense of books and be able to write interesting books…

6. Get engaged in social and political laws processes and ensuring transitions to government systems that guarantee free speech, free expression of opinions, free gathering…All the requirements of a Renaissance Age…

This is a one-life shot, and I want to live it. And I want to live what I desire in the living.

Complications, complications…a long string of imaginary complications.

Life is so simple though.

You are born by the fluke of an impossible series of events. You get to survive to be 5 year-old, a miracle 7 decades ago even in developed nations.  Your mother survived your birth, a miracle 6 decades ago in developed States, after giving birth to half a dozen of “unlucky” babies who didn’t make it among the living…

A couple of suckers of parents think they ought to sacrifice their lives to take care of this “happy happening“, way until he reaches 50 of years, on account that a baby is a baby as long as he looks chubby, roundish, and healthy.

And the parents die.  And you wait the long life expectancy statistics to come true.

And other persons, not your parents, are changing your diapers and cursing: “What’s this piece of shit they threw my way to tend to? They are exploiting my energy and hard work for naught: For negative results in performance, degeneration by the day…” (Fortunately, you are almost deaf, and if you did hear anything, you are in no position to confront the nurse “argument”)

The result of medications that extend life and destroy its quality…

Not an elegant return of the cycle to childhood, by any long shot, with the permanent infirmity you are in…

And ultimately, fodder to worms. And “dust to dust…” and ultimately to boson?

And you say: “How could you be engaged in the common good, if your outlook to life is so down right gloomy?”

And I reply: “A pragmatic demonstration for my respect of other people’s opinions, contrary to mine, in the notion and possibilities in the after life…”

Illegal immigrant or simply Not fully documented?

There are many cases where nationalized citizens had seen their status as citizens revoked based on later investigation that the applications and papers were not fully documented, or addresses and other information were not accurate or the lawyer fraudulently tampered with a few data...
Can we in these cases claim that these immigrants are illegals or that their documents were not fully satisfying regulations? Obviously, these immigrants legally entered the country and were elligible to applying for permanent residency or citizenship.
CRISTINA COSTANTINI posted on Oct. 1, 2012 under “Linguists Tell New York Times That ‘Illegal’ Is Neither ‘Neutral’ nor ‘Accurate'””
José Manuel Godínez-Samperio, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico says that he wants to be called “undocumented” because “illegal” is “dehumanizing,” and “justifies the oppression against immigrants.”
PHOTO: Young immigrants, including Gaby Perez, hand over paperwork to get guidance from immigration attorney Jose Penalosa for Obama's deferred action policy.

Young immigrants, including Gaby Perez, hand over paperwork to get guidance from immigration attorney Jose Penalosa for Obama’s deferred action policy. (Ross D. Franklin/AP Photo)
For some, José Manuel mere preference for the term “undocumented” over “illegal” is irrelevant. But, the technical accuracy of terms may hold more weight in this ongoing debate over these words.

In response to the Associated Press and The New York Times’ continued use of the term “illegal immigrant”, a group of linguists have taken a stand, arguing that the phrase “illegal immigrant” isn’t as neutral or accurate as the two media companies claim it to be.

After immigration activist Jose Antonio Vargas launched a campaign to monitor the use of the term by major news outlets, The New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan started an investigation of her own.

Sullivan called for readers to respond to the debate and interviewed immigration reporter Julia Preston, who said that while their standards book could use more flexibility, “illegal immigrant” is not wrong. “It’s accurate and it considers the broad terms of the debate,” Preston told Sullivan. “We shouldn’t be banning an accurate term.”

Jonathan Rosa, an assistant professor of linguistic anthropology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, disagrees. A group of 24 scholars, led by Rosa, put out a statement last week arguing that “illegal immigrant” should not be the preferred phrasing because it’s imprecise and frames the debate in narrow terms.

Rosa said in an interview with ABC/Univision: “It is baffling to think that [The New York Times] would suggest ‘illegal immigrant’ is accurate and neutral. The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act defines immigrants as people who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, so “legal immigrant” is a redundant concept and ‘illegal immigrant’ is oxymoronic. “There is nowhere in the legal field that the phrasing ‘illegal immigrant’ has been the norm. However, that same phrasing has been part of certain political strategies,” he said

“Illegal immigrant,” while a bit older than the term “undocumented,” is still relatively new in the history of the English language. (Check out this informal analysis of immigration terms in books via GoogleBooks.)

“Illegal immigrant” appears to have been used for the first time in the New York Times in an article from 1897 (which also terms Chinese nationals, “Chinamen“).

The “illegal immigrant” phrasing wasn’t repeatedly used to describe a group of people until the late-1930’s, when the British used it to categorize the Jews who were fleeing the Nazis and entering Palestine without authorization, Jose Antonio Vargas maintains.

An informal search of the New York Times’ archive surfaces very few results for the term until immigration levels rose in 1970’s, when “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” became the paper’s default descriptions for those without authorization in the country.




Blog Stats

  • 1,513,327 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 820 other followers
%d bloggers like this: