This really gets to me..Why don't parents teach their kids decent VALUES? It seems to me today's kids get almost NO moral guidance from home.....and IMHO.some parents are BLOWING OFF THE RESPONSIBILITY of teaching their kids TOLERANCE for those who are 'different'than them,be it race,religious beliefs,size,handicaps,ethnic origin..I NEVER got away with the crap today's kids do! Any thoughts?

Who knows, to many idiots like Dr. Phil and Dr. Spock telling parents about re-direction crap.

Parents usually do raise kids the way they are.  Republicans usually raise republicans, greens raise greens, democrats raise democrats, Christians raise Christians, Jew raise Jews, and so on and so forth.  To many parents brainwashing there kids to think the way they do.

This is a complaint that has been going on since the beginning of time.  My parents, my grandparents, and I'm sure their parents all said the same thing.  Each successive generation has been driven nuts by the "younger generation".  It is closer to the truth that most people, at any age, are decent , respectful, etc.  The rude ones are the ones who seem to have gotten your attention and distracted you from the ones that go about their way.  Turn your attention away from the negatives and take a look at  the others, you will find a different story.  By the way, when I was growing up I was considered the wayward, disrespectful problem one,  My father told me he was driven to distraction because I was "too independent".  He said maybe he had been too hard on me.  That is what each generation does, ;)

Values?  Watch out, a lot of liberals hate that word.

Again, there is no real answer for this, to many welfare-brats, and people having kids before they are even married for my tastes.  But I am a white, property-owning, male, Christian who usually votes republican...so who cares what I say in today's world?

Values?  Watch out, a lot of liberals hate that word.

Again, there is no real answer for this, to many welfare-brats, and people having kids before they are even married for my tastes.  But I am a white, property-owning, male, Christian who usually votes republican...so who cares what I say in today's world?


This "poor me, pity me, " thing is getting sooooo tired.  You seem to suggest that because I am an
African American, property owning, non Christian, female who usually votes liberal democrat that I do not have values. Your sarcasm indicates that white, property-owning, male, Christians who usually vote republican are a repressed minority without rights or respect.  I would suggest you take your complaint
to the white- property-owning- male- Christian- republican, Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary controlled government. Don't stop there you there is also the white, property owning, male, Christian,
republican, voting, corporate structure.  Poor poor pitiful you.

It is stuff like this that makes you wonder about government brainwash schools:

Kentucky students told they have to watch homosexual film..... or school faces lawsuits!

ACLU tells district: Force students to watch 'tolerance training' video

If administrators of Kentucky's Boyd County school district can't find a way to force all students to attend sexual orientation and gender identity "tolerance training," the American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to take them to court – again.

Ten months ago, the district settled a lawsuit with the ACLU over the right of a student group, the Gay-Straight Alliance, to meet on campus. The year-long litigation strained relations in the conservative northeast portion of the state. In addition to allowing the group to meet on campus after school, district officials agreed that all students, staff and teachers would be required to receive "tolerance training."

The agreement stipulated all would attend "mandatory anti-harassment workshops," including the viewing of an hour-long "training" video covering sexual orientation and gender identity issues for middle and high school students.

But ten months on, one-third of Boyd County students have failed to see the video, and that has the ACLU threatening court action.

"It sounds like the training can't possibly be done," James Esseks, litigation director for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, tells the Louisville Courier-Journal.

District figures show 105 of 730 middle school students opted out of the training video and 145 of 971 high school students did likewise. On the day scheduled for training, 324 students didn't show up for school.

The current legal snag arises from the fact the original consent decree had no provision for parents exempting their children.

"The schools have great latitude in what they want to teach, including what's in training programs, and the training is now part of the school curriculum," Esseks says. "Parents don't get to say I don't want you to teach evolution or this, that or whatever else. If parents don't like it they can homeschool, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school."

"Where are the parental rights in this whole thing?" asks Rev. Tim York, president of the Boyd County Ministerial Alliance and head of Defenders Voice, a community group formed to contest the decree.

According to the group's website, Defenders Voice "incorporated due to the need for protection of both the physical and mental health of our students and citizens." Its members place blame for their current distress squarely on the ACLU:

"We have seen an onslaught of aggressive homosexual activism sweep across our country. In many cases, these activists are supported by the ACLU in their attempts. ... Defenders Voice believes that an organization like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) should not be allowed to tell parents what their children must learn."
The Alliance Defense Fund, a religious-liberties public-interest legal group, has signed on to help Defenders Voice, pledging to sue the school district unless it adopts an opt-out policy for parents this week. Alliance was formed in 1993 with the guidance of several well-known Christian conservatives, including the late Dr. Bill Bright, the late Larry Burkett, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and the late Marlin Maddoux.

Joe Platt, a Cincinnati attorney representing Alliance, says mandatory training on tolerance for homosexuals violates the right of conscience of parents and students who believe such behavior immoral.

But school district attorney, Winter Huff, insists to the Courier-Journal the decree does not violate parental rights: "Students certainly have the right to believe in what they want to believe, but they don't have the right to act out in inappropriate ways. The point is you don't treat people disrespectfully, you don't pick on people, you don't bully them, you don't make them afraid to come to school."

Meanwhile, only one of the seven plaintiffs in the 2003 lawsuit still remain in school. Six have graduated, and the teacher-adviser for the Gay-Straight Alliance club asked to transfer to another campus.

The ACLU's Esseks is now questioning whether the mandatory video meets the decree's required hour of anti-harassment training. Like one-third of the students in Boyd County schools, he has yet to view it.

Link to the above article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41667


BUT, stuff like this gives you some hope for government schools:

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/gif/ed-rept_txt4.gif

Students Opt-Out of California's 'Diversity' Laws
SACRAMENTO, CA - Two controversial California state laws, enacted last year by a one-vote margin and effective on New Year's Day, mandate "diversity" teaching at all grade levels in order to promote tolerance of diverse sexual orientation. This has caused an uproar among parents.

A coalition called the California Student Exemption Project has launched a major drive to help parents remove their children from such teaching. The Project is distributing an easy-to-use Student Exemption form addressed to school board members, superintendents, principals and teachers, citing eleven sections of the California Education Code that assure parents this right.

AB 1785 requires the California Board of Education to revise state guidelines about curriculum and teacher training to include "human relations education, with the aim of fostering an appreciation of the diversity of California's population and discouraging the development of discriminatory attitudes and practices." The law covers kindergarten through grade 12 and provides supplemental resources to assure that this teaching includes immigrant children. This law also requires schools to collect data on so-called "hate crimes" and report them to the state Department of Education, which will share the data with the state Department of Justice. "Evidence of hostility" includes even telephone calls and mail.

AB 1931 allows school children to be taken on field trips to "participate in educational programs focused on fostering ethnic sensitivity, overcoming racism and prejudice, and countering hatred and intolerance." These terms are not defined and there is no limit on how "tolerance" could be interpreted. This law appropriates $2 million for these "tolerance" field trips in order to address "intolerance," "hatred," and "prejudice." Another $150,000 is granted to an undisclosed "tolerance" organization to provide training programs for school personnel.

It was widely reported and admitted that AB 1785 will promote the acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality by shaping the attitudes of schoolchildren and empowering gay organizations to go into the schools, and that AB 1931 will fund subjective programs that can easily be used by gay groups to teach children to approve of behavior that many parents consider objectionable.

The P.E.R.S.O.N. Project, an internet website supporting the teaching of "diversity of sexual orientation" in public schools, has posted the two laws as legislative victories for the year 2000. The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) were active in promoting passage of these laws.

The Coalition distributing the Student Exemption form includes the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the Campaign for California Families, Life Legal Defense Foundation, the Pro-Family Law Center, and the U.S. Justice Foundation (a private group). PJI began this effort by announcing its Parental Opt-Out Program on December 28.

The comprehensive form states that it is a legal notice, pursuant to federal and state laws, telling the school "not to teach, instruct, advise, counsel, discuss, test, question, examine, survey or in any way provide information data or images to my child(ren)" concerning sex education, pupil's or their parents' personal beliefs or practices in sex and religion, sexually transmitted diseases, gender identity, sexual orientation, homosexuality issues, or "any alternatives to monogamous heterosexual marriage," without the parent's express written permission on an incident-by-incident basis.

The form further advises the school that this exemption extends to classroom instruction, displays, assignments, discussions, printed and electronic materials, field trips, assemblies, theatrical performances in school, and extracurricular school activities.

The exemption form is carefully written to comply with and implement California state law. Section 51240 of the California Education Code provides a specific option for families with religious convictions about sexuality issues, including "personal moral convictions." Section 51554 requires schools to give parents "written notification" of instruction on "sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, human sexuality or family life that is delivered by an outside organization or guest speakers."

The California Student Exemption form's sponsors hope that it can become a model tool for parents nationwide since gay pressure groups are moving rapidly to include their agenda in all public schools. Parents may request the form at www.pacificjustice.org or print it from www.LLDF.org.

California Student Exemption form SE 01-14-04

Link to the above article: http://www.lldf.org/Stu.exemption.SE_01_14_04.pdf


--Makes you think.

This really gets to me..Why don't parents teach their kids decent VALUES? It seems to me today's kids get almost NO moral guidance from home.....and IMHO.some parents are BLOWING OFF THE RESPONSIBILITY of teaching their kids TOLERANCE for those who are 'different'than them,be it race,religious beliefs,size,handicaps,ethnic origin..I NEVER got away with the crap today's kids do! Any thoughts?


You put a lot of capital letters in your words Tonyfan. Capital letters are usually used to let people know you feel strongly about what you are saying - even the 'I NEVER got away with the crap today's kids do' statement. Would you have wanted to get away with the crap kids do today?  ;)

I have stated my opinion a long time ago on this issue. I believe that when kids do things wrong, they have to be punished according to what they have done consistently. Of course, positive reinforcement is as important as negative reinforcement. :)

Values?  Watch out, a lot of liberals hate that word.

Again, there is no real answer for this, to many welfare-brats, and people having kids before they are even married for my tastes.  But I am a white, property-owning, male, Christian who usually votes republican...so who cares what I say in today's world?

There we go with the unintentional self-parody again!
;D ;D ;D

Anybody who thinks greed is good is poisonous to society.  I don't care whether you're talking about Ann Coulter or some gangsta rapper.  Selfishness, materialism, status-seeking, and Christian fundamentalist hypocrisy, and not giving a cr*p about the less fortunate are the true failures of American values.  If we can solve these, we'll be a better nation.

Values?  Watch out, a lot of liberals hate that word.

Again, there is no real answer for this, to many welfare-brats, and people having kids before they are even married for my tastes.  But I am a white, property-owning, male, Christian who usually votes republican...so who cares what I say in today's world?


I care what you say because I am highly offended by it. Rice Cube and I aren't married and we are expecting our first child. To top it off, I have to go apply for welfare so our a$$es can survive. The fact that we're unmarried and about to hit the welfare line will NOT change the way we raise our kid. You can be d*mned sure he's going to be raised right, despite being born into such "sh*tty" circumstances. ::)

Yeah, it's your worst nightmare...you just p*ssed off an unmarried, pregnant (and unstable), soon-to-be welfare collecting woman. Way to go.

And I'm tired of your whining about not having anyone listen to you because you're white, Christian, blah di blah. No one listens to you most of the time because you're full of sh*t, not because of your circumstances, religion, etc.

This really gets to me..Why don't parents teach their kids decent VALUES? It seems to me today's kids get almost NO moral guidance from home.....and IMHO.some parents are BLOWING OFF THE RESPONSIBILITY of teaching their kids TOLERANCE for those who are 'different'than them,be it race,religious beliefs,size,handicaps,ethnic origin..I NEVER got away with the crap today's kids do! Any thoughts?



It seems that the parents of one board member did not teach their kid tolerance that you speak of Tony20fan. But it is not "today's kids". As I have said before intolerance begets intolerance and hatred begets hatred.



Cat

It seems that the parents of one board member did not teach their kid tolerance that you speak of Tony20fan. But it is not "today's kids". As I have said before intolerance begets intolerance and hatred begets hatred.



Cat


Well said, Cat.  But do you think "The Fool on the Hill" will catch your drift?  Pompous hypocrits don't usually know they are hypocrits.

Certainly, ignorance begets ignorance. So, who's responsible for the mess? Is it the World War II generation (falsely considered the greatest generation) or the baby boomers? There's no way that Gen Xers (like me) created it.

Tanya

This really gets to me..Why don't parents teach their kids decent VALUES? It seems to me today's kids get almost NO moral guidance from home.....and IMHO.some parents are BLOWING OFF THE RESPONSIBILITY of teaching their kids TOLERANCE for those who are 'different'than them,be it race,religious beliefs,size,handicaps,ethnic origin..I NEVER got away with the crap today's kids do! Any thoughts?


Well, ya see, a lot of parents don't care. Or worse, they live in homes where other people are considered "unholy" or "against the will of God" {by the way, I'm really getting fed up with God's will} and hate isn't just spawned, it's advocated. Tolerance? Never gonna happen, in my opinion. It would be nice, but never gonna happen.

I think Tolerance will happen. Once members of the older generations die off (not to sound too morbid), maybe we could work things out. Usually, it's the older generations feeding hate and ignorance b/c they never learned from the mistakes of the past.

Tanya

I care what you say because I am highly offended by it. Rice Cube and I aren't married and we are expecting our first child. To top it off, I have to go apply for welfare so our a$$es can survive. The fact that we're unmarried and about to hit the welfare line will NOT change the way we raise our kid. You can be d*mned sure he's going to be raised right, despite being born into such "sh*tty" circumstances. ::)

Yeah, it's your worst nightmare...you just p*ssed off an unmarried, pregnant (and unstable), soon-to-be welfare collecting woman. Way to go.

And I'm tired of your whining about not having anyone listen to you because you're white, Christian, blah di blah. No one listens to you most of the time because you're full of sh*t, not because of your circumstances, religion, etc.

I'm sure you are good people who will do the right thing.  I don't have a problem with society collectively pooling resources to help out families who need it, and families should never be ashamed of accepting commonly held resources.  Of course, my point of view is more European...we're all in this together, so we help one another out. 
Whereas the guff you get from folks like GWB represents the new Angry American attitude in which anybody in need shall be attacked and ridiculed.  The philosophy behind this attitude is the myth of Rugged Individualism.  Hatred of the have-nots has also supplanted the overt racist rage that has become unacceptable in the past few decades.
Of course, rugged individualism doesn't apply to rich people and corporations.  It's socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for everybody else.
It's the same as what I say about the buzzword "personal responsibility."  Republicans only like responsibility when it has the word "personal" in front of it and they're talking about needy people.
::)

I'm sure you are good people who will do the right thing.  I don't have a problem with society collectively pooling resources to help out families who need it, and families should never be ashamed of accepting commonly held resources.  Of course, my point of view is more European...we're all in this together, so we help one another out. 
Whereas the guff you get from folks like GWB represents the new Angry American attitude in which anybody in need shall be attacked and ridiculed.  The philosophy behind this attitude is the myth of Rugged Individualism.  Hatred of the have-nots has also supplanted the overt racist rage that has become unacceptable in the past few decades.
Of course, rugged individualism doesn't apply to rich people and corporations.  It's socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for everybody else.
It's the same as what I say about the buzzword "personal responsibility."  Republicans only like responsibility when it has the word "personal" in front of it and they're talking about needy people.
::)



Very well said.



Cat

To top it off, I have to go apply for welfare so our a$$es can survive. The fact that we're unmarried and about to hit the welfare line will NOT change the way we raise our kid.


Well this explains a lot.  A hell of a lot, people paying for you, and your mistakes.  What, you're offended?  Tough.  This kind of stuff costs the government no telling how much money, when it could go to the military and paying off the national debt.  It is called dependency; dependency on government.  If people who are on welfare can't be expected to actually get an education, develop a job skill and find a job somewhere, and then manage to generate some degree of economic independence ... why should we, the taxpayers, have to pay their way?  Letting someone else take care of things for them is usually the way it is done their entire life, from parents to government.  And people like that blame President Bush for the national debt.  Sheesh.  And I stand by those words.

Well this explains a lot.  A hell of a lot, people paying for you, and your mistakes.  What, you're offended?  Tough.  This kind of stuff costs the government no telling how much money, when it could go to the military and paying off the national debt.  It is called dependency; dependency on government.  If people who are on welfare can't be expected to actually get an education, develop a job skill and find a job somewhere, and then manage to generate some degree of economic independence ... why should we, the taxpayers, how to pay their way?  Letting someone else take care of things for them is usually the way it is done their entire life, from parents to government.  And people like that blame President Bush for the national debt.  Sheesh.  And I stand by those words.



        How do you know Rice and Jessica aren't educated? I'm pretty Rice taught science for a little bit and you need a good deal of education for that. If they hadn't paid the ridiculous amounts of money necessary to get a good education these days they would probably be better off now but not for the future. If getting educated and falling in love with someone who loves you back are mistakes then people shouldn't make the "Right" choices.

Well this explains a lot.  A hell of a lot, people paying for you, and your mistakes.  What, you're offended?  Tough.  This kind of stuff costs the government no telling how much money, when it could go to the military and paying off the national debt.  It is called dependency; dependency on government.  If people who are on welfare can't be expected to actually get an education, develop a job skill and find a job somewhere, and then manage to generate some degree of economic independence ... why should we, the taxpayers, how to pay their way?  Letting someone else take care of things for them is usually the way it is done their entire life, from parents to government.  And people like that blame President Bush for the national debt.  Sheesh.  And I stand by those words.



Your statement explains a lot. I told you a little about what I have to do with my life, not the whole thing. Since you want to be a d*ck though, let me give you the long explanation. Maybe you'll get it through your head.

As I said, I am applying for welfare. Up until the time I got pregnant, I was working and planning on going to pharmacy tech. school. Due to the fact that I had a LOT of complications early on, I had to cancel that for now. Yes, Rice Cube and I live with my parents and they help a little bit by giving us a place to stay (we have to pay a bit for rent because my dad is disabled and god knows when he'll be going back to work) and food to eat, but Rice Cube DOES work. Given the fact that my parents, myself, and Rice Cube have actively contributed to welfare through our paychecks, I can think of no one else more deserving of a little help than us.

You seem to think I'm going to milk the system like a lot of people do (and believe me, I know my share of people who do). You are wrong....again....for the millionth time. I'm planning on using the money to support the spawn. I also plan on going through CalWorks to get help in getting my Pharmacy Tech. schooling.

Honestly, it is killing my pride to no end to have to grovel to the government for help. I feel dirty even contemplating welfare. But I also realize that people do need help once in awhile, even if they hate to ask for it.

GWBush, you are one person that I wish desperately would fall into hard times and have to ask for help. A dose of having to beg for help might do you good.

Maxwell Smart and EthanM, thank you for your kind words. Rice has two degrees and did teach high school science. Me, I've had a bit of college, but pharmacy technician school is really calling me. :)

Well this explains a lot.  A hell of a lot, people paying for you, and your mistakes.  What, you're offended?  Tough.  This kind of stuff costs the government no telling how much money, when it could go to the military and paying off the national debt.  It is called dependency; dependency on government.  If people who are on welfare can't be expected to actually get an education, develop a job skill and find a job somewhere, and then manage to generate some degree of economic independence ... why should we, the taxpayers, how to pay their way?  Letting someone else take care of things for them is usually the way it is done their entire life, from parents to government.  And people like that blame President Bush for the national debt.  Sheesh.  And I stand by those words.



The hell...?

Believe it or not, Jess plans on getting an education.  Welfare was designed for people who actually need it.  Considering that I am admittedly down on my luck and trying to get by to help my wife-to-be raise our child.  I intend on getting out of my rut but I am not adverse to getting some help from my friends or the government in doing so.  I also intend on getting off welfare as soon as possible because I do NOT enjoy relying on the bureaucratic mess that is our government  ::)

I can see how you'd lump us into the "stereotypical welfare-collecting bum" group.  Working at the local market as a grocer, I have seen many a family who is on food stamps or WIC getting junk food instead of healthy meals, and then peeling off $100 bills to buy BEER or CIGARETTES instead of saving up to get themselves off welfare.  I do NOT like the fact that the government dictates what Jess can or cannot get with her current WIC program.  I do NOT like the limitations placed on her healthcare by Medi-Cal.  I do NOT like the fact that unemployment tried to screw her over for something she did not even have to pay.  But considering the job market in my field is squeezing me out and I barely make $900 a month as it is, we need the help.  We will accept it only as long as we truly need it and then trust me, we are going to work hard to never EVER have to be on government assistance again.

I am working hard on that right now.  Despite having a crackhead of a boss and the worst schedule I have ever known, I have been able to get myself trained as a financial analyst.  I realize that sometimes the American dream has to morph to adapt to the situation, and I will have my dream, even if it takes a while longer than anticipated.  I have been to college, graduate school, volunteered at senior centers, taught high school, and now I've experienced what it is like to live paycheck-by-paycheck.  Do I blame the President for all this?  Hell no!  I'm so educated I should be able to work whatever job I WANT, it's just a matter of bad timing, bad luck, and ultimately the fact that I made the wrong choices.  But I'm working to fix that, and so is Jess.  That's why she intends to use the money to go back to school, to get a job, and to make damned sure that our child does not suffer the same fate we did.  I will admit that you have a right to show contempt to those people who are taking advantage of the system and never being proactive enough to get off welfare, but you don't have the right to lump us into that group.

I have been on unemployment before.  I also went to the University of California, a state school, which was funded by taxpayers.  My scholarship to Cal was also funded in part by taxes.  Even my full-ride scholarship to Duke University was funded in part by NIH training grants, which comes from taxpayer money.  My high school teacher's salary was also funded by taxpayer money.  My salary as a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was funded by taxpayer money.  In the six-plus years that I have been subsidized by "your" hard earned tax money, I will wager I have done more for society than you ever have, you jackhole.  Like I said many times, you are the type of arrogant ironheaded simpleton who gives us Republicans a bad name.  I hope you've had fun compensating for your smallish genitalia on a friggin' MESSAGEBOARD, for cryin' out loud.  

No offense to you guys, but that was just pathetic.  Geez.

Speaking of my experiences here in the UK, there are a lot of people scrounging off the dole (unemployment benefit/welfare?) and are happy to live on it and it gives every unemployed person a bad name. I was unemployed for 4 months between jobs and I looked for work any way I could (I got 5 interviews in one month at one time). I didn't want to let my girlfriend down (who was wonderfully supportive of me - we had only been going out a month at the time).

So GWBush, there are people out there that do try to take advantage of the system but be careful not to 'tar everybody with the same brush'. Generalising people and lumping them into categories is getting you into trouble. Why not see it from another person's perspective?

Don't expect our resident Angry White Male to give any quarter.  You saw how angrily he lashed out at Jessica and Rice Cube.  To him, they are the dregs of society.  GWB could be earning the online friendship of the others on this board if he was able to hold his temper and speak in a reasonable manner.  But, alas...

I do find his statement risible regarding how the money could be spent on "the military or paying down the national debt."  What the Bush Administration does is spend any money it gets on Pentagon pork projects and MORE tax cuts for the rich.

I, for one, see "welfare programs" as potentially a great investment in our citizens.  Now, as Bobby points out, some recipients DO abuse the dole, but far more frequently "welfare" is the business world's way of shucking off those it doesn't want to employ on the government.

you jackhole.  Like I said many times, you are the type of arrogant ironheaded simpleton who gives us Republicans a bad name.  I hope you've had fun compensating for your smallish genitalia on a friggin' MESSAGEBOARD, for cryin' out loud.  




The fact that you sunk to name calling means I struck a raw nerve, which means I likely said something that had a ring of truth to it.  Listen, I do care what you say, I put in 21 years at Lockheed Martin, and my money goes to people like you.  What the hell can I say?  You're a parasite.

The fact that you sunk to name calling means I struck a raw nerve, which means I likely said something that had a ring of truth to it.  Listen, I do care what you say, I put in 21 years at Lockheed Martin, and my money goes to people like you.  What the hell can I say?  You're a parasite.


Rice lashed out because he was angry at your insinuation of Jessica taking advantage of welfare. Wouldn't you be angry if your girlfriend/wife was on welfare (out of her own control) and someone called her a 'parasite'? It's not a fair statement to make to someone - especially someone who is having a hard time of it at the moment.

I have worked for 3 years at my job, but I don't think about the amount of tax I have given to unemployed people. It really must eat away at you. Be glad you are working in this day and age of economic instability.

I hope you've had fun compensating for your smallish genitalia on a friggin' MESSAGEBOARD, for cryin' out loud.  

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif

You know, you might just have something there...

The fact that you sunk to name calling means I struck a raw nerve, which means I likely said something that had a ring of truth to it.  Listen, I do care what you say, I put in 21 years at Lockheed Martin, and my money goes to people like you.  What the hell can I say?  You're a parasite.

All that time at Lockheed, you should have learned to cool your jets. 

On behalf of the nice people of this board, I apologise.  I hope you don't take his comments to heart.

Wait a minute.. I AM today's kids!  :o

To Jess and Rice,
I really hope that you don't think that the opinion of one board member is the opinion of the rest of us. I understand about falling on hard times. Most of us have been there at one time or another. There have been times in my life when the only thing in the house to eat was jello (that is no exaggeration). As a kid, I remember having to borrow a dime at school so I could get a milk for lunch. (Yeah, I sure the prices have gone up since then). That is part of the reason why I used to volunteer my time working at the local food shelf-because I KNOW how it is like to be hungry. When I lived alone and having a pension from the military, I still didn't have enough $$ to make ends meet. You can ask Carlos, when we first met, I was EXTREMELY thin. I probably could have applied for food stamps and other government programs but I didn't know how to do that. But it was just me. If I had kids, that would have been a different story. You have to do the best you can for your kids and if that means asking for help-so be it. I have seen too many times people working two or three jobs and still need help. They make minium wage which is NOT a livable wage and usually have no health care or other benefits. And education has to fall to wayside because even community colleges cost $$$ which is also needed for minor things like food, rent, utilities, etc. Yes, there are people who abuse the system-but the majority DO NOT! They are people who honestly need assistance.

As you said, Jess, I too, hope that a certain person falls on hard times so he can see what it is like. That would be the only way to show him the TRUTH-maybe.

I wish all three of you the best and think that I know you enough to say that are strong people and will come out of this hard time and be able to achieve your dreams. And please remember that there are idiots out there who judge without knowing the facts or the truth and we can hope that these people will eventually get their comuppance.




Cat

The hell...?

Believe it or not, Jess plans on getting an education.  Welfare was designed for people who actually need it.  Considering that I am admittedly down on my luck and trying to get by to help my wife-to-be raise our child.  I intend on getting out of my rut but I am not adverse to getting some help from my friends or the government in doing so.  I also intend on getting off welfare as soon as possible because I do NOT enjoy relying on the bureaucratic mess that is our government  ::)

I can see how you'd lump us into the "stereotypical welfare-collecting bum" group.  Working at the local market as a grocer, I have seen many a family who is on food stamps or WIC getting junk food instead of healthy meals, and then peeling off $100 bills to buy BEER or CIGARETTES instead of saving up to get themselves off welfare.  I do NOT like the fact that the government dictates what Jess can or cannot get with her current WIC program.  I do NOT like the limitations placed on her healthcare by Medi-Cal.  I do NOT like the fact that unemployment tried to screw her over for something she did not even have to pay.  But considering the job market in my field is squeezing me out and I barely make $900 a month as it is, we need the help.  We will accept it only as long as we truly need it and then trust me, we are going to work hard to never EVER have to be on government assistance again.

I am working hard on that right now.  Despite having a crackhead of a boss and the worst schedule I have ever known, I have been able to get myself trained as a financial analyst.  I realize that sometimes the American dream has to morph to adapt to the situation, and I will have my dream, even if it takes a while longer than anticipated.  I have been to college, graduate school, volunteered at senior centers, taught high school, and now I've experienced what it is like to live paycheck-by-paycheck.  Do I blame the President for all this?  Hell no!  I'm so educated I should be able to work whatever job I WANT, it's just a matter of bad timing, bad luck, and ultimately the fact that I made the wrong choices.  But I'm working to fix that, and so is Jess.  That's why she intends to use the money to go back to school, to get a job, and to make darned sure that our child does not suffer the same fate we did.  I will admit that you have a right to show contempt to those people who are taking advantage of the system and never being proactive enough to get off welfare, but you don't have the right to lump us into that group.

I have been on unemployment before.  I also went to the University of California, a state school, which was funded by taxpayers.  My scholarship to Cal was also funded in part by taxes.  Even my full-ride scholarship to Duke University was funded in part by NIH training grants, which comes from taxpayer money.  My high school teacher's salary was also funded by taxpayer money.  My salary as a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was funded by taxpayer money.  In the six-plus years that I have been subsidized by "your" hard earned tax money, I will wager I have done more for society than you ever have, you jackhole.  Like I said many times, you are the type of arrogant ironheaded simpleton who gives us Republicans a bad name.  I hope you've had fun compensating for your smallish genitalia on a friggin' MESSAGEBOARD, for cryin' out loud.  

No offense to you guys, but that was just pathetic.  Geez.


*starts a slow clap*

The fact that you sunk to name calling means I struck a raw nerve, which means I likely said something that had a ring of truth to it.  Listen, I do care what you say, I put in 21 years at Lockheed Martin, and my money goes to people like you.  What the hell can I say?  You're a parasite.


You labeled the wrong parasite, dingus.  I'm not the one on welfare :P  I actually make TOO MUCH to qualify for welfare. 

Do you understand the concept of insurance?  I'm sure you have insurance on your car, your house, and healthcare too.  You don't actually pay the full amount of coverage because the cost of protection is spread over a huge group of people.  So even if you never crash your car, you still pay a nominal fee (well, these days it's not so nominal :D ) and are still protected, whereas someone in the same coverage group will be able to draw off your payment if he crashed his car.

That in essence is the concept of social welfare subsidized by the government.  Maxwell Smart is correct in saying it is an investment in our citizens, but it was meant as a minimum floor, last resort airbag, not a method of sustaining a way of life.  In essence, if you are not protected by a union and you get squeezed out in the next year or two as Lockheed decides they want a newer generation of workers, if you do not save enough for retirement and have to rely on Social Security and Medicare which are scheduled to bomb out in the next 20 years, I hope you eat your words.  Jess plans to use her welfare money, an investment in her by her countrymen, to improve herself and give back many returns to society. 

And I am amused that you glazed over that part of my post where I cited multiple examples of where "your hard-earned money" subsidized ways for me to contribute to society.  Believe it or not, I still pay taxes on my meager paycheck, and I in turn am investing in Jess' welfare.  If what I have done in my life ranks me as a parasite, so be it.

You're still a jackhole.

There is nothing else I need to say. Everyone else has said it for me. Thank you. :)

It's people like GW, who buy into this sort of rubbish, that are looking for a scapegoat to blame the nations problems on. If we were living in Nazi Germany, and you admitted to a Jewish heritage, GW would be the guy calling you a worthless piece of scum who should die. He's not exactly doing the same thing as that guy was doing, not exactly, but he is the same type of person. Like you said, a simpleton.

Republicans cry about welfare, and look upon its collectors with spite and disgust, and are always trying to "reform" the system. Admittedly, the system needs serious reform, but the kind of reform it needs is not the kind that the Neocons are willing to pay for. You can successfully reform the welfare system by making it more comprehensive. That is the only way to eliminate the free-loaders. Here is a scenario: Single mom, no job, no education... obviously some bad choices were made... but this woman is our sister and we want to see her succeed and contribute to society-- so we put her on public assistance. Well Single-Mom needs a place to live, and food to eat for her and her child.. but first she needs money... but first she needs work.... but first she needs an education... but first she needs a babysitter! So, we are presented with three possible solutions... 1. Forget about her, she's worthless, she and the child should die.(bad) 2. Just give her a monthly stipend so she can barely survive and let her milk the system or give it to her for up to four years or until she gets a job.(doesn't work that way) 3. Provide her with government housing, childcare, job training, job placement, and money along the way to buy neccesities for her small family so that she can get off of welfare within 2 years and begin contributing to society. (this is the good way). Instead of giving her a fish, we teach her how to fish for herself.

There will always be people who want to take advantage of the system, and we solve this buy setting out an 'our way or the highway' attitude. You accept the job training/placement, the full deal, or you get no help. Combine this with other neccesary life-skills training such as parenting skills, drug education, financial responsibility education etc...

Let's face it... most people want to live a productive life. No one wants to be a member of the dregs of society but some people will, nevertheless. Nothing can be 100% successful. There is no perfect solution to any problem, but the least we can do is minimise it to the fullest possible extent.

^I like your style, McDonald

I am very proud of those members of this board who so eloquently made their cases for positivity.

Rice and Jessica, keep the strength. There's light at the end of the tunnel. Keep seeking it and it will never dim.

Tanya

It's people like GW, who buy into this sort of rubbish, that are looking for a scapegoat to blame the nations problems on. If we were living in Nazi Germany, and you admitted to a Jewish heritage, GW would be the guy calling you a worthless piece of scum who should die. He's not exactly doing the same thing as that guy was doing, not exactly, but he is the same type of person. Like you said, a simpleton.

Republicans cry about welfare, and look upon its collectors with spite and disgust, and are always trying to "reform" the system. Admittedly, the system needs serious reform, but the kind of reform it needs is not the kind that the Neocons are willing to pay for. You can successfully reform the welfare system by making it more comprehensive. That is the only way to eliminate the free-loaders. Here is a scenario: Single mom, no job, no education... obviously some bad choices were made... but this woman is our sister and we want to see her succeed and contribute to society-- so we put her on public assistance. Well Single-Mom needs a place to live, and food to eat for her and her child.. but first she needs money... but first she needs work.... but first she needs an education... but first she needs a babysitter! So, we are presented with three possible solutions... 1. Forget about her, she's worthless, she and the child should die.(bad) 2. Just give her a monthly stipend so she can barely survive and let her milk the system or give it to her for up to four years or until she gets a job.(doesn't work that way) 3. Provide her with government housing, childcare, job training, job placement, and money along the way to buy neccesities for her small family so that she can get off of welfare within 2 years and begin contributing to society. (this is the good way). Instead of giving her a fish, we teach her how to fish for herself.

There will always be people who want to take advantage of the system, and we solve this buy setting out an 'our way or the highway' attitude. You accept the job training/placement, the full deal, or you get no help. Combine this with other neccesary life-skills training such as parenting skills, drug education, financial responsibility education etc...

Let's face it... most people want to live a productive life. No one wants to be a member of the dregs of society but some people will, nevertheless. Nothing can be 100% successful. There is no perfect solution to any problem, but the least we can do is minimise it to the fullest possible extent.



http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif




Cat

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif
Cat


Aw man... my slow clap can't step to an animated slow clap!


But how's this? GET 'EM, BOYS!

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gifhttp://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif











BRAHA!

The fact that you sunk to name calling means I struck a raw nerve, which means I likely said something that had a ring of truth to it.  Listen, I do care what you say, I put in 21 years at Lockheed Martin, and my money goes to people like you.  What the hell can I say?  You're a parasite.


both of you need to cool it with the name calling or I'm locking this thread.

Please don't lock it, Chucky. There are some good members on this thread who can express themselves without resorting to name calling. Punish those that resort to such tactics, not all of us.

Tanya

I have a few things to say here.

First, Jess & Rice, I echo what Cat said above, and wish you both the best.  I DON'T consider you parisites or anything close to it, and hope your time of trouble is short, but with thousands of jobs - white collar tech jobs among them - being shipped overseas...

Second, as Max said, GWB gives expression to the myth of rugged individualism.  My guess is that he thinks himself a "self made man" but never considers the benefits he has recieved from society (which, if I recall correctly, he denies exists).  Probably a tax-funded education, and it wouldn't surprise me if his job wasn't dependant on gov't spending.  There has never been, and never will be a self made person.  That aside, this rugged individualism stuff is pure horse dung, and the sooner we realize that no one person alone can accomplish anything, the better.  We are, and always have been social animals, and the way we care for each other is a reflection of the quality of our society.  Greed IS NOT good.  Real Christians believe in copassion, charity, and understanding, and forgo the kind of name calling that Rice and Jessica were subjected to.

Last, to Tanya I would say that many of us in the "older generation" fought to end a stupid, immoral war, end racism, and remake the world.  We got part of the way there.  Clearly not all the way, but I fear that you youngsters are not keeping up the struggle, or I  should say, pulling your weight as the struggle continues.  Get in the street.  Voice your demands.  Work for change.  As Joe Hill said, as he was about to be shot on a framed up murder charge, "don't mourn, organize".

You labeled the wrong parasite, dingus.  I'm not the one on welfare :P  I actually make TOO MUCH to qualify for welfare. 


Lol.  ;D

I can only speak for myself. I am active and I'm doing my best to get those like me out there. We want our voices heard.

Tanya

I'm not a Republican, but I do know that a lot of people with more 'conservative' leanings are actually, reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people -- it's just that those types of Republicans don't make for 'exciting' TV like an Ann Coulter or a Bill O'Reilly does.  Similarly, on messageboards and similar venues, it's often the ones spewing hate and condescension who attract the most attention.

It seems that the dynamics of prejudice and bigotry work the same way whether you're talking about Blacks, Jews, Gays, 'Angry White Conservatives', 'Loudmouthed Women's Libbers' in the 70's, 'Bloodsucking Liberals', 'Fanatical Muslims'... take your pick.  Once the negative stereotype is formed, you look for (and, predictably, find in abundance) the evidence to 'justify' your view of that group as a whole, all the while ignoring or dismissing (consciously or unconsciously) any evidence or examples that don't support it.

On the other hand, as we make the effort to actually get to know people who come from a different political, ethnic, spiritual perspective, we can start to move beyond the stereotypes and work to address our common problems in a more productive way.  Notwithstanding the fact that we do all have very different perspectives and different opinions about how best to address social issues, it is still possible to debate these issues from a position of mutual respect. 

Not that I think this will ever happen, since I don't know that human beings have ever been able to accomplish it to any significant degree.  But we're each here for only a short while anyway, so it's probably worth giving it a shot.

I'm not a Republican, but I do know that a lot of people with more 'conservative' leanings are actually, reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people -- it's just that those types of Republicans don't make for 'exciting' TV like an Ann Coulter or a Bill O'Reilly does.  Similarly, on messageboards and similar venues, it's often the ones spewing hate and condescension who attract the most attention.

It seems that the dynamics of prejudice and bigotry work the same way whether you're talking about Blacks, Jews, Gays, 'Angry White Conservatives', 'Loudmouthed Women's Libbers' in the 70's, 'Bloodsucking Liberals', 'Fanatical Muslims'... take your pick.  Once the negative stereotype is formed, you look for (and, predictably, find in abundance) the evidence to 'justify' your view of that group as a whole, all the while ignoring or dismissing (consciously or unconsciously) any evidence or examples that don't support it.

On the other hand, as we make the effort to actually get to know people who come from a different political, ethnic, spiritual perspective, we can start to move beyond the stereotypes and work to address our common problems in a more productive way.  Notwithstanding the fact that we do all have very different perspectives and different opinions about how best to address social issues, it is still possible to debate these issues from a position of mutual respect. 

Not that I think this will ever happen, since I don't know that human beings have ever been able to accomplish it to any significant degree.  But we're each here for only a short while anyway, so it's probably worth giving it a shot.



Very well said.




Cat

I'll second what Cat just said - that was an extremely well-put post, Leo

It's people like GW, who buy into this sort of rubbish, that are looking for a scapegoat to blame the nations problems on. If we were living in Nazi Germany, and you admitted to a Jewish heritage, GW would be the guy calling you a worthless piece of scum who should die. He's not exactly doing the same thing as that guy was doing, not exactly, but he is the same type of person. Like you said, a simpleton.

Republicans cry about welfare, and look upon its collectors with spite and disgust, and are always trying to "reform" the system. Admittedly, the system needs serious reform, but the kind of reform it needs is not the kind that the Neocons are willing to pay for. You can successfully reform the welfare system by making it more comprehensive. That is the only way to eliminate the free-loaders. Here is a scenario: Single mom, no job, no education... obviously some bad choices were made... but this woman is our sister and we want to see her succeed and contribute to society-- so we put her on public assistance. Well Single-Mom needs a place to live, and food to eat for her and her child.. but first she needs money... but first she needs work.... but first she needs an education... but first she needs a babysitter! So, we are presented with three possible solutions... 1. Forget about her, she's worthless, she and the child should die.(bad) 2. Just give her a monthly stipend so she can barely survive and let her milk the system or give it to her for up to four years or until she gets a job.(doesn't work that way) 3. Provide her with government housing, childcare, job training, job placement, and money along the way to buy neccesities for her small family so that she can get off of welfare within 2 years and begin contributing to society. (this is the good way). Instead of giving her a fish, we teach her how to fish for herself.

There will always be people who want to take advantage of the system, and we solve this buy setting out an 'our way or the highway' attitude. You accept the job training/placement, the full deal, or you get no help. Combine this with other neccesary life-skills training such as parenting skills, drug education, financial responsibility education etc...

Let's face it... most people want to live a productive life. No one wants to be a member of the dregs of society but some people will, nevertheless. Nothing can be 100% successful. There is no perfect solution to any problem, but the least we can do is minimise it to the fullest possible extent.

It is quite a controversial statement to say "most people want to live a productive life."  I agree, but the rhetoric of "bums," "layabouts," and "welfare queens" is so drilled into people's minds, they won't believe you--even a lot of liberals.  
Here is a problem.  The business world is driven by the absolute tyranny of maximum profit for shareholders, and maximum compensation for executives.  There is only a razor thin margin of the potential workforce the business world is looking to recruit at any given time.  Any position that pays a living wage with benefits is competed for by ten, one hundred, or one thousand applicants.  Employers cherry pick only the the MOST qualified.  If there is ANY reason NOT to hire some one the employer will find it.
Never mind the big barriers to employment such as lack of education, a spotty work history, undesirable age, criminal record, and so forth, if you so much as betray an irreverent gleam in the eye during the interview, you're toast.
The American workplace is inhospitable.  It is full of politics, bullying, favoritism, and tyranny.  That's the way the bosses like it, and the goal of the current U.S. government is to give the bosses everything they like.
As for workaday minimum wage jobs, they are more readily available.  However, they are given the misnomer "entry level," which gives the wrong-headed impression Wal-Mart and McDonald's are actually a way to get somewhere.  Even if you string three of these jobs together and work 80 hours a week, you still can't keep a roof over your family's head and your children fed and cared for.  OK, there are exceptions...perhaps the hardiest, most inexhaustible few can manage this way.  Most people, however, get taken down by stress, illness, or other circumstances.
Let's not kid ourselves.  Many jobs that are called "unskilled" require a great deal of quick thinking and physical stamina.  I always take note of the counter people at Dunkin' Donuts juggle four orders at a time, tend the drive-thru, make the sandwiches, change the coffee pots, etc.  They work their butts off for less than a living wage with no job security.  "Unskilled" is often quite skilled indeed.
The point is, my friends, that the living wage workforce is increasingly becoming reserved for the the elite with college degrees and enough privilege in society to present an employer with the sharp attire and physical comliness that will give them an advantage over a stress-wrinkled, frumpy, 44-year-old with five kids living on the poor side of town.
Welfare is necessary because business is flat out unwilling to keep enough jobs in the American economy to provide a living wage to every person who desires to earn one.  The blue collar economy has been replaced by the no-collar service sector, and the professional economy has no use for anyone without very specific credentials and a Stepford wivish-disposition.

Remember, next time you want to tell that pan-handler to "get a job," think twice, you can't even apply for any job if you've got no telephone number.  

The American workplace is inhospitable.  It is full of politics, bullying, favoritism, and tyranny.  That's the way the bosses like it, and the goal of the current U.S. government is to give the bosses everything they like.



As a former H.R. professional, I don't quite see it that way.  I don't see the 'workplace' or 'bosses' as fundamentally 'inhospitable' or 'tyrannical'.  People start and run businesses to make money -- to provide goods and services to the market for profit.  Some people manage their businesses ethically, and others unethically, but in the end, it is about making money, and I don't see anything wrong with that. 

Now, if large numbers of individuals are forced by the realities of the market to work in jobs that cannot adequately fill their economic needs, I think that's a separate issue and one that I think society would do well to explore, but I don't see that 'business' should be faulted or demonized for those circumstances.

As a former H.R. professional, I don't quite see it that way.  I don't see the 'workplace' or 'bosses' as fundamentally 'inhospitable' or 'tyrannical'.  People start and run businesses to make money -- to provide goods and services to the market for profit.  Some people manage their businesses ethically, and others unethically, but in the end, it is about making money, and I don't see anything wrong with that. 

Now, if large numbers of individuals are forced by the realities of the market to work in jobs that cannot adequately fill their economic needs, I think that's a separate issue and one that I think society would do well to explore, but I don't see that 'business' should be faulted or demonized for those circumstances.


I respect your point of view, however, I cannot accept yet another notion you have expressed.
"Business" is more than happy to take credit for good things that happen in our society, but when it comes to all the bad things, "business" says--and I quote the GM PR man from against the government's ability to raise revenue to provide such a safety net.  Thus, we come back to the "rugged individualism" myth and your tired Horatio Alger-type rags-to-riches, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, I-did-it-so-can-you stories.
Far from being faulted or demonized, "business" is granted divinity in American culture, Wall Street is God.  It's time to dethrone "business" and make the world of work work for the people, not just bigshots and the bosses.

There are several books that relate to this discussion of business.  My fav is Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital, a tough read for some, but brilliant.  Both Max and Leo make valid points, but I do agree with Max that the workplace is often hostile, and designed to be that way.  Also designed to disempower workers in every way possible, like devaluing skill, creating mindless jobs, and fighting any worker effort to organize (even though that is illegal).  What we need is workplace democracy.

I respect your point of view, however, I cannot accept yet another notion you have expressed.
"Business" is more than happy to take credit for good things that happen in our society, but when it comes to all the bad things, "business" says--and I quote the GM PR man from against the government's ability to raise revenue to provide such a safety net.  Thus, we come back to the "rugged individualism" myth and your tired Horatio Alger-type rags-to-riches, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, I-did-it-so-can-you stories.
Far from being faulted or demonized, "business" is granted divinity in American culture, Wall Street is God.  It's time to dethrone "business" and make the world of work work for the people, not just bigshots and the bosses.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'business' doing one thing or another.  There are ethical businesspeople and unethical ones.  There are ethical panhandlers and dishonest ones.  There are ethical public school teachers and unethical ones...  Sure the corruption makes the headlines, and it's the sleazy bosses who we like to b i t c h to our friends about, but I don't know that it's fair to condemn an entire social institution as fundamentally flawed because of the actions of specific individuals who operate in that area.  That seems the equivalent of disparaging 'government' because some politicians are corrupt.  Or dismissing 'liberals' (when did that become a bad word?) just because some of them are hateful loudmouths.  ::)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'business' doing one thing or another.  There are ethical businesspeople and unethical ones.  There are ethical panhandlers and dishonest ones.  There are ethical public school teachers and unethical ones...  Sure the corruption makes the headlines, and it's the sleazy bosses who we like to b i t c h to our friends about, but I don't know that it's fair to condemn an entire social institution as fundamentally flawed because of the actions of specific individuals who operate in that area.  That seems the equivalent of disparaging 'government' because some politicians are corrupt.  Or dismissing 'liberals' (when did that become a bad word?) just because some of them are hateful loudmouths.  ::)

Of course you can't define all "business" as a monolith.  I refer more to general "business culture."  And, I'm sorry to say, I have seen a lot of awfulness on the job come from the HR dept.

Back OT, I have taught my kids tolerance and values...at least I believe I have.  Never once have I heard a disparaging word come out of their mouths about someone who is "different" from them, either by race, disability, religion or anything.  Sure, they may ask questions, but they are curious, not being mean.  And, I always try my best to explain why a person is "different" and emphasize that just because someone does not look just like them, does not make them a bad person.

It's very important to explain race and ethnicities your way, because if you don't, your kids will hear about them somebody else's way...and that somebody else might be Big Rocko out in the schoolyard!
::)

Of course you can't define all "business" as a monolith.  I refer more to general "business culture."  And, I'm sorry to say, I have seen a lot of awfulness on the job come from the HR dept.


But I don't know that addressing issues from a culture condemnation perspective is ultimately very productive -- it's often alienating and puts people on the defensive.  Someone could argue that they've seen a lot of negative dynamics in the "public education culture", "organized labor culture", "WASP culture", "American culture", "African American culture"... -- I don't believe that makes the cultures theselves fundamentally flawed. 

It's 'natural' for people to think that they or 'their group' is 'right' and that 'the other' is wrong -- I naturally gravitate towards that orientation even when I'm conscious of trying not to.  But it does often cause more conflict than resolution.  And though categorizing people by economic level, political affiliation, race, religion, or whatever other paradigm you want to use does have some limited practical value for general analysis, I think it can be extremely dangerous if your goal is to try to promote awareness, understanding and positive social change.

Despite the ever-present twin devils of cynicism and resignation, on my better days I try to appeal to my better angels and express some degree of positivity, as I tried to in my earlier post.  But were I now not so consciously trying to avoid giving in to my natural reaction, I might be quite put off by your generally negative categorizations of "HR" and "the business culture".  I mentioned that I've worked in HR, and you immediately felt compelled to invoke your negative experiences with HR -- but what have those experiences to do with me?  Not that your bias matters to me personally on a practical level, but I don't think such stereotypes do anything to encourage truly productive conversation.

Many sympathetic 'business' and 'HR' types would be needlessly turned off by an oversimplified 'exploited worker'/'exploitive fatcat' perspective on business, just as many sympathetic whites would have been put off by Dr. King had he addressed his vision from a perspective of denouncing "White America".

  :-\\

When kids see my day program's van,they tend to stare at the elderly and disabled people as they get on or get off the van...If they stare at me I just say 'have you never seen a large person get on or off a bus before'....their face turns red as a beet,or they say 'uhh...sorry' When I mention the rudeness they stop staring pronto!

It's very difficult to be Tolerant and have (and more importantly retain) good values in todays society.
I feel that i try my hardest to please my parent's and do what is right when it comes to many things. I ask myself what would Al Franken do  ;)..

But seriously.. it is hard, you talk about kid's gawking.. kid's always do.. if they see something they don't see all the time it's interesting. I still even on the cusp of adulthood find myself staring at things, people, places etc wondering.. hmmmm.. whats up with that? I don't think it is rude, just curiousity. Now if somebody is making rude comments, then they aren't curious they are just one step away from a sound 'thwak' round the head.

If kids stare or ask questions, I don't think they are intentionally being rude. In many cases, they are just curious. If they are making comments, that's when I get annoyed. Funny story...a kid on the bus was making fun of my oldest a couple of years ago when he first got glasses. I saw him on Saturday and guess what...he's wearing glasses now and some of his friends were teasing him, giving him a taste of his own medicine :P


Gotta love Karma. ;D

It's very difficult to be Tolerant and have (and more importantly retain) good values in todays society.
I feel that i try my hardest to please my parent's and do what is right when it comes to many things. I ask myself what would Al Franken do 

Amen!
;)

If a child asks me about my disability,I usually try to explain it in terms they can understand...with young children I keep it simple.

But seriously.. it is hard, you talk about kid's gawking.. kid's always do.. if they see something they don't see all the time it's interesting. I still even on the cusp of adulthood find myself staring at things, people, places etc wondering.. hmmmm.. whats up with that? I don't think it is rude, just curiousity. Now if somebody is making rude comments, then they aren't curious they are just one step away from a sound 'thwak' round the head.



I know what you mean. This may be a bit off topic but one time when I was in Basic Training and had to serve the dreaded KP (which I actually had fun doing it). I was on what they called the "front line" meaning where everyone picked up their silverwear and such. I saw one TI (training instructor) talking to a trainee about how he should shave better. I was just watching without even realizing that I was staring or even intruding on the exchange until the TI turned to me and said something about my staring. She kept asking me if I thought he (the trainee) was cute and kept winking and smiling. I was a bit embarrassed. Maybe it was a bit rude on my part but like I said, I didn't realize I was doing it until it was called to my attention.



Cat