No, sir, greed is wrong.  Greed for money, greed for attention, greed for sex, greed for whatever, all speaks to a pathological inner emptiness on the part of the greedy one.  I see myself as greedy about some things in life.  That is, I'm not just condemning corporate greed because I've got no money.  Money is often the object of greed, but greed is a sickness in itself.
When I was at school, my maths teacher once said that I had "the right kind of laziness" to be a mathematician: basically a desire not to waste effort.  The same thing is true in my profession as a techie, I'm lazy in that I like to write code once and write it right so that I never have to come back to it.

However, there is a "wrong" sort of laziness - the kind that simply never gets anything done.

The same, IMO, is true of greed: there are people who are greedy for the good things in life (whatever they happen to desire), and get them by growing something that helps everybody; conversely, there are others who seek to get what they want by taking without giving, by making everyone else around them poorer.   The problem with greed is that if you are unable or unwilling to do the former, you'll probably end up doing the latter, with the self-justification that "greed is OK, because these other guys are greedy and helping others while they do it".  The Thatcherite/Reaganesque "greed is good" types do their best to gloss over the second group, ignoring the social harm (and Foo - by "social harm", I mean harm to lots of individuals who make up "society", whatever you conceive it to be) they do.

PS On-topic - what's a Conservative/Liberal? Something very different on this side of the pond.

Actually, the whole liberal/conservative thing, reminds of this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T1LIrzsgqA&feature=related

I took a quiz, and apparently, 35 percent conservative and 65 percent liberal.

PS On-topic - what's a Conservative/Liberal? Something very different on this side of the pond.


Ah, I think your "Liberals" adhere more to "classical liberalism."  Over here, they like to be called Libertarians.  Our liberals (lower case L, there's no "Liberal Party") tend to be closer to your "Labour Party" on economic issues and what you might call "progressive" on social issues. 

Our conservatism, at least since WWII, tends to combine "classical liberalism" on economic issues with reactionary dispositions on social issues.  This is what I find so toxic. 

Conservatives in the UK seem to be like the old Whigs.

PS On-topic - what's a Conservative/Liberal? Something very different on this side of the pond.


It essentially depends on who you ask.

To many, it often revolves around how much Government should be allowed to meddle in your life.  Should they be a colossus that dictates every little thought and action?  Should every little thing that annoys or upsets people be made illegal?

Or it can be about entitlements.  Some believe they should be abolished (Libertarian).  Others think they should be reserved for those that really need them (Social Security, the basics of Welfare).  Yet others believe that everything is an entitlement, and that everybody should benefit (free universal health care, free college tuition).

And often the sides qill flip with little or no warning.  During the 1960's Civil Rights movement, some of the strongest opponents were Democrats.  That can be seen in the vote percentages in the Congress, where 80-82% of Republicans supported the bill, as opposed to 61-69% of Democrats.

But in the 40 years since, history in the mind of the public has been rewritten.  Forgotten is the fact that their own Speaker Of The House opposed the legislation.  And today, the era is somehow remembered as a time of Conservative Hatred.  ::)

So when you hear one side of the fence here attack the other, just realize that we have gotten used to it.  It is "business as usual" in the US for people to demonize their percieved "opponents".

Just so that nobody here takes up the ideals of Democratic Congressman Preston Brooks, we should be ok.  8)

More often then not, the Liberals and Conservatives in this country actually agree on things.  We simply disagree how they should be resolved. 

Well said, Mushroom.

My biggest problem with liberal politicians is that I worry about them being too soft on terrorism.  It really scares me, and I think that the most liberal of them would risk a major attack on the US to avoid violating a potential terrorist's rights.  (For example, being afraid to question someone because it will be seen as racial profiling, being afraid to wiretap, etc)

I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt ... I hope this administration/congress will keep up Bush's ability to keep us safe, if nothing else.  If we can get through his presidency with no attacks on US soil, I will be happy to say he was a good president.

Yeah, I'm conservative.

But I don't agree with Republicans on everything.



Gotta agree with Andrea here.

Well said, Mushroom.

My biggest problem with liberal politicians is that I worry about them being too soft on terrorism.  It really scares me, and I think that the most liberal of them would risk a major attack on the US to avoid violating a potential terrorist's rights.  (For example, being afraid to question someone because it will be seen as racial profiling, being afraid to wiretap, etc)

I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt ... I hope this administration/congress will keep up Bush's ability to keep us safe, if nothing else.  If we can get through his presidency with no attacks on US soil, I will be happy to say he was a good president.


Who uses the phrase "soft on terrorism"?
???

My biggest problem with liberal politicians is that I worry about them being too soft on terrorism.


I think that to them, it is simply a matter of what they think is more important.  Liberals have long placed a priority on "Civil Rights".  It is just that those rights are subject to change from decade to decade.

At one time, it was the right of a businessman to exclude people they did not want in their establishment.  Then later it became the right of anybody to go into any place they wanted, if they were welcome or not.  Then it has become the right to do largely whatever you want.

I can understand their ideas, even if I do not agree with them all the time.  Every 40 years or so, the subject arrises as to wether "civil rights" are the ultimate freedom.  And every time this happens, it is largely decided that they do not.  While President Lincoln may or may not have said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", he was the first President to suspend some rights in the effort to keep the nation safe.  And Presidents from Roosevelt and Kennedy to Bush have had to weigh in the ballance between civil rights and public safety.

Myself, I find it disturbing that people would prefer "unreserved freedom" over public safety.  And many of these "shadow rights" I think are outright silly if not dangerous.  The right to not carry ID, the right to not show such ID, the right to enter an airplane without being searched.  Worrying about the rights of terrorists when doing wire taps.  It is true that introducing draconian searches would destroy essential liberties.  But doing little to nothing is just as destructive.

And living in California, I have seen the extremes on both sides.  Of course, most in California do not live in the real world in the first place.  It is no wonder that both Hollywood and Disneyland are there.  


Who uses the phrase "soft on terrorism"?


Read above.  Personally, I have no problem with the Patriot Act, wire taps on suspected terrorists, random ID checks on public transit, even random searches on public transit.  Even searching the computers of arrested terrorist suspects is something I not only agree with, but would be upset if they were not done.

I have no problem with the INS checkpoints set up across the country.  Heck, I have even drien through them as a part of US Army convoys, and had to stop and show my ID.  I sinply recognize that this is the cost of living in a society that wants to remain free.

But to many people, such things are a "violation of their civil rights".  And they would want nothing more then to see things such as that removed.  That is what most "Conservatives" see as being "soft on terrorism".

The concept that your "personal liberties" are more important then the safety of the Country as a whole.

Who uses the phrase "soft on terrorism"?
???


You can call it whatever you want.  If you want me to spell it out I can say "I worry about them not being proactive enough or not tough enough on terrorism", I was just trying not to make my post too wordy.

You know what I mean.

The concept that your "personal liberties" are more important then the safety of the Country as a whole.


Yes, and I agree with what you said earlier about Liberals and Conservatives agreeing on things, but differing on how to solve them.

Whether you agree with me or not about my views on terrorism, I feel the way I do because I value my life and also all of your lives and your families' lives.

I sinply recognize that this is the cost of living in a society that wants to remain free.


http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif

Free?  WTF does that mean anymore?  Why not internal passports to cross statelines!  Can't let any of those terrorists cross from Oregon to Idaho, you know!  We've gotta be free to be free from the terrorists and that's what free shall be for you and me!  Maybe it's because I don't serve in the armed forces, but that don't sound like too good of a deal for us, then!

Take the Fourth Amendment, for example:
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act crumpled that one up like it was last week's shopper! 

A few 30-year-old gung-ho right-wing lawyers drafted the USAPATRIOT act and our elected representatives didn't even have the stones to demand to read the f**ker before signing it!  The Bushies scared everybody with the terrorist bogeyman.  Scared us right out of our own Constitution, they did.  Why was there no follow-up attack to 9/11?  Not necessary.  We peed in our own chili!

Orwell would be proud, sir!

And I ask again, who uses the phrase "soft on terrorism."  Where did you hear it?
???

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif

Free?  WTF does that mean anymore?  Why not internal passports to cross statelines!  Can't let any of those terrorists cross from Oregon to Idaho, you know!  We've gotta be free to be free from the terrorists and that's what free shall be for you and me!  Maybe it's because I don't serve in the armed forces, but that don't sound like too good of a deal for us, then!


We do not have internal passports.  And nobody is suggesting that we do (no more then nobody but a few Democrats are suggesting we bring back the draft).

But is requesting to see an ID a "violation of civil rights"?  Heck, Truck Drivers do it on a daily basis.  I do it every single day when I go to work.

And what about California?  That state has had "checkpoints" you have to cross to enter for over 40 years now.  As far as I know, the only state you have to show ID to enter is California.

Of course, you can always fly from state to state.  No, wait.  You have to show ID at the airport.  The same with busses and trains.

Well, I guess you can just walk or ride a horse from state to state. 

And don't confuse "internal passport" with "ID".  If you want to know the difference, ask somebody that has had one.  My wife's passport still has marks showing that she voted in the various elections, and who she voted for.  nd before she went from one state to another, she had to get permission.  That is a passport.

Heck, maybe putting up checkpoints at every state border would be a good idea though.  Would probably help arrest people like Warren Jeffs sooner, as well as other criminals that wander freely from state to state.

(Seriously, Max, you were a gracious winner over the past few years as Bush The Lesser imploded beneath my lowest expectations and systematically destroyed everything that made me proud to live in the United States of America.  I hope I'm as gracious as 0bama falls below even your lowest expectations.  If 0bama fails even half as epically as Bush the Lesser did, we'll all be carving each other up for meat by 2012, never mind 2016.  As long as we both have TCP/IP connectivity, consider the Bush-the-Lesser-vs-0bama debate decided in Obama's favor.)


Gracious?  Well, I appreciate that, Foo, but I didn't feel like a winner on any count these past eight years.  The funny thing is, you don't feel like a winner, and not even the banks and the CEOs feel like winners.  I don't know of anybody who's counting himself a winner nowadays!  Politicians have been admonished ever the centuries "not to try to please everybody."  The sages of the ages just assumed the politicians would be able to please at least somebody!  It didn't occur to the sages to add the clause, "but make sure you don't p*ss everybody off, get some people supporting you at the end!  We don't want to get stabbed to ribbons by the Praetorian guard, do we?
:P

As for Obama, I hear all my liberal buddies are taking the day off and celebrating tomorrow.  I say, uh, if you're still lucky enought to have a job, go to the job.  What happens today is fun and games and rituals.  These are inevitable.  After tomorrow comes the time when the wise will give Obama the No More Mr. Nice Guy treatment.  Don't just hold his feet to the fire, hold is frankfurter to the fire too!  I've got no patients for "Oh, he's only been in office fore five months, give him a break!"  No way Jose!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif

And I ask again, who uses the phrase "soft on terrorism."  Where did you hear it?
???




A lot of people use it, but I'd assume it's Bill O'Reilly you're getting at? ???

Well said, Mushroom.

I agree - that was well put, Mushroom.


My biggest problem with liberal politicians is that I worry about them being too soft on terrorism.  It really scares me, and I think that the most liberal of them would risk a major attack on the US to avoid violating a potential terrorist's rights.  (For example, being afraid to question someone because it will be seen as racial profiling, being afraid to wiretap, etc)
My biggest problem with most politicians is that they hugely over-exaggerate the risks from terrorism to try and get the population to accept things that would be simply unacceptable if they realized what the risks actually are.

Far be it from me to say "THEY are trying to make you scared!!!!", but look at the statistics: how many people have died in the US from terror attacks?  How many all around the world put together?  Compare it to, say, deaths from accidental gunshot wounds, DIY accidents or (my favourite example) road deaths.  Now, don't you think that the risks are being just a *little* bit over-exaggerated?

I agree - that was well put, Mushroom.
My biggest problem with most politicians is that they hugely over-exaggerate the risks from terrorism to try and get the population to accept things that would be simply unacceptable if they realized what the risks actually are.

Far be it from me to say "THEY are trying to make you scared!!!!", but look at the statistics: how many people have died in the US from terror attacks?  How many all around the world put together?  Compare it to, say, deaths from accidental gunshot wounds, DIY accidents or (my favourite example) road deaths.  Now, don't you think that the risks are being just a *little* bit over-exaggerated?


No, I don't think it is over-exaggerated.  There is a large number of people who would love nothing more than to wipe America off of the map.  These people don't even value the lives of their own women and children.  The fact that fewer people have died in the US from terror attacks than around the world tells me that we have done a good job at stopping them in the post-911 years.  I want to keep it that way.

I don't think they are trying to make us scared.  I'm curious, why do you think "THEY" want to interrogate people and wiretap, etc?  Do you think they are curious about what people ate for dinner the night before?!

Whether you agree with the tactics or not, I hope you at least see that it is for our safety.

No, I don't think it is over-exaggerated.  There is a large number of people who would love nothing more than to wipe America off of the map.  These people don't even value the lives of their own women and children.
That is exactly what I mean about exaggerating the risk.

Do you play the lottery, by any chance?


The fact that fewer people have died in the US from terror attacks than around the world tells me that we have done a good job at stopping them in the post-911 years.  I want to keep it that way.
That wasn't the implication I was trying to show: dozens of different causes of death kill many, many times more people than terrorism does, yet we ignore them.  What is  it about terrorist tactics that warrants such a disproportionate use of time and money?  If it was simply that you think lives could be saved, there are many better ways to spend ones resources.



I don't think they are trying to make us scared.  I'm curious, why do you think "THEY" want to interrogate people and wiretap, etc?  Do you think they are curious about what people ate for dinner the night before?!

Whether you agree with the tactics or not, I hope you at least see that it is for our safety.

IMO it's more about power than safety, though the two are somewhat entangled.  You get people scared enough, you can get them to vote for you by suggesting the other guy ain't going to protect you (even if no protection is actually needed).  That seems to be the Israeli government rationale at the moment, too.

No, I don't think it is over-exaggerated.  There is a large number of people who would love nothing more than to wipe America off of the map.  These people don't even value the lives of their own women and children.  The fact that fewer people have died in the US from terror attacks than around the world tells me that we have done a good job at stopping them in the post-911 years.  I want to keep it that way.

I don't think they are trying to make us scared.  I'm curious, why do you think "THEY" want to interrogate people and wiretap, etc?  Do you think they are curious about what people ate for dinner the night before?!

Whether you agree with the tactics or not, I hope you at least see that it is for our safety.




This is what separates me from modern American conservatives.  I still distrust the government almost as much as I distrust terrorists.

Libertarians seem to still understand that big government isn't what makes you safer.  Republicans should take note of this.

Yes, there are people out there that want to kill us.  Giving the government more power over you isn't going to save you from a terror attack.  And as philbo put it, the odds of dying in a terror attack are phenomenally low -- even if you live in NYC or DC.

The point is...  it says far more about us than the terrorists when all it takes is the death of 3,000 people for 300 million to lean in favor of letting the government strip your freedoms away slowly.

We do not have internal passports.  And nobody is suggesting that we do (no more then nobody but a few Democrats are suggesting we bring back the draft).

But is requesting to see an ID a "violation of civil rights"?  Heck, Truck Drivers do it on a daily basis.  I do it every single day when I go to work.

And what about California?  That state has had "checkpoints" you have to cross to enter for over 40 years now.  As far as I know, the only state you have to show ID to enter is California.

Of course, you can always fly from state to state.  No, wait.  You have to show ID at the airport.  The same with busses and trains.

Well, I guess you can just walk or ride a horse from state to state. 

And don't confuse "internal passport" with "ID".  If you want to know the difference, ask somebody that has had one.  My wife's passport still has marks showing that she voted in the various elections, and who she voted for.  nd before she went from one state to another, she had to get permission.  That is a passport.

Heck, maybe putting up checkpoints at every state border would be a good idea though.  Would probably help arrest people like Warren Jeffs sooner, as well as other criminals that wander freely from state to state.



I don't have a problem with anyone asking me to see my ID-so I show them-my GOVERNMENT ISSUED Military retiree ID-but they don't want to see that-they want to see my driver's license which gives me the privilege to DRIVE and it is NOT an ID card-in fact, my driver's license doesn't even have my photo on it.



Cat

I don't have a problem with anyone asking me to see my ID-so I show them-my GOVERNMENT ISSUED Military retiree ID-but they don't want to see that-they want to see my driver's license which gives me the privilege to DRIVE and it is NOT an ID card-in fact, my driver's license doesn't even have my photo on it.


I have had people refuse my ID in the past as well.  Just last year a motel would not let me check in with it because it did not have an address on it.  So I showed her my DL, which was 4 years old and had an address I had not lived at in years.

I also find it funny that so many places recognize the Social Security Card as ID, even though it has no picture on it at all.  I have even had places refuse to recognize my VA ID card, but will aloow instead my COSTCO card.

And ironically, I have noticed that the smilies have all been replaced with the Obama Symbol.

And you wonder why some of us feel this site is hostile to conservatives.  I do not remember seeing anything similar for the Bush inaguration after all.

http://www.sff.net/people/raymund/uploaded_images/Obama-logo-712332.jpg

^ But Obama is awesome.

And ironically, I have noticed that the smilies have all been replaced with the Obama Symbol.

And you wonder why some of us feel this site is hostile to conservatives.  I do not remember seeing anything similar for the Bush inaguration after all.

http://www.sff.net/people/raymund/uploaded_images/Obama-logo-712332.jpg


Perhaps because when Bush was inaugurated, the board didn't have the capacity to do such things.  You work with computers,  you should know how software is constantly changing.

Perhaps because when Bush was inaugurated, the board didn't have the capacity to do such things.  You work with computers,  you should know how software is constantly changing.


But if it had been capable, he probably would've put up a picture of a monkey hehehehe ;D

Perhaps because when Bush was inaugurated, the board didn't have the capacity to do such things.  You work with computers,  you should know how software is constantly changing.
plus i dont think bush had a symbol.

plus i dont think bush had a symbol.


I was just going to ask if he had one when your post popped up. :D

plus i dont think bush had a symbol.



There IS this one.


http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:KGbaOWaY6JN9VM:http://www.darrelplant.com/images/bush_middle_finger.jpg



Cat

There IS this one.


http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:KGbaOWaY6JN9VM:http://www.darrelplant.com/images/bush_middle_finger.jpg



Cat
ah, i was gonna suggest

http://www.otherwhirled.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/turd.png

There IS this one.


http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:KGbaOWaY6JN9VM:http://www.darrelplant.com/images/bush_middle_finger.jpg



Cat


One finger, one Karma!  That's exactly what I was gonna call the Bush symbol!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/countdown.gif

No, I don't think it is over-exaggerated.  There is a large number of people who would love nothing more than to wipe America off of the map.  These people don't even value the lives of their own women and children.  The fact that fewer people have died in the US from terror attacks than around the world tells me that we have done a good job at stopping them in the post-911 years.  I want to keep it that way.

I don't think they are trying to make us scared.  I'm curious, why do you think "THEY" want to interrogate people and wiretap, etc?  Do you think they are curious about what people ate for dinner the night before?!

Whether you agree with the tactics or not, I hope you at least see that it is for our safety.




How many people died on 9/11?  How many people die every day in this country because they cannot afford adequate healthcare?
Who are the real terrorists?

How many people died on 9/11?  How many people die every day in this country because they cannot afford adequate healthcare?
Who are the real terrorists?



Don't know if it's everywhere, but here in the SF Bay Area there are county hospitals and clinics where anyone can go regardless of ability to pay.  Every county here has them.  If that isn't available nationwide, it should be.

Don't know if it's everywhere, but here in the SF Bay Area there are county hospitals and clinics where anyone can go regardless of ability to pay.  Every county here has them.  If that isn't available nationwide, it should be.



I can tell you that in North Carolina, the only free ticket to healthcare is going to the ER.  Many illegals like to use that route too.

Don't know if it's everywhere, but here in the SF Bay Area there are county hospitals and clinics where anyone can go regardless of ability to pay.  Every county here has them.  If that isn't available nationwide, it should be.


There is.  There is also Medicare.  And there are countless charity organizations also.  Not to mention states like California, which has it's own program (Medi-Cal).

And all universities that have a medical program offer help to those that can not afford it.  As well as countless Religious hospitals nationwide.

And under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, it has been the law since 1986 that a hospital can't turn away any patient, reguardless of their ability to pay.  In fact, since this law went into effect, it is estimated that 55% of emergency room care is unpaid.

In fact, in a 2003 ammendment to the act, there is set aside $250 million per year to pay for the treatment of illegal alliens.  And it is estimated that 20% of the uninsured in this country are illegal aliens.

However, this does not matter.  Because we are killing people by not giving them free health care.  Never mind that it is available.  Because that does not matter.

There is.  There is also Medicare.  And there are countless charity organizations also.  Not to mention states like California, which has it's own program (Medi-Cal).

And all universities that have a medical program offer help to those that can not afford it.  As well as countless Religious hospitals nationwide.

And under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, it has been the law since 1986 that a hospital can't turn away any patient, reguardless of their ability to pay.  In fact, since this law went into effect, it is estimated that 55% of emergency room care is unpaid.

In fact, in a 2003 ammendment to the act, there is set aside $250 million per year to pay for the treatment of illegal alliens.  And it is estimated that 20% of the uninsured in this country are illegal aliens.

However, this does not matter.  Because we are killing people by not giving them free health care.  Never mind that it is available.  Because that does not matter.


Well, to counter your points, the fact that so much care goes unpaid is why costs have gone up so quickly for those of us that do pay.

A socialized system would be better equipped to handle unexpected expenses like illegals and the very poor.

It's because we don't have a very flexible national system that it has become so expensive for us (and because of pharmaceutical lobbyists and a lack of tort reform).

Another thing that would help is to orient more care toward preventive medicine so people stay healthy for longer periods of time.  Regular checkups prevent a surprising number of surgeries and maladies from ever occurring.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y112/toejam13/csmonitor/security-vs-privacy.jpg

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" was the catchphrase from 50s B-movies, and it was typically uttered by stereotypical Nazis or KGB goons. 

Free societies are governed by the principle "If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to look".


I don't think they are trying to make us scared.  I'm curious, why do you think "THEY" want to interrogate people and wiretap, etc? 


The "They" want to make money off fat cost-plus contracts for building datamining systems that will overload the intelligence community with floods of useless data.  Who cares if it works, as long as the contract gets signed and we get paid to build it!  But the only way to get the idiots in Congress to allocate the funds is to terrify people into demanding that Something Must Be Done.  Building a STASI-like surveillance state is Something, therefore a STASI-like surveillance state must be built!


Do you think they are curious about what people ate for dinner the night before?!


Actually, yes.  And even the people at Drudge thought it was a bad idea. 

(The eventual "denial" was a pretty obvious non-denial.  Grocery stores are not supermarkets.  Therefore, "supermarket data" was not mined.  What's left out is that credit card and/or debit card data could have been mined - it wouldn't have told them what was bought, but merely buying at certain grocery stores might have been the variable included in the scoring criteria.  In a way, that's more protective of privacy than using the supermarket/loyalty card databases, but the right answer would have been not to have done it at all.)

A bunch of people who come from all around the country, all move in together, and whose purchasing records show that they shop at a certain ethnic grocery stores (but not the local delicatessen!), and never purchase alcohol or pork products.  Technically, it's not religious profiling, but it might carry a correlation with terrorism, and even though correlation is not causation, let's build a system that integrates every data mine out there... we get a few billion in fat contracts out of it, and who cares if everyone in the security industry knows that however good data mining is at predicting the buying behavior of large groups, it's next to useless for predicting the behavior of individuals.

But don't worry - Obama isn't going to dismantle any of these surveillance programmes.  So you'll get a new group of overseers, watching you to make sure you're always safe.  Be careful what you read, Comrade.  Hope you bought "The Audacity of Hope", and a DVD of "Fahrenheit 9/11" for every copy of "Treason" or "Godless" over the past few years.


Whether you agree with the tactics or not, I hope you at least see that it is for our safety.


"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?  If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"  (emphasis added)
    - Sam Adams, being soft-on-terrorism 1776-style.

If you read nothing else, read about the ongoing project to reconstruct the shredded files.  The only difference between East Germany's STASI programme of data mining and what we're doing today is that we use computers and biometrics instead of millions of pages of paper and vials of physical sweat/body odor samples.

One of the underpinnings of any conservative philosophy is that it's about principles of governance that exist independently of the politician or party in power.  You may support a party that calls itself "conservative" -- but that doesn't make that party's actual policies conservative, any more than me walking into a garage turns me into an automobile.

The world has been down the road of data mining in the name of securing the homeland before.  We've seen where that road leads, and it sucks.  With all due respect, Odyssey, are you sure you're on the "conservative" side of this issue? 

The world has been down the road of data mining in the name of securing the homeland before.  We've seen where that road leads, and it sucks.  With all due respect, Odyssey, are you sure you're on the "conservative" side of this issue? 


Well, I consider the liberal view to be (and yes this is a bit of an exaggeration, but I think it is necessary to make my point) "Let everyone come in and do whatever they want, if you suspect them of something, don't look for proof unless you already have proof..."  To me that's dangerous.

I consider myself to be conservative as a person also, not just in politics.  But I don't always "play nice" with conservatives.  Not sure if you were here or not but there is a thread here I started a couple years ago or so... that mostly liberals agreed with me on.

I had been working at a company for many years, and when I left and was looking for another job, I was shocked to find that you had to submit to a credit check in order to apply.  Right away that jumped out at me as discrimination.  Alot of people are poor and can't afford to pay their bills because they don't have a good job (or a job at all) and now they can be denied a job, even with the best skills for the position, because they have bad credit?  Not to mention I don't want my credit report with all my account numbers, etc. in the hands of various 'human resources' clerks.

No doubt this practice was started by republicans, and I actually went as far as to contact my congressman, who did call me and was very interested in my 'story', until I explained that I don't have a story, I just thought it was wrong.  Never heard from him again.  I almost wished i had made up some story about how I was denied a job...

Although my point of view comes across as liberal (anti-discrimination, invasion of privacy, etc), it leads back to a conservative view that everyone should have the opportunity to work to support themselves, as opposed to being on welfare.

So yeah, sometimes my views are a little bit of both.

I had been working at a company for many years, and when I left and was looking for another job, I was shocked to find that you had to submit to a credit check in order to apply.  Right away that jumped out at me as discrimination. 

...

No doubt this practice was started by republicans, and I actually went as far as to contact my congressman, who did call me and was very interested in my 'story', until I explained that I don't have a story, I just thought it was wrong. 

One of the things I have (again) is a Secret security clearance.  It is required for my job (PATRIOT crewman).  And in getting such a clearance, your credit profile is a major part.

However, they look less at your current credit score, as much as your credit-debt ratio, and to make sure that any current bills are paid, and that you are not "living beyond your means".  Either of those can make you more prone to bribery.

And believe me, my credit is atrocious.  I tried to get a $500 loan from my credit union last year, and was turned down.  However, I have been living "cash only" since 1997.  Before that, I had so credit companies write off around $20k of debt.  However, since 1997 I have had no credit cards, made no loans.  And since 1999 I have had 2 evictions.

All of my bills since then (rent, utilities, etc) have been paid, with no defaults in the last 7 years.

And to be honest, I was shocked when my clearance came through.  The last time I had a Secret security clearance was 1987.  That was a lot of debt ago, and one stint in jail.  So I would not worry to much about a credit check, unless you are currently so deep in debt that it might tempt you to dip your hand in the cookie jar.

So yeah, sometimes my views are a little bit of both.


Cool.  And hey, I was a bit hard on you in that rant - long story short, if you're willing to look at a policy and decide whether or not it meets the criteria of your value system, we're cool.  One of the nice things about even our most rancorous political debates on this board is that we respect each other, even when we disagree.

I'm as skeptical as anyone about the new Prez, he hit the rhetorical nail squarely on the head when he said the debate wasn't about policies that worked, rather than ideological debates about "market vs government" or "big vs small government".  I come down on the side of markets and small government.  But I'm willing to disregard my preferences in exchange for policies that work, too.

One of the things I have (again) is a Secret security clearance.  It is required for my job (PATRIOT crewman).  And in getting such a clearance, your credit profile is a major part.

However, they look less at your current credit score, as much as your credit-debt ratio, and to make sure that any current bills are paid, and that you are not "living beyond your means".  Either of those can make you more prone to bribery.

And believe me, my credit is atrocious.  I tried to get a $500 loan from my credit union last year, and was turned down.  However, I have been living "cash only" since 1997.  Before that, I had so credit companies write off around $20k of debt.  However, since 1997 I have had no credit cards, made no loans.  And since 1999 I have had 2 evictions.

All of my bills since then (rent, utilities, etc) have been paid, with no defaults in the last 7 years.

And to be honest, I was shocked when my clearance came through.  The last time I had a Secret security clearance was 1987.  That was a lot of debt ago, and one stint in jail.  So I would not worry to much about a credit check, unless you are currently so deep in debt that it might tempt you to dip your hand in the cookie jar.


It's not my own credit I'm worried about.. my credit isn't bad.  My concern is for those who can't help being poor - and what they need to get out of their rut is a good job, but it's an endless circle if they can't get a good job because they're poor.   I don't mean the middle class businessman who is trying to live like a tycoon, I mean the guy from the projects who can't afford to pay for his electricity and rent and has ended up in collections, etc.  It's kinda like the old "I need a car to find a job, but I need a job to get a car".. My only problem with it that actually affects me, is that i worry about identity theft and don't like my account numbers (and obviously they have the last 4 of my social which is required to access my accounts) being passed around through hands that they don't need to be in.  I think credit reports should be for obtaining credit. That's it.  I don't see how financial standing relates to ability to perform a job.

I do agree with criminal checks, though.  That is different, because someone who has stolen in the past made the choice to do that, unlike someone who is just trying to make ends meet but can't.  Credit reports don't give you the opportunity to explain why your credit is bad...maybe you had a family crisis, maybe you were the victim of identity theft and someone drained your accounts...

That's just my opinion, but I do see where you're coming from... I just see it as people being denied jobs through no fault of their own, which leads to us supporting them.

Cool.  And hey, I was a bit hard on you in that rant - long story short, if you're willing to look at a policy and decide whether or not it meets the criteria of your value system, we're cool.  One of the nice things about even our most rancorous political debates on this board is that we respect each other, even when we disagree.




This board would be no fun if everyone agreed. 8)

This board would be no fun if everyone agreed. 8)

Yes it would.

Yes it would.


Then start agreeing with me, dammit!  That way you'll have more fun!  :D

Don't know if it's everywhere, but here in the SF Bay Area there are county hospitals and clinics where anyone can go regardless of ability to pay.  Every county here has them.  If that isn't available nationwide, it should be.




Yes, that is true. Anyone can go to a hospital if they need to even if they can't pay. However, there are many people who have treatable conditions but they can't afford to go to the doc for immunizations, or other "preventive maintenance." By the time they end up in the ER, the cost to treat them is much, much higher than it would have been if they could go to the doc BEFORE. And who ends up paying? Everyone. So we basically have "socialize medicine" already, why not make it so EVERYONE can get the "preventive maintenance" when needed and health care in the country would be so much cheaper.



Cat

Well, I consider the liberal view to be (and yes this is a bit of an exaggeration, but I think it is necessary to make my point) "Let everyone come in and do whatever they want, if you suspect them of something, don't look for proof unless you already have proof..."  To me that's dangerous



Some liberals do seem to fit that description.  I definitely support the government using legal means to observe suspected terrorists that don't involve legal loopholes that could be used to invade everyone's privacy.

I do support wiretaps and things of that nature when a federal warrant is involved, but you have to remember that FISA (the real piece of legislation that actually had most of the Big Brother stuff in it, as opposed to the Patriot Act) opened the door for searches and taps without warrants.  You never want to give the government that much leverage...  at least, you don't if you believe in the core distrust of government that a true conservative has.

For the most part I'm Liberal, but there's a few certain things I agree with Conservatives on (i.e. anti abortion, being tougher on crime in some instances, and border security). I basically try to think for myself and don't follow a set course of thinking 'cause there's even some issues where I'm a little of both. Even the liberal ideas that appeal to me are more personal traits that anyone can have - like being open minded, youngish and easygoing.

I'm quite feminist, I'm for things like freedom of expression, support gay rights and stuff like that, but I'm also not some new age freewheeling reckless hippie who thinks anyone can do whatever, if that makes sense.

I think both sides of the political spectrum can get unfairly typecasted because of the bad apples or the more extreme ideas though, and that ticks me off. For instance, I've seen other liberals bash a person on the other side just because they happen to be a conservative and without hearing their ideas.

Some liberals do seem to fit that description.  I definitely support the government using legal means to observe suspected terrorists that don't involve legal loopholes that could be used to invade everyone's privacy.

I do support wiretaps and things of that nature when a federal warrant is involved, but you have to remember that FISA (the real piece of legislation that actually had most of the Big Brother stuff in it, as opposed to the Patriot Act) opened the door for searches and taps without warrants.  You never want to give the government that much leverage...   at least, you don't if you believe in the core distrust of government that a true conservative has.

Only trust the government to incarcerate and destroy people who don't worship the same god as you...and poor people.  Otherwise, government sucks.

That was the Bush doctrine.

Remember, when you say "using legal means," the government can make all kinds of sicko things legal!

Yes...hospitals run in the red (no pun intended).  The right-wing answer:

Blame it on illegal aliens and lazy bums who oughta be thrown out on the street to die.

Yes it would.


No it wou--hey, this isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.  Argument is an intellectual process, not just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person has to say...

But at least this is the right board for a political argument.  ("Abuse", mercifully, is three network hops down...)

I think both sides of the political spectrum can get unfairly typecasted because of the bad apples or the more extreme ideas though, and that ticks me off. For instance, I've seen other liberals bash a person on the other side just because they happen to be a conservative and without hearing their ideas.


That is very true.  And it is sad because I see it all the time.

When a Conservatve in here bashes a Liberal, it is normally in the line of "you are an idiot", "you do not know what you are talking about".  "Your president is a fool".

However, over and over in here (and other places) when I see Liberals attack Conservatives, the language is much different.

"You are a racist".  "You want to see pregnant mothers die from coat hangers".  "You want the poor to die".  "You condemn hundreds (thousands, millions, the entire planet) to death because you are greedy".  "You hate immigration".  "Your party are Nazi's".

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  Just look through this one forum, and look how often "Conservatives" are accused of the most horrid things.  Liberals seem to have to demonize everything.  Hey, I did not like President Clinton, but I also did not believe he would destroy the military, destroy the country, or kill thousands of people for his own pleasure.  I feel roughly the same about President Obama. 

And no matter what I think of the, both have been or are my President, so I speak about them with respect.

Only trust the government to incarcerate and destroy people who don't worship the same god as you...and poor people.  Otherwise, government sucks.

That was the Bush doctrine.

Remember, when you say "using legal means," the government can make all kinds of sicko things legal!

Yes...hospitals run in the red (no pun intended).  The right-wing answer:

Blame it on illegal aliens and lazy bums who oughta be thrown out on the street to die.


Well, what I meant was "using legal means before the advent of the Patriot Act and FISA."  In other words, I think some of the things that are now legal shouldn't be.

That is very true.  And it is sad because I see it all the time.

When a Conservatve in here bashes a Liberal, it is normally in the line of "you are an idiot", "you do not know what you are talking about".  "Your president is a fool".

However, over and over in here (and other places) when I see Liberals attack Conservatives, the language is much different.

"You are a racist".  "You want to see pregnant mothers die from coat hangers".  "You want the poor to die".  "You condemn hundreds (thousands, millions, the entire planet) to death because you are greedy".  "You hate immigration".  "Your party are Nazi's".

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  Just look through this one forum, and look how often "Conservatives" are accused of the most horrid things.  Liberals seem to have to demonize everything.  Hey, I did not like President Clinton, but I also did not believe he would destroy the military, destroy the country, or kill thousands of people for his own pleasure.  I feel roughly the same about President Obama. 

And no matter what I think of the, both have been or are my President, so I speak about them with respect.


Well for starters, there's nothing wrong with wanting abortion banned, as long as you're ok with spending a LOT more on social programs and orphanages.

I'm not, so that's a lot of why I'm pro-choice.  I've been blasted for being a "baby-killer", so the sword cuts both ways.

The question often becomes: what defines small government?  I'm very Libertarian on certain topics, so that would make me conservative in the Goldwater sense, but a lot has changed in the GOP since his heyday.  Neoconservatives seem to have truly muddled the definition of conservative -- since smaller government is only peripherally part of their agenda now.

So when people deride conservatives nowadays, it seems most of what they are blasting is really neoconservatism rather than what conservatism originally was.

For example, Lincoln was a very different conservative from Reagan.  Teddy Roosevelt was also very different from modern conservatives.  Even Eisenhower would probably be somewhat alienated by what the GOP has become.

To be fair though...  Woodrow Wilson was very different from Clinton.  It's hard to believe that the same party who once had a president whose favorite film was "Birth of a Nation" now has a black president.  William Jennings Bryan's stance during the Scopes Monkey trial would be much more aligned with the modern GOP than with the current Democratic party.

So both parties have changed over the years, as have the connotations of liberal and conservative.  The problem I see with it all is that both sides now seem to support bigger government -- they just do it in different ways.

Well, what I meant was "using legal means before the advent of the Patriot Act and FISA."  In other words, I think some of the things that are now legal shouldn't be.


I agree.  A lot of the trouble stems from the unitary executive philosophy Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others learned from Nixon.  Fascism cannot thrive without fear and autocracy.

Well for starters, there's nothing wrong with wanting abortion banned, as long as you're ok with spending a LOT more on social programs and orphanages.

I'm not, so that's a lot of why I'm pro-choice.  I've been blasted for being a "baby-killer", so the sword cuts both ways.

The question often becomes: what defines small government?  I'm very Libertarian on certain topics, so that would make me conservative in the Goldwater sense, but a lot has changed in the GOP since his heyday.  Neoconservatives seem to have truly muddled the definition of conservative -- since smaller government is only peripherally part of their agenda now.

So when people deride conservatives nowadays, it seems most of what they are blasting is really neoconservatism rather than what conservatism originally was.

For example, Lincoln was a very different conservative from Reagan.  Teddy Roosevelt was also very different from modern conservatives.  Even Eisenhower would probably be somewhat alienated by what the GOP has become.

To be fair though...  Woodrow Wilson was very different from Clinton.  It's hard to believe that the same party who once had a president whose favorite film was "Birth of a Nation" now has a black president.  William Jennings Bryan's stance during the Scopes Monkey trial would be much more aligned with the modern GOP than with the current Democratic party.

So both parties have changed over the years, as have the connotations of liberal and conservative.  The problem I see with it all is that both sides now seem to support bigger government -- they just do it in different ways.



Big government versus small government is the wrong question, I think.  I'd rather propose humane government versus inhumane government or effective government versus ineffective. 

Another way we might reduce abortion is if a 17-year-old high school drop out could pick up a wrench and earn a decent enough wage to bring up a family.  Though, this idea now sounds about as plausible as sending elephants to Neptune!
::)

Big government versus small government is the wrong question, I think.  I'd rather propose humane government versus inhumane government or effective government versus ineffective. 

Another way we might reduce abortion is if a 17-year-old high school drop out could pick up a wrench and earn a decent enough wage to bring up a family.  Though, this idea now sounds about as plausible as sending elephants to Neptune!
::)


There are only 2 areas of government that I tend to be socialist.  Healthcare and education.

The reason why I support more government involvement in those areas is because of the residual benefits of said investment.  It benefits all of society when the overall populace is highly skilled and healthy.  This has become even more important nowadays due to the advancement of globalization.

A lot of the reason why our economy is somewhat unwieldy is because we foolishly subsidize or otherwise support industries that are low skill here.  Even with protectionism, low skill jobs can only last for so long in a First World country.  The only way to prepare your populace for globalization is to better educate it.

So, I definitely agree that more opportunities decrease the likelihood of teen pregnancy, as does more education.

My support for socialized healthcare is due to the unique nature of medicine.  Whenever something is privatized, profit becomes a primary motivator.  When dealing with public health, coverage should be the main priority instead.  Since everyone needs healthcare, demand is assured rather than competitive.  Usually, when something is a necessity rather than an option, it should not be privatized since demand does not properly work with this product and too much power ends up in the hands of producers of the said good.

Capitalism generally works best when there is a balance of power between consumers and producers, just like government works best with a balance of power as well.

There are only 2 areas of government that I tend to be socialist.  Healthcare and education.

The reason why I support more government involvement in those areas is because of the residual benefits of said investment.  It benefits all of society when the overall populace is highly skilled and healthy.  This has become even more important nowadays due to the advancement of globalization.

A lot of the reason why our economy is somewhat unwieldy is because we foolishly subsidize or otherwise support industries that are low skill here.  Even with protectionism, low skill jobs can only last for so long in a First World country.  The only way to prepare your populace for globalization is to better educate it.

So, I definitely agree that more opportunities decrease the likelihood of teen pregnancy, as does more education.

My support for socialized healthcare is due to the unique nature of medicine.  Whenever something is privatized, profit becomes a primary motivator.  When dealing with public health, coverage should be the main priority instead.  Since everyone needs healthcare, demand is assured rather than competitive.  Usually, when something is a necessity rather than an option, it should not be privatized since demand does not properly work with this product and too much power ends up in the hands of producers of the said good.

Capitalism generally works best when there is a balance of power between consumers and producers, just like government works best with a balance of power as well.



You have a very sensible point of view.  The crazy thing is we still have free market absolutist running around with undue influence from the Hysterical Foundation.  These guys remind me of Kim Jong Il with his Glories of Communism speeches while legions of half-starved soldiers march up and down the square.  No matter how obviously the "free market" has failed, they're still going to bang their shoes about how we should never interfere in the free market, and the free market is always right, and tax cuts are always good.  Our media, instead of saying, "Aw shaddap!," sets them up on panels where they outnumber some hapless moderate two to one!  These asshats don't even believe in a free market anyway, what they like is a rigged game!
::)

You have a very sensible point of view.  The crazy thing is we still have free market absolutist running around with undue influence from the Hysterical Foundation.  These guys remind me of Kim Jong Il with his Glories of Communism speeches while legions of half-starved soldiers march up and down the square.  No matter how obviously the "free market" has failed, they're still going to bang their shoes about how we should never interfere in the free market, and the free market is always right, and tax cuts are always good.  Our media, instead of saying, "Aw shaddap!," sets them up on panels where they outnumber some hapless moderate two to one!  These asshats don't even believe in a free market anyway, what they like is a rigged game!
::)


Thanks  :)

I would agree that the game is rigged toward plutocracy, but I'd have to say that the source of this problem is not really because of free market absolutists.

It's because of plutocrats and "noble intentions."  Plutocrats are the people who pretend to support freer markets but seem ok with government intervention whenever bailouts or corporate tax breaks are discussed.  "Noble intentions" come from people who support intervention in business that is designed to help groups like minorities but eventually just leads to unsound investments.

To be more specific, a good example of this at work is the mortgage crisis we recently experienced.

The "noble intentions" came in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act and Barney Frank's refusal to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac properly.  Frank is basically a lackey of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of the lobbyist funds he receives from them.  The CRA might have been noble in making it easier to lend to minorities, but ultimately, it just forced banks to lend to people who couldn't realistically be expected to pay back their dues.

The plutocrats put together the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act, which removed restrictions from regular banks engaging in investment bank risks.  This opened the door for big banks to invest in mortgage derivatives, many of which were subprime mortgages that would later be defaulted on.

So, government intervention (and a certain amount of deregulation) led to the situation we're involved in now.  What we need to do is remove bad regulations and replace them with better ones, but bailouts should not be part of the equation.

The government also desperately needs to cut spending -- something neither party seems willing to do.

As I have pointed out before, Adam Smith, in The wealth of Nations argued that businessmen hate free competition and would always conspire to limit it.  Nothing but the methods has changed.  And as to the Community Investment Act, there was nothing to force banks to make bad loans, nor to create variable rate mortgages, which is where most of the problem came from.  They were playing a ponzi game, betting other people's money that real estate would continue to go up.

As I have pointed out before, Adam Smith, in The wealth of Nations argued that businessmen hate free competition and would always conspire to limit it.  Nothing but the methods has changed.  And as to the Community Investment Act, there was nothing to force banks to make bad loans, nor to create variable rate mortgages, which is where most of the problem came from.  They were playing a ponzi game, betting other people's money that real estate would continue to go up.


Yes and no.  The variable rate mortgages were, indeed, the design of the the companies themselves and unrelated to the legislation.  So that much was purely the fault of corporate greed.

As to making bad loans, the CRA did essentially force banks to loan to poor people that were minorities.  It was kind of like affirmative action meets home loans.  The idea was noble, but it was a very unsound business proposition.  The greed of these banks only made things worse, but even without that, it's not a good idea to create an environment where a business faces federal litigation if it refuses to loan to someone because they're too poor to pay them back.  The end result of this act was that the door was open to a lot more discrimination lawsuits than before.

The words "consistent with safe and sound operation" are key here.  The legislation did not require banks to make bad loans.  It did provide an excuse for them to make usurious ones.

The words "consistent with safe and sound operation" are key here.  The legislation did not require banks to make bad loans.  It did provide an excuse for them to make usurious ones.


True, but again...  part of this inspiration for greed was circumstantial.  If you fear that someone will sue you over discrimination, you might serve them despite financial dangers, but you'll also be more likely to squeeze what you can from them.

My argument is that the CRA effectively destroyed what little fiscal conservatism banks had by the 90s.  The credit industry had already gone hog wild with lending to poor people (and profitting off of their late payments), but the CRA ended up making the mortgage market similarly risky.

In the end, you can't legislate morality, which is why things like affirmative action fail.  Similarly, so has the CRA.

Ok, the CRA may have been bad social policy - or not - but was not responsible for bad banking policy, as you admit.  And there was a good deal of discrimination in the real estate / banking business.  Red lining was a common practice among real estate agents (ie showing black people properties only in black neighborhoods).  Similar practices have been documented in many other areas of the economy, including auto sales for example.  And of course in employment practices.

Ok, the CRA may have been bad social policy - or not - but was not responsible for bad banking policy, as you admit.  And there was a good deal of discrimination in the real estate / banking business.  Red lining was a common practice among real estate agents (ie showing black people properties only in black neighborhoods).  Similar practices have been documented in many other areas of the economy, including auto sales for example.  And of course in employment practices.


I think we can agree that racism is present in our country (some areas worse than others).  It is rather shameful that the racial makeup of a neighborhood can affect home prices.

Still...  You can't legislate changes in these perceptions.  If white people want to leave a neighborhood because a black family moves in across the street, you can't keep them from leaving.  This kind of subtle racism is much of the reason why the real estate industry works the way that it does.

On the other hand, it doesn't help things when so much of certain communities really do match stereotypes.  Less white people would have prejudices against black people if less of them committed crimes.

I may have mentioned this before, but my brother has been robbed twice while living in my city.  Both times, it was by black people.  Most of the homeless walking around asking for change around here are blacks.  Most of the violent crime that occurs in my city is on the black side of town, which is why I've always stayed away from that side.

Again, none of this justifies racism, but it shows why people have prejudices.  This shows why the real estate industry is basically racist.  Still, I don't think legislation is gonna change that.

I think we can agree that racism is present in our country (some areas worse than others).  It is rather shameful that the racial makeup of a neighborhood can affect home prices.

Still...  You can't legislate changes in these perceptions.  If white people want to leave a neighborhood because a black family moves in across the street, you can't keep them from leaving.  This kind of subtle racism is much of the reason why the real estate industry works the way that it does.

On the other hand, it doesn't help things when so much of certain communities really do match stereotypes.  Less white people would have prejudices against black people if less of them committed crimes.

I may have mentioned this before, but my brother has been robbed twice while living in my city.  Both times, it was by black people.  Most of the homeless walking around asking for change around here are blacks.  Most of the violent crime that occurs in my city is on the black side of town, which is why I've always stayed away from that side.Again, none of this justifies racism, but it shows why people have prejudices.  This shows why the real estate industry is basically racist.   Still, I don't think legislation is gonna change that.


::)

Dizzy, what I say might not be politically correct, but it's true to my experiences and true to what many perceive.

I try to judge people as individuals, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have my own prejudices.  Everyone has them.  What matters is how you deal with them.

Dizzy, what I say might not be politically correct, but it's true to my experiences and true to what many perceive.

I try to judge people as individuals, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have my own prejudices.  Everyone has them.  What matters is how you deal with them.
and how well do you feel you're dealing with yours?

True, but again...  part of this inspiration for greed was circumstantial.  If you fear that someone will sue you over discrimination, you might serve them despite financial dangers, but you'll also be more likely to squeeze what you can from them.

My argument is that the CRA effectively destroyed what little fiscal conservatism banks had by the 90s.  The credit industry had already gone hog wild with lending to poor people (and profitting off of their late payments), but the CRA ended up making the mortgage market similarly risky.

In the end, you can't legislate morality, which is why things like affirmative action fail.  Similarly, so has the CRA.


I'm seeing it with bank loans like I saw it with education.

The bigshots don't want to work on the root causes of poverty so they legislate programs bound to caused strife.  Whether it's an inner city poor kid flunking out of college or a "low income" family defaulting on a mortgage, it gives the right-wingers an excuse to say:  Look at those people, they're bums, never shoulda helped 'em in the first place!

Liberal politicians like Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy work on these programs so they can tell their constituents, "Hey, we tried!"  They've got political careers to pursue.  As the late Molly Ivins said, "You gotta dance with them that brung ya." If Democrats rock the boat too much, those that brung 'em might ditch 'em and they can kiss their careers goodbye.  Dennis Kucinich rocks the boat, but he ain't going nowhere higher than where he is!  As for Barney Frank, feh, don't get me started.  I've met him.  He's a nice guy.  Seems to have good intentions, but he's always shown he's a politician first and everything else second. 

That's why liberals/Democrats disappoint me more than Republicans.  Mitch McConnell, for instance, is exactly what he appears to be and I wouldn't touch him with a 39 1/2 foot pole!  As for Obama, I love the guy, but I'm onto him.  If he sells out like Clinton did, I will not vote for him in '12 the way I didn't vote for Clinton in again in '96.

I think we can agree that racism is present in our country (some areas worse than others).  It is rather shameful that the racial makeup of a neighborhood can affect home prices.

Still...  You can't legislate changes in these perceptions.  If white people want to leave a neighborhood because a black family moves in across the street, you can't keep them from leaving.  This kind of subtle racism is much of the reason why the real estate industry works the way that it does.

On the other hand, it doesn't help things when so much of certain communities really do match stereotypes.  Less white people would have prejudices against black people if less of them committed crimes.

I may have mentioned this before, but my brother has been robbed twice while living in my city.  Both times, it was by black people.  Most of the homeless walking around asking for change around here are blacks.  Most of the violent crime that occurs in my city is on the black side of town, which is why I've always stayed away from that side.

Again, none of this justifies racism, but it shows why people have prejudices.  This shows why the real estate industry is basically racist.   Still, I don't think legislation is gonna change that.


Your attitude my have had some traction before the information age, but now it is just an excuse for your own veiled racism.  It appears that you must live in a stratified community, but you have the internet and access to education that should taught you that what you are experiencing is a result of that stratification.  It really is a tired argument.

and how well do you feel you're dealing with yours?


Pretty well, considering I voted for a black man as president, have black friends, and generally get along well with most black people I meet.

It works both ways though.  Minorities have prejudices toward each other and toward white people.

The fact that we all have prejudices goes back to the idea that we're all created equal.

Your attitude my have had some traction before the information age, but now it is just an excuse for your own veiled racism.  It appears that you must live in a stratified community, but you have the internet and access to education that should taught you that what you are experiencing is a result of that stratification.  It really is a tired argument.




Class matters more than race when it comes to objective reality, but when it comes to perceptions, race still matters.  I figured you'd agree with me on that.

Yes, economic hardships are a lot of the reason for why statistics show crime as proportionately different along racial lines.  But why I mentioned all of the above was a demonstration of how the average white person sees things.

Think about this for a moment.

What if black people ran most authority and held most of the wealth, while white people were disproportionately poor and committed more crimes per capita.  Don't you think blacks would understandably have certain prejudices toward whites?

Even with reality being the reverse of that, blacks often have prejudices toward whites just like whites have prejudices toward blacks.  Minorities also have prejudices toward each other.

Proposition 8 in California revealed that, at least in California, minorities were generally more prejudiced toward gays than whites were.  More specifically, blacks voted heavily for banning gay marriage.

So again, the fact that we all have prejudices toward each other is something that supports the idea of equality in that we're all equally flawed.  Just because I bring up the basis for these perceptions doesn't make me racist.

Sadly, it would seem that frankness and honesty aren't appreciated by certain people.

I'm seeing it with bank loans like I saw it with education.

The bigshots don't want to work on the root causes of poverty so they legislate programs bound to caused strife.  Whether it's an inner city poor kid flunking out of college or a "low income" family defaulting on a mortgage, it gives the right-wingers an excuse to say:  Look at those people, they're bums, never shoulda helped 'em in the first place!

Liberal politicians like Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy work on these programs so they can tell their constituents, "Hey, we tried!"  They've got political careers to pursue.  As the late Molly Ivins said, "You gotta dance with them that brung ya." If Democrats rock the boat too much, those that brung 'em might ditch 'em and they can kiss their careers goodbye.  Dennis Kucinich rocks the boat, but he ain't going nowhere higher than where he is!  As for Barney Frank, feh, don't get me started.  I've met him.  He's a nice guy.  Seems to have good intentions, but he's always shown he's a politician first and everything else second. 

That's why liberals/Democrats disappoint me more than Republicans.  Mitch McConnell, for instance, is exactly what he appears to be and I wouldn't touch him with a 39 1/2 foot pole!  As for Obama, I love the guy, but I'm onto him.  If he sells out like Clinton did, I will not vote for him in '12 the way I didn't vote for Clinton in again in '96.


You've got no disagreement from me on these points.  Addressing root causes does seem like something Obama might have some interest in.

I think his personal experiences with poverty and his involvement as a community organizer makes him different from most politicians.  Still, his support for bailouts definitely disappoints me.

Dizzy, what I say might not be politically correct, but it's true to my experiences and true to what many perceive.

I try to judge people as individuals, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have my own prejudices.  Everyone has them.  What matters is how you deal with them.


Exactly! What we do with them. That's why we don't say everything that goes through our minds, it's not about being pc is about being aware that we are wrong and therefore we should fight within ourselves our own prejudices  and don't talk about it like they're justified when they're not.



So again, the fact that we all have prejudices toward each other is something that supports the idea of equality in that we're all equally flawed.  Just because I bring up the basis for these perceptions doesn't make me racist.

Sadly, it would seem that frankness and honesty aren't appreciated by certain people.



If your brother was robbed by a white guy would you start thinking white people are all criminals? No 'cause you as a white guy prove that theory wrong.
So imagine how someone who is black feels when you assume they gonna attack you. Imagine always being watched when you go to a store. Imagine asking for the time and have people ignore you 'cause they think you're gonna ask them for money. Imagine how surprised people would be 'cause you can put a sentence together. These are all situations a black,a latino,or any minority goes through every single day.
Do you really think it's ok? Do you really believe that we shouldn't feel offended 'cause "hey at least they're being honest about their prejudices"?

Class matters more than race when it comes to objective reality, but when it comes to perceptions, race still matters.  I figured you'd agree with me on that.

Yes, economic hardships are a lot of the reason for why statistics show crime as proportionately different along racial lines.  But why I mentioned all of the above was a demonstration of how the average white person sees things.

Think about this for a moment.

What if black people ran most authority and held most of the wealth, while white people were disproportionately poor and committed more crimes per capita.  Don't you think blacks would understandably have certain prejudices toward whites?

Even with reality being the reverse of that, blacks often have prejudices toward whites just like whites have prejudices toward blacks.  Minorities also have prejudices toward each other.

Proposition 8 in California revealed that, at least in California, minorities were generally more prejudiced toward gays than whites were.  More specifically, blacks voted heavily for banning gay marriage.

So again, the fact that we all have prejudices toward each other is something that supports the idea of equality in that we're all equally flawed.  Just because I bring up the basis for these perceptions doesn't make me racist.

Sadly, it would seem that frankness and honesty aren't appreciated by certain people.


Class and race matter when you are a minority.  The perception is that if you are black you must have struggled to overcome your environment.  That isn't always the case, the struggle is maintaining your calm when having to educate white people everyday about the fact that your environment was better than most, it is the environment that they have created that is the problem.

Think about black people and what the problem would be if situations were reversed?  How about you think about this.  The problems in the black community in the United States are very easily equated to the problems of the Catholics of Northern Ireland, the Jews(everywhere), the Untouchables in India.  The main reason Malcolm X became a serious threat in the United States is that he traveled the world and equated the problems of the poor and found it not a matter of race, but a matter of power. The necessity of a reviled underclass in order to control the middle class.

Minorities have predjudices against other minorities, you think this is not the norm?  If you look closely you will also note that whites have prejudices against whites.  Irish-Anglo, Catholic-Protestant, Jew-Gentile, European-American. 

You gave your argument, then added the word "but".  "But" was used to usher in a defense of the attitude and reason for not going into "certain areas", those areas being African American, when areas populated by poor whites have the same issues..  Maybe you should be more frank and honest with your own feelings.

Exactly! What we do with them. That's why we don't say everything that goes through our minds, it's not about being pc is about being aware that we are wrong and therefore we should fight within ourselves our own prejudices  and don't talk about it like they're justified when they're not.

I suppose you missed the part of my post where I said "none of this justifies racism."

If your brother was robbed by a white guy would you start thinking white people are all criminals? No 'cause you as a white guy prove that theory wrong.
So imagine how someone who is black feels when you assume they gonna attack you. Imagine always being watched when you go to a store. Imagine asking for the time and have people ignore you 'cause they think you're gonna ask them for money. Imagine how surprised people would be 'cause you can put a sentence together. These are all situations a black,a latino,or any minority goes through every single day.
Do you really think it's ok? Do you really believe that we shouldn't feel offended 'cause "hey at least they're being honest about their prejudices"?

Sometimes it's hard for me to tell if you're intentionally twisting my words or not.

As a white person, if I tended to get robbed by only white people, and white people did proportionately more crime per capita, I would probably think less of my own race.  A lot of black people actually have prejudices against their own race.  Even significant speakers in the black community have owned up to this.

"There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." — the Reverend Jesse Jackson, as quoted in US News, 3/10/96

There's a reason why people like Bill Cosby and Chris Rock have ranted about the problems in the black community, because they see the same things whites do.  When they make these observations, most people don't label them as racists.  When Chris Rock said, "There's a civil war in the black community between black people and ni**ers", he'd didn't get blasted for it.  Why?  Because he was honest and because he's black himself.

As a white guy, I don't see how it's a problem if I mention the same things, and if there is a problem, isn't that discriminating against me?

The point is.  What I'm saying in previous posts might be taboo to some people, but it needs to be said more often, so that we understand each other better.  And again, if I was a racist, I wouldn't even bother mentioning this stuff, because I'd just assume it's in your nature to be criminals.  That's what racism is.  Redlining in the real estate industry is racism as well.  Talking about why people have prejudices isn't racism.

You don't see me calling Danoota a racist when she mentions the treatment she's gotten from white people where she lives.  I don't say, "Oh, you're just racist against white people for assuming they will mistreat you."  I acknowledge the issues she faces, and I try to understand her viewpoint.  All I'm asking is that you try to understand mine.

ugh.

just... ugh. 8-P

Class and race matter when you are a minority.  The perception is that if you are black you must have struggled to overcome your environment.  That isn't always the case, the struggle is maintaining your calm when having to educate white people everyday about the fact that your environment was better than most, it is the environment that they have created that is the problem.

Correction.  It's the environment that our ancestors have made.  Most white people today try to be open minded about race, especially younger whites.

Think about black people and what the problem would be if situations were reversed?  How about you think about this.  The problems in the black community in the United States are very easily equated to the problems of the Catholics of Northern Ireland, the Jews(everywhere), the Untouchables in India.  The main reason Malcolm X became a serious threat in the United States is that he traveled the world and equated the problems of the poor and found it not a matter of race, but a matter of power. The necessity of a reviled underclass in order to control the middle class.

If you understand the importance of class, then you should understand that the more we bicker about race, the more power the elite have.  By the way, Jews actually have it pretty good in America and Israel, although admittedly, that's not the case in a lot of other areas.

Minorities have predjudices against other minorities, you think this is not the norm?  If you look closely you will also note that whites have prejudices against whites.  Irish-Anglo, Catholic-Protestant, Jew-Gentile, European-American.

Where did I say it wasn't the norm?  Look closer...  You'll notice I said that we're all equally flawed, and part of that involves us all having some sort of prejudice.

You gave your argument, then added the word "but".  "But" was used to usher in a defense of the attitude and reason for not going into "certain areas", those areas being African American, when areas populated by poor whites have the same issues..  Maybe you should be more frank and honest with your own feelings.


I don't go to the trailer parks either.  I just generally avoid poor areas of town.  The reason why I mentioned the black areas more in particular is because of the stratification you mentioned.  Blacks do tend to be poorer on average in my city, so obviously, the most dangerous areas are going to be more black in addition to being poor.

Avoiding poorer sides of town doesn't make me anymore racist than black people who use common sense and don't walk the streets at night in certain areas of Detroit, D.C., and Compton.  There are areas of my city just like that as well.

Again, you're trying very hard to paint me as a racist, when I've heard you mention plenty of negative things about whites, but I've never labeled you.

ugh.

just... ugh. 8-P


Why not debate my logic, if you don't like what I've posted?

Why not debate my logic, if you don't like what I've posted?
b/c i'm too exhausted and discouraged by what you've written

anyway, if you elide all the race stuff basically what you're saying is, poor people commit more crimes. (you leave out the part where poor people are also the VICTIM of more crimes for some reason.) but by coding it specifically in terms of race what's the real point you're driving at? i'm not sure exactly what it is you're trying to say about black people as a whole, whether they're inherently more criminal and if you think that, why it is that you think that. the fact of the matter is, i don't want to know. but there seems to be something really ugly lurking that's leading you in that direction, that's causing you to think about this stuff in terms of race instead of class/poverty.

anyway, if you elide all the race stuff basically what you're saying is, poor people commit more crimes. (you leave out the part where poor people are also the VICTIM of more crimes for some reason.) but by coding it specifically in terms of race what's the real point you're driving at? i'm not sure exactly what it is you're trying to say about black people as a whole, whether they're inherently more criminal and if you think that, why it is that you think that. the fact of the matter is, i don't want to know. but there seems to be something really ugly lurking that's leading you in that direction, that's causing you to think about this stuff in terms of race instead of class/poverty.


I don't know how many times I have to say it.  The whole reason behind this discussion was so that I could explain why prejudice towards blacks exists.  Yet again, I'm not saying racism is right.  I'm just explaining why it exists and why certain industries like real estate behave in a racist manner.

Yes, poor people are the victims of more crime, because most crime involves the poor abusing other poor.  Most murders are black on black.

Just because I mention the connections to race that exist, it doesn't make me racist.  But I would agree that it is both class and race.

Again, none of this justifies racism, but it shows why people have prejudices.  This shows why the real estate industry is basically racist.   Still, I don't think legislation is gonna change that.


Of course.  as Barry Goldwater used to say, "you can't legislate love".  But no one is trying.  You can, however, legislate behavior.  Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of my race, or class or whatever, but I do care about your actions. 

Of course.  as Barry Goldwater used to say, "you can't legislate love".  But no one is trying.  You can, however, legislate behavior.  Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of my race, or class or whatever, but I do care about your actions. 


Only to a very limited degree.  The CRA was a perfect example of government reaching beyond its rational limits.

b/c i'm too exhausted and discouraged by what you've written


ditto.

...talking about race...


Laws of the Empire of Bar, Subsection VII(b).3: Social Experiment #IX ("Elimination of Racism")

"All humans living under the Foobar Empire must wear a headband with an outward-facing display.  The outward-facing display displays a rating indicating the human's aggregate net worth in Foobucks, with ten ranks from bottom-decile to top-decile, three special gradations for the top 1%, top 0.1%, top 0.01%, and a custom series of 500 individually-numbered headbands for each member of the Forbes Top 500."

A few years after that gets enacted, the next time you get mugged, you'll notice it was a poor person.  The cop who takes the report (and then threatens to beat you up for wasting his time reporting it) will be an average schmoe.  The guy who signs your paycheck will probably be wealthy.  The only time you see rich people will be on TV (typically politicians, lobbyists, and entertainers), and you'll only see the most publicity-hounding of the top-500, most of whom prefer to keep to themselves.  (They hire rich lobbyists and politicians to rob average-schmoes wholesale, rather than robbing them retail like the bottom-decile folks.)

Unfortunately, recent budgetary constraints have meant that the budget for little outward-facing wealth displays is a little tight, so until I'm declared Emperor, you'll all have to make do with the free version. 

Which sucks, because the free version of a long-range-visible proxy for wealth is horribly inaccurate.

(May I suggest we try using the next-best thing to the free version of the wealth display, namely dress styles?  Prejudging people based on style of dress also has versatility, in that one's prejdudices can be context-sensitive.  For example, if I'm on the street, I'll trust the guy in the suit not to rob me than the guy in the baggy pants and gold chains.  In the office, however, it's precisely the opposite - I'll trust the techie in the jeans over a suit-wearing salesweasel any day.)

Think about black people and what the problem would be if situations were reversed?  How about you think about this.  The problems in the black community in the United States are very easily equated to the problems of the Catholics of Northern Ireland, the Jews(everywhere), the Untouchables in India.

At the risk of derailing this thread, it has to be said that where the situation has been reversed for the Jews in Israel, they haven't exactly covered themselves in glorious lack of prejudice... (it also ain't quite so simple in Northern Ireland, but that would fill up a whole new forum rather than a new thread).

But guys and gals.. please don't jump so hard on Macphisto: he's trying to explain as dispassionately as possible why he sees that racial prejudice is still rife - I've been lucky in life, in that I've not had any negative experiences of black people (and plenty of good ones), so it's easy for me not to care about colour; in an equivalent position - if the only times I'd been set upon had been by black guys, it would be very hard to maintain that equanimity.  Even if rationally I told myself that two bad guys doesn't equate to a whole race, there is an instinctive, almost knee-jerk instinct that will draw that conclusion... in much the same way that if a guy gets beaten up a couple of times by policemen, he pretty quickly forms the view that all cops are like that.

At the risk of derailing this thread, it has to be said that where the situation has been reversed for the Jews in Israel, they haven't exactly covered themselves in glorious lack of prejudice... (it also ain't quite so simple in Northern Ireland, but that would fill up a whole new forum rather than a new thread).




There is a difference between Zionism and the Jewish people, and I don't condemn a whole people for the actions of the rulers of one country. After all, where would that leave us?

People are very quick to say, "look at them, look at the way they act"  at the same time rationalizing, ignoring, excusing, or hiding the same faults with in their group.

l

There is a difference between Zionism and the Jewish people, and I don't condemn a whole people for the actions of the rulers of one country. After all, where would that leave us?

Where that falls down is that the almost cataclysmic overreaction of the IDF in Gaza has increased the government's popularity - a government that was unlikely to be re-elected now is looking high enough in the polls to continue.  But even before the current conflict: Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories have been treated as second-class citizens for years now.  It's not only Israel, but to be honest I thought a Jewish nation would be more likely to have some kind of empathy with the downtrodden when you look at their history.



People are very quick to say, "look at them, look at the way they act"  at the same time rationalizing, ignoring, excusing, or hiding the same faults with in their group.

Which is the perfect description of what you get from both sides in Gaza at the moment - neither side trying to justify what they're doing other than to point at the other side and say "he started it" like two schoolchildren caught fighting.

Where that falls down is that the almost cataclysmic overreaction of the IDF in Gaza has increased the government's popularity - a government that was unlikely to be re-elected now is looking high enough in the polls to continue.  But even before the current conflict: Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories have been treated as second-class citizens for years now.  It's not only Israel, but to be honest I thought a Jewish nation would be more likely to have some kind of empathy with the downtrodden when you look at their history.

Which is the perfect description of what you get from both sides in Gaza at the moment - neither side trying to justify what they're doing other than to point at the other side and say "he started it" like two schoolchildren caught fighting.


I don't see Israel as Jewish nation, I see it as an offshoot of power structure of Germany and Eastern Europe.  The problems we see now are stem from the time the Eastern Europeans were allowed to take over Palestine.  I think if we take religion out of the mix and equate it to a power structure put into place for a specific reason after the end of World War II we could address it in a very different manner.  If you look at South Africa you will see that the virulent apartheid was put in place at the same time, by a power structure very much akin to the regime put in place in Palestine.  There had been apartheid before, but it took an insidious turn after WWII. It is very telling that the only people on the African continent who traded with South Africa during apartheid was their kin in the newly renamed Israel.

I had a feeling that the thread was going to get derailed, but...

One of the major problems Israel has as a country is how to deal with its orthodox Jewish population who view the land as theirs because it was promised to them in the OT.  These people, using a wholly religious justification, have been building in areas where Israel as a country agreed not to build - so much so there are now an estimated quarter of a million people who would need to be (forcibly) moved for Israel to keep to its side of the bargain.  But the leadership of Israel doesn't appear to have the will to oppose these people... even though it's largely a secular country.  Religion is too ingrained in the way both sides of the conflict think - it would be nice to take it out of the mix, but it underlies the problem more than in any other conflict.. well, ever, it seems.

The most stubborn attitude I find among conservatives is:

The law is fair because it forbids both the beggar and the rich man to sleep under the bridge.

Bill O'Reilly once said of inner city street crime:

"That would NEVER happen in MY neighborhood!"

Actually, he said it several times.  

Or as Maggie Thatcher said:

"There is no such thing as 'society,' there is only indviduals and their families."  

In other words, there is no such thing as social injustice, only character flaws.  If you're rich it's because you are hard-working and virtuous,* and if you're poor, it's because you're....not.

The same applies to nations.  However, only to "free market" economies and democracies (and we shall decide who's what).  

Thus we see all this BS in the conservative defense of Israel.  Israel is a democracy with a free market.  The people of Gaza are rocket-firing interlopers.  They refuse to behave themselves so they must be punished.  

Yeah, but Biff they have nothing; they live in hovels, they have no economy, there's no sanitation....
Hello McFly, Hello, anybody home! Think McFly!

*Or at least your great grandfather was, and he would have wanted his heirs to be rich too so his half-wit great grandson could become president.

::)

I had a feeling that the thread was going to get derailed, but...

One of the major problems Israel has as a country is how to deal with its orthodox Jewish population who view the land as theirs because it was promised to them in the OT.  These people, using a wholly religious justification, have been building in areas where Israel as a country agreed not to build - so much so there are now an estimated quarter of a million people who would need to be (forcibly) moved for Israel to keep to its side of the bargain.  But the leadership of Israel doesn't appear to have the will to oppose these people... even though it's largely a secular country.  Religion is too ingrained in the way both sides of the conflict think - it would be nice to take it out of the mix, but it underlies the problem more than in any other conflict.. well, ever, it seems.

The Israelis would say your people used your religion as a cudgel to conquer the heathens and tame the land.  I mean, they were right of course, and so are we!

Yeah, but Biff they have nothing; they live in hovels, they have no economy, there's no sanitation....
Hello McFly, Hello, anybody home! Think McFly!
well a conservative might think they deserve that too, that their privation is a matter of their own choice. 'if only they settled down and quit flinging rockets (the prevailing attitude seems to be all palestinians are terrorists, real or potential -- sorta like the line from full metal jacket, 'any gook who runs is a VC; any gook who stands is a well-disciplined VC.' there was a really repulsive movie called "rules of engagement" a few years ago that totally took up this same perspective...) if they just did this the israelis would shut down the checkpoints, lift the embargo and turn the occupied territories into a wonderful theme park. really, for a lot of these likudniks, the only legitimate thing a palestinian can do is die. which should sound more familiar to anyone of jewish faith than it apparently is for a lot of israelis.

the maggie thatcher quote is classic. she summed it up really well, and i trot out that quote pretty often.

a conservative friend of mine and i used to talk about ghettos of various forms (i've since learned and never discuss politics with him), his point of view was always, 'hey, if *I*' -- meaning him -- 'lived in a ghetto i'd clean it up or move out.' i'd bring up how hard it is to have that kind of resource when you live in a neighborhood with, say, unreliable transportation, liquor stores instead of groceries, check-cashing joints instead of banks, the constant threat of violence, and maybe (in the case of war zones) unreliable power, water, sewage, trash pickup, etc. pretty easy to sink into despair in an environment like that. but he'd always just shrug, cuz he just KNEW what he would do in that situation.  ::)

well a conservative might think they deserve that too, that their privation is a matter of their own choice. 'if only they settled down and quit flinging rockets (the prevailing attitude seems to be all palestinians are terrorists, real or potential -- sorta like the line from full metal jacket, 'any gook who runs is a VC; any gook who stands is a well-disciplined VC.' there was a really repulsive movie called "rules of engagement" a few years ago that totally took up this same perspective...) if they just did this the israelis would shut down the checkpoints, lift the embargo and turn the occupied territories into a wonderful theme park. really, for a lot of these likudniks, the only legitimate thing a palestinian can do is die. which should sound more familiar to anyone of jewish faith than it apparently is for a lot of israelis.

the maggie thatcher quote is classic. she summed it up really well, and i trot out that quote pretty often.

a conservative friend of mine and i used to talk about ghettos of various forms (i've since learned and never discuss politics with him), his point of view was always, 'hey, if *I*' -- meaning him -- 'lived in a ghetto i'd clean it up or move out.' i'd bring up how hard it is to have that kind of resource when you live in a neighborhood with, say, unreliable transportation, liquor stores instead of groceries, check-cashing joints instead of banks, the constant threat of violence, and maybe (in the case of war zones) unreliable power, water, sewage, trash pickup, etc. pretty easy to sink into despair in an environment like that. but he'd always just shrug, cuz he just KNEW what he would do in that situation.  ::)


That's why I bring up Bill O'Reilly and Biff Tannen--one in the same character really!  My jaw dropped when O'Reilly said that "Never happen in my neighborhood."  Even he can't be that big of a sh*thead, can he?  I must have misunderstood.  Then I heard him say the same thing on another occasion.  People ask me why I watch that crapy anyway.  Well, I'm not sure I'm watching it.  I keep rubbing my eyes and not believing what I'm seeing!
:D

In Orally's neighborhood, if a bird takes a dump on his porcelain Virgin Mary statue, the local constabulary comes screaming around the corner in 1.5 seconds!  Down in the ghett-o, if a crack dealer shoots your mother, the pigs show up two hours later and arrest YOU!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif

The upshot of O'Reilly's "never happen in my neighborhood" is the solipsistic mental block your friend was exhibiting.  In the Chicago projects when the cops failed, the Fruit of Islam got out there and gave the dope dealers ONE chance to leave the neighborhood 'coz next time your number is up!  The Nation of Islam was quickly overwhelmed.  The demand for dope was too high (N.P.I.) and there was no other economy for miles around.  Now, was it just poor black folks buying all those drugs.  No.  Rich white people from the 'burbs loved cocaine!  Who was flying all that powder up from the tropics?  Was it 17-year-olds from Cabrini Green?  No...

Well, you could pursue this line of inquiry to the nth degree, but in the end the conservative reply was still:
"Never happen in my neighborhood!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/homework.gif

ditto.

I'll take that as a concession.

I suppose you missed the part of my post where I said "none of this justifies racism."


No i didn't, you said that the feelings of mistrust between different races are justified,what i'm trying to say is this is one of those times when it's important to be rational and logical. You are right we all have prejudices but our goal should be to have none, and we all can do that by educating ourselves about other cultures, by co-living with different races, when we do this we understand how equal we all really are.


Sometimes it's hard for me to tell if you're intentionally twisting my words or not.

As a white person, if I tended to get robbed by only white people, and white people did proportionately more crime per capita, I would probably think less of my own race.  A lot of black people actually have prejudices against their own race.  Even significant speakers in the black community have owned up to this.

"There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." — the Reverend Jesse Jackson, as quoted in US News, 3/10/96

There's a reason why people like Bill Cosby and Chris Rock have ranted about the problems in the black community, because they see the same things whites do.  When they make these observations, most people don't label them as racists.  When Chris Rock said, "There's a civil war in the black community between black people and ni**ers", he'd didn't get blasted for it.  Why?  Because he was honest and because he's black himself.

As a white guy, I don't see how it's a problem if I mention the same things, and if there is a problem, isn't that discriminating against me?

The point is.  What I'm saying in previous posts might be taboo to some people, but it needs to be said more often, so that we understand each other better.  And again, if I was a racist, I wouldn't even bother mentioning this stuff, because I'd just assume it's in your nature to be criminals.  That's what racism is.  Redlining in the real estate industry is racism as well.  Talking about why people have prejudices isn't racism.

You don't see me calling Danoota a racist when she mentions the treatment she's gotten from white people where she lives.  I don't say, "Oh, you're just racist against white people for assuming they will mistreat you."  I acknowledge the issues she faces, and I try to understand her viewpoint.  All I'm asking is that you try to understand mine.



That reminds me of when people get on my case when i talk about America. I sure don't like it but i get why. If you as a middle class (i'm labeling you as one :p) white guy feels that you know as much about living in a poor neighboorhood then by all means keep talking.

I understand your point i just want to make you change it. My reality is different from yours so maybe i'm the one who's wrong but if we don't let the race issue die once and for all we're never going to be the ones we were waiting for.

No i didn't, you said that the feelings of mistrust between different races are justified,what i'm trying to say is this is one of those times when it's important to be rational and logical. You are right we all have prejudices but our goal should be to have none, and we all can do that by educating ourselves about other cultures, by co-living with different races, when we do this we understand how equal we all really are.

That much I can agree with.  This is why I try to judge people as individuals.  I'm just admitting up front that I have prejudice.  Granted, that's still different from racism.

That reminds me of when people get on my case when i talk about America. I sure don't like it but i get why. If you as a middle class (i'm labeling you as one :p) white guy feels that you know as much about living in a poor neighboorhood then by all means keep talking.

I understand your point i just want to make you change it. My reality is different from yours so maybe i'm the one who's wrong but if we don't let the race issue die once and for all we're never going to be the ones we were waiting for.

Well, admittedly, I'm not claiming to be an expert on life in the poor section of town.  I'm just showing where I'm coming from as far as perceptions go.  I'm sure black people have a very different perspective from mine, but that doesn't make either of us wrong or right.

As much as Danoota and I might argue on some things, I appreciate her input (aside from the insinuations that I'm racist) because I want to understand her viewpoint just like I want to understand yours.

Again, I know it's an inflammatory topic, but as someone else mentioned, this place can often feel like an agree-fest, so I figured I'd touch on something where we actually disagree.  I also figure this might encourage a few conservatives to speak up, since my own viewpoint is kind of in-between liberal and conservative.

To be more concise, the only way we're going to work together against racism is to discuss our issues and then come up with a compromise.  If we're not bold enough to have a dialogue, prejudices just fester into racism.

That being said, I know I can be an @$$ about certain things, but generally speaking, I find that people often explain their views more passionately when I challenge them.

steven colbert.

http://votersthink.org/?p=1055

go up to about 9 minutes in. real good segment about race, with colbert being his usual, meaningfully ignorant self.

steven colbert.

http://votersthink.org/?p=1055

go up to about 9 minutes in. real good segment about race, with colbert being his usual, meaningfully ignorant self.


Colbert is great...  although his interview with the NAACP was tamer than most of his stuff.  Still, it was funny.  :)

What if black people ran most authority and held most of the wealth, while white people were disproportionately poor and committed more crimes per capita.  Don't you think blacks would understandably have certain prejudices toward whites?


I have long encouraged everybody to watch a movie called White Man's Burden.  It is a wonderful look at a world just as you described.

Class matters more than race when it comes to objective reality, but when it comes to perceptions, race still matters.  I figured you'd agree with me on that.


That is why I am glad I work in a meritocracy.  By and large, nobody in the military cares what race or sex you are.  They do not care what your level of education is, nor do they care where you grew up.  They only care how well you perform your job.

And there is a surprising number of minorities in high positions.  My Battlion Commander is an Asian female.  My Battalion Command Sergeant Major (and the 2 before him) is black.  My Company Commander is black, and my Company XO is Asian.  Of the 6 First Sergeants in my Battalon, 3 are Black, one is Hispanic, and 2 are Caucasian.

My supervisor is a Hispanic female, and my section Sergeant Major is also Hispanic.  And if you look at the percentage of minorities in high ranking positions (E-7 through E-9, O-3 through O-6), you will find a high percentage are minorities. 

And in the military, we all make the same money.  Pay is determined purely by rank and time of service.  And promotions are done irreguardless of race.  So you can come from a privlidged family in Manhattan, or South Central LA.  You will rise as far as your ambition and skills allow you to rise.

And I do not include Generals (Admirals) in this, because that is more Political then anything else.  There are excellent Colonels (O-6) that will never rise to Stars, because they are not political enough.

That is why I am glad I work in a meritocracy.  By and large, nobody in the military cares what race or sex you are.  They do not care what your level of education is, nor do they care where you grew up.  They only care how well you perform your job.

And there is a surprising number of minorities in high positions.  My Battlion Commander is an Asian female.  My Battalion Command Sergeant Major (and the 2 before him) is black.  My Company Commander is black, and my Company XO is Asian.  Of the 6 First Sergeants in my Battalon, 3 are Black, one is Hispanic, and 2 are Caucasian.

My supervisor is a Hispanic female, and my section Sergeant Major is also Hispanic.  And if you look at the percentage of minorities in high ranking positions (E-7 through E-9, O-3 through O-6), you will find a high percentage are minorities. 

And in the military, we all make the same money.  Pay is determined purely by rank and time of service.  And promotions are done irreguardless of race.  So you can come from a privlidged family in Manhattan, or South Central LA.  You will rise as far as your ambition and skills allow you to rise.

And I do not include Generals (Admirals) in this, because that is more Political then anything else.  There are excellent Colonels (O-6) that will never rise to Stars, because they are not political enough.


In order for the rest of society to operate on a pure "meritocracy," everybody would have to start as a "buck private," so to speak.  I don't know if you could apply that to a democratic society, which the military isn't for obvious reasons!

In order for the rest of society to operate on a pure "meritocracy," everybody would have to start as a "buck private," so to speak.  I don't know if you could apply that to a democratic society, which the military isn't for obvious reasons!


And that will never happen, because so many people want to start as "Supervisors".

This is one problem to me of people demanding higher wages for entry level work.  I remember when I was living in the homeless shelter people saying they refused to work because they pay was not high enough.  But almost nobody starts as a General Manager.  But that is what everybody seems to want.

Where I work, even the Command Sergeant Major of the Army started as a Private.  And I find nothing "undemocratic" in recognizing people for their abilities. 

And that will never happen, because so many people want to start as "Supervisors".

This is one problem to me of people demanding higher wages for entry level work.  I remember when I was living in the homeless shelter people saying they refused to work because they pay was not high enough.  But almost nobody starts as a General Manager.  But that is what everybody seems to want.

Where I work, even the Command Sergeant Major of the Army started as a Private.  And I find nothing "undemocratic" in recognizing people for their abilities. 
fudge that. people dont want to become supervisors. at least i never have. that's a pain in the ass, it's a lot of responsibility.

people wanna get by, doing something they love. most of the folks i know are like that, anyway. but it's the getting by that seems to be the hard part. most folks figure they HAVE to become a general manager of something, but it's just to make ends meet, not because they're dying for the control, power and responsibility. they want to be able to pay the bills at the end of the month. and for most folks, that aint so easy. so they go after the promotions, because they're hungry, for themselves, their wife, their husband, and their kids. you make it sound like theyre being greedy but that's the furthest thing from the truth.

so they go after the promotions, because they're hungry, for themselves, their wife, their husband, and their kids. you make it sound like theyre being greedy but that's the furthest thing from the truth.


But for many people it is.  Or in some cases it is a power trip.

I have worked for bosses of both of those types.  They want a promotion for the power, r as  way to make themselves feel better, or for many other reasons.

And what is wrong with greed?  How many outhere can honestly say they would turn down a raise or promotion?  I feel that greed is a good thing, as long as it is not to excess.

I have long encouraged everybody to watch a movie called White Man's Burden.  It is a wonderful look at a world just as you described.


Absolutely.  Good and very underrated movie.

But for many people it is.  Or in some cases it is a power trip.

I have worked for bosses of both of those types.  They want a promotion for the power, r as  way to make themselves feel better, or for many other reasons.

And what is wrong with greed?  How many outhere can honestly say they would turn down a raise or promotion?  I feel that greed is a good thing, as long as it is not to excess.


Here's how I see it.  Ambition is good, greed is bad.  Wanting more pay for more work and responsibilities isn't greed.  Greed is excessive in and of itself.

But yeah, I agree that it would be nice if every industry was meritocratic.  Hell, I prefer a meritocratic government over a democracy.

And I would also agree that many people have unrealistic expectations for pay in entry-level work.

Here's how I see it.  Ambition is good, greed is bad.  Wanting more pay for more work and responsibilities isn't greed.  Greed is excessive in and of itself.

But yeah, I agree that it would be nice if every industry was meritocratic.  Hell, I prefer a meritocratic government over a democracy.

And I would also agree that many people have unrealistic expectations for pay in entry-level work.


Who decides who is going to merit what?  Who is the arbiter of "realistic expectations"?

Asking questions, the great liberal disease, it used to get us burned at the stake!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/firedevil.gif

And we're back on it!

"The simplest way of understanding the virtues of meritocracy is to ask the question: why is Brazil a soccer superpower and an economic middle power? The answer is that when it looks for soccer talent, it searches for it in all sectors of the population, from upper classes to the slums. A boy from the slums is not discriminated against if he has soccer talent. But in the economic field, Brazil looks for talent in a far smaller base of the population, primarily the upper and middle classes."--Kishore Mahbubani

And we're back on it!

"The simplest way of understanding the virtues of meritocracy is to ask the question: why is Brazil a soccer superpower and an economic middle power? The answer is that when it looks for soccer talent, it searches for it in all sectors of the population, from upper classes to the slums. A boy from the slums is not discriminated against if he has soccer talent. But in the economic field, Brazil looks for talent in a far smaller base of the population, primarily the upper and middle classes."--Kishore Mahbubani


Yesyesyes and again yes. That attitude is in place in all spheres.  From Presidential politics to firefighters and police, to laborers, connections count as much, if not more, than ability.  It isn't happenstance that causes 3 and 4 generations of police and firefighters, CEOs, and (lord help us) seats on the stock exchange.

Do not be fooled by the military, though.  They have a meritocracy, but when you get to the upper levels there is a pecking order, and there are some who are more blessed than others{ how do you say attache? (my nephew, son, etc)}

Does the Peter principle apply in the military?
???

Who decides who is going to merit what?  Who is the arbiter of "realistic expectations"?

Asking questions, the great liberal disease, it used to get us burned at the stake!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/firedevil.gif


There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you have to base your expectations in reality.  The market essentially decides your worth.

Yesyesyes and again yes. That attitude is in place in all spheres.  From Presidential politics to firefighters and police, to laborers, connections count as much, if not more, than ability.  It isn't happenstance that causes 3 and 4 generations of police and firefighters, CEOs, and (lord help us) seats on the stock exchange.

Do not be fooled by the military, though.  They have a meritocracy, but when you get to the upper levels there is a pecking order, and there are some who are more blessed than others{ how do you say attache? (my nephew, son, etc)}


True...  this is why affirmative action should be based solely on class, not race.  All poor people should be helped equally in things like loans and employment.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you have to base your expectations in reality.  The market essentially decides your worth.


Is the market divine or mundane.  Who decides the market and how?

True...  this is why affirmative action should be based solely on class, not race.  All poor people should be helped equally in things like loans and employment.


In a Utopian world.  Never has happened, and I dare say never will.

Affirmative Action worked well for the Boston Irish, it was based on race and religion.  In those days they believed the Irish were a separate race. It worked so well they now pretty much run the state.

In a Utopian world.  Never has happened, and I dare say never will.

Affirmative Action worked well for the Boston Irish, it was based on race and religion.  In those days they believed the Irish were a separate race. It worked so well they now pretty much run the state.


And the Holyoke mob is still actively seeking Hibernian applicants!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/pfiade.gif

That is why I am glad I work in a meritocracy.  By and large, nobody in the military cares what race or sex you are.  They do not care what your level of education is, nor do they care where you grew up.  They only care how well you perform your job.

And there is a surprising number of minorities in high positions.  My Battlion Commander is an Asian female.  My Battalion Command Sergeant Major (and the 2 before him) is black.  My Company Commander is black, and my Company XO is Asian.  Of the 6 First Sergeants in my Battalon, 3 are Black, one is Hispanic, and 2 are Caucasian.

My supervisor is a Hispanic female, and my section Sergeant Major is also Hispanic.  And if you look at the percentage of minorities in high ranking positions (E-7 through E-9, O-3 through O-6), you will find a high percentage are minorities. 

And in the military, we all make the same money.  Pay is determined purely by rank and time of service.  And promotions are done irreguardless of race.  So you can come from a privlidged family in Manhattan, or South Central LA.  You will rise as far as your ambition and skills allow you to rise.

And I do not include Generals (Admirals) in this, because that is more Political then anything else.  There are excellent Colonels (O-6) that will never rise to Stars, because they are not political enough.


I agree that the military may be a fairer society than most, but there is still some measure of class involved. You mentioned generals and admirals, how it was a political thing... and I don't imagine you can become a general unless you're keyed into the right social networks.

Also, theoretically one whose parents had enough money to send him to university before he enters the military will be able to enter with a commission, whereas of you enter without having had access to higher education you will be non-commissioned and there's only so far up you can go. Luckily to offset that, most militaries will have schemes which allow a soldier access to higher education during the first 4-6 years of their career. But still, if in the real civilian world I come into the army from one of the upper classes, I'll still be able to enjoy the benefits of that class membership.

Also, theoretically one whose parents had enough money to send him to university before he enters the military will be able to enter with a commission, whereas of you enter without having had access to higher education you will be non-commissioned and there's only so far up you can go.

Actually, a lot of people join just for the educational benefits.

And at least here in the US, the ROTC program is a large provider of scholarships.

Based on many things, the ROTC program provides a large number of 100% scholarships each year.  These are competatively awarded, and the only requirement is that you serve 6 years as a comissioned officer.  I know 3 people that took them that I wen to school with.  These not only pay for your education, but they also provide an allowance to cover things like housing and food.

And they are available for 2, 3, 4, or more years.

And there are also other programs.  OCS allows enlisted members to become comissioned officers, even without a college degree.

And a lot of people even with degrees enter the military as enlisted.  And most senior enlisted have degrees.  One Staff Sergent in my unit will have his MBA by the time we return fom Quwait. 

And also there are the various service acadameys.  These are also 100% tuition free.  Each service also has in place a program to provide qualified enlisted members an oppertunity to attend these on a competative basis.

The Army also has a "Green To Gold" program, which allows you to attend college full-time, with the Army paying all tuition and living expenses.

If somebody wants to spend a career in the military, there are many options to get a comission if they so desire.  Personally, I have never wanted to go that route, since it is so political.  However, several times I have toyed with the idea of becomming a Warrant Officer. 

If somebody wants to spend a career in the military, there are many options to get a commission if they so desire.  Personally, I have never wanted to go that route, since it is so political. 




And there you have it.

And a lot of people even with degrees enter the military as enlisted.  And most senior enlisted have degrees.  One Staff Sergent in my unit will have his MBA by the time we return fom Quwait. 



My Burned Ass?
:P

And something else on my mind as unemployment skyrockets:

Conservatives resent the working classes when they don't want to work and then they resent the working classes all over again when the go out and demand jobs!
::)

And there you have it.


From my experiences, being an Officer is not much different then being an Executive.  The job involves a lot of finger pointing, kissing up, and putting the blame elsewhere.

I knew a great Lieutenant when I was in the Marines.  But he was denied retention because he did not "fit the image".  He drove a beat up looking VW Beetle, and off duty was seen in patched jeans and T-shirts (as opposed to polo shirts and Dockers).  And of course he was from Mississippi, so sounded like a redneck, not a "cultured gentleman".

And I have met several people who are Enlisted in the Army that were Officers in other branches.  One gal in my enlistment group was a graduate of the Air Force Academy.  One of the guys I mentioned before who got a full ROTC scholarship is now a Staff Sergeant in the Army.

But I saw the same kind of things when I worked as "A suit".  Managers being promoted because of the image they presented, or who they sucked up to at the almost mandatory company parties (or after hours drinks). 

That is why I have always been glad to be a "working man".  I may not make as much, but I do not have ulcers, or a drinking problem.  And I do not have to worry about loosing my job because the guy I used to kiss up to has been given the boot.  I have seen that kind of thing happen far to often in the "Corporate World".

Is the market divine or mundane.  Who decides the market and how?



The market isn't perfect, but it's still better than having the government determine your pay.

In a Utopian world.  Never has happened, and I dare say never will.

Affirmative Action worked well for the Boston Irish, it was based on race and religion.  In those days they believed the Irish were a separate race. It worked so well they now pretty much run the state.


So, would you rather continue a system that helps rich black people over poor whites?  Do you support a system that allows rich blacks to receive the same advantages as poor blacks (which, in effect, makes it harder for poorer blacks to compete for assistance in things like school loans)?

The problem with affirmative action is that it creates just as many problems as it aims to solve.  There are various unintended consequences that result from government intervention in the workplace and higher education.

The market isn't perfect, but it's still better than having the government determine your pay.


That's another Reaganesque myth.  The market and the government are not separate forces.

The point is you missed my point.  You seem to be suggesting "the market" is a superhuman force rather than a device humans developed.  I say, the market is a human creation, but only a few people get to control it.  Those who control it would like you and I to believe the market is a divine force which we must not question.  As a matter of fact, those who control the market have made man's creation God so they do not have to take responsibility for the carnage market forces often perpetuate. 

That's another Reaganesque myth.  The market and the government are not separate forces.

The point is you missed my point.  You seem to be suggesting "the market" is a superhuman force rather than a device humans developed.  I say, the market is a human creation, but only a few people get to control it.  Those who control it would like you and I to believe the market is a divine force which we must not question.  As a matter of fact, those who control the market have made man's creation God so they do not have to take responsibility for the carnage market forces often perpetuate. 


Some people do worship the market, no doubt.  They tend to be big fans of Ayn Rand, and I find them rather annoying.

Still, the "invisible hand" really does manifest itself in the global market.  There's a reason why things like comparative advantage result in jobs being outsourced to the Third World.

I'm just suggesting that it's better to let the market determine pay than to have the government do it, because to me, they are still separate in how they operate.  If auto workers in Indiana are being paid less than auto workers in Detroit, then naturally, that puts pressure on wages to lower in Detroit.  That's the market in action.  It's human, but it's also one of the more logical and efficient ways to determine pay.

The more the government interferes with this, the more it encourages outsourcing to other countries.  The only jobs less vulnerable to this are high skill jobs.

I tend to be conservative, but I do not really talk politics, mostly because almost everyone here and on amiright is liberal, and I'm not really interested except when someone passes an outrageous bill and during an election when I examine the platforms of the candidates.  IMHO, that examination should be done by every citizen if they intend to vote...not because so & so is liberal or conservative, but really LOOK!!

Some people do worship the market, no doubt.  They tend to be big fans of Ayn Rand, and I find them rather annoying.

Still, the "invisible hand" really does manifest itself in the global market.  There's a reason why things like comparative advantage result in jobs being outsourced to the Third World.

I'm just suggesting that it's better to let the market determine pay than to have the government do it, because to me, they are still separate in how they operate.  If auto workers in Indiana are being paid less than auto workers in Detroit, then naturally, that puts pressure on wages to lower in Detroit.  That's the market in action.  It's human, but it's also one of the more logical and efficient ways to determine pay.

The more the government interferes with this, the more it encourages outsourcing to other countries.  The only jobs less vulnerable to this are high skill jobs.


Every man loves the "Invisible Hand" it until it squishes him like a bug.  Yes, yes, the rigors of the "free market"* are best, so long as they don't rigor on me! 

If you could wax the corridor floor from Mumbai, I'm sure the bosses would arrange it.  Meanwhile, they can find "highly skilled" engineers in India who are happy to work for eight grand a year; in America, that doesn't afford you a shoebox in the middle of the road!
::) ::) ::)

*BTW, there is no such thing as the "free market" anymore (if there ever was).

Every man loves the "Invisible Hand" it until it squishes him like a bug.  Yes, yes, the rigors of the "free market"* are best, so long as they don't rigor on me! 

If you could wax the corridor floor from Mumbai, I'm sure the bosses would arrange it.  Meanwhile, they can find "highly skilled" engineers in India who are happy to work for eight grand a year; in America, that doesn't afford you a shoebox in the middle of the road!
::) ::) ::)

*BTW, there is no such thing as the "free market" anymore (if there ever was).


Business definitely does everything it can get away with -- you'll get no argument from me there.

I'm just saying you have to pick your battles.  Globalization clears the market regardless of what we try to do to prevent it.  Inevitably, low skill jobs will evaporate from America, and we will need to adapt to this by better educating our workforce.

Granted, there is another possibility...  If we don't properly adapt to globalization, our standard of living will fall, and then, we'll become cheap labor.  Low skill jobs will return, but it won't be pretty.

Business definitely does everything it can get away with -- you'll get no argument from me there.

I'm just saying you have to pick your battles.  Globalization clears the market regardless of what we try to do to prevent it.  Inevitably, low skill jobs will evaporate from America, and we will need to adapt to this by better educating our workforce.

Granted, there is another possibility...   If we don't properly adapt to globalization, our standard of living will fall, and then, we'll become cheap labor.  Low skill jobs will return, but it won't be pretty.


We have a workforce of 100 million.  We cannot all be graphic designers for Hollywood or some sh*t.
::)

We have a workforce of 100 million.  We cannot all be graphic designers for Hollywood or some sh*t.
::)

Yes, but we should be able to all be highly skilled in something, unless you're handicapped in some way.

Anyone of able mind and body should be able to be more than just a simple laborer -- all that is needed is for us to orient our education systems differently.

Yes, but we should be able to all be highly skilled in something, unless you're handicapped in some way.

Anyone of able mind and body should be able to be more than just a simple laborer -- all that is needed is for us to orient our education systems differently.


Simple laborers are just as essential as anyone.

Simple laborers are just as essential as anyone.


Yup...someone has to do it.  Heck, sometimes that someone is me!  :)

Yes, but we should be able to all be highly skilled in something, unless you're handicapped in some way.

Anyone of able mind and body should be able to be more than just a simple laborer -- all that is needed is for us to orient our education systems differently.

Simple laborers are just as essential as anyone.


How should the education system by reoriented?

Clearly there are some major problem in our k-12 public education, like kids who can't write a simple paragraph etc. but the goal of education should NOT be to "train" workers but to educate people.  That means developing good academic skills, nurturing curiosity, and instilling a desire to continue learning.  Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge".  I agree.

Yes, but we should be able to all be highly skilled in something, unless you're handicapped in some way.

Anyone of able mind and body should be able to be more than just a simple laborer -- all that is needed is for us to orient our education systems differently.


"Simple labor" appears simple until you do it.  Any office building becomes unlivable in a week without its custodial staff; the MBA in the corner office of corporation X makes ten times the custodian's salary yet he only helps corporation X conceal its failures.  Our pop culture says that MBA is a more valuable to society than the janitor.  Horsepucky, I say. 

Our government is staffed by people who don't think we should have a public education system.  That's the core of the problem.  Newt Gingrich and I would agree Americans don't value education enough; however, Karl Rove freely admits a more educated populace is bad his agenda.  I say it's also bad for consumerism. 

Don Carlos points out the difference between "training" and "education."  I don't think we make this distinction enough.  One is not superior to the other.  They are sometimes at concurrent purposes, sometimes separate.  You can develop a skill set and remain "uneducated."  You can educate your mind and remain "unskilled."

I find most people who become truly educated shun consumerism.  The TV commercial says I should buy a new car, but why should I really?
Both Karl Rove and the Ford Motor Company don't like you thinking too much and asking questions.
::)

Simple laborers are just as essential as anyone.


Touche, but... we have a surplus of them at the moment (many of which are illegals).

How should the education system by reoriented?

Clearly there are some major problem in our k-12 public education, like kids who can't write a simple paragraph etc. but the goal of education should NOT be to "train" workers but to educate people.  That means developing good academic skills, nurturing curiosity, and instilling a desire to continue learning.  Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge".  I agree.


Technical education is very underrated in this society.  We spend too much time with English and art and not enough time with economics and trade skills in school.

Most of our children won't be authors or artists -- because the arts in general are the professions of the rich.  Only someone from a privilieged background can usually become a writer or filmmaker these days.  Granted, a lot of the musicians we've come to love weren't necessarily privileged from the start.  Still, it's rare for anyone to really make a living off of the arts.

Education is indeed more than just training for the work world, but in this country, we've erred too much on the side of "imagination" and not spent enough time on employable skills.  We should be pushing engineering more than English.  We should spend more time with business skills than with the arts, and so on.

"Simple labor" appears simple until you do it.  Any office building becomes unlivable in a week without its custodial staff; the MBA in the corner office of corporation X makes ten times the custodian's salary yet he only helps corporation X conceal its failures.  Our pop culture says that MBA is a more valuable to society than the janitor.  Horsepucky, I say. 

Our government is staffed by people who don't think we should have a public education system.  That's the core of the problem.  Newt Gingrich and I would agree Americans don't value education enough; however, Karl Rove freely admits a more educated populace is bad his agenda.  I say it's also bad for consumerism. 

Don Carlos points out the difference between "training" and "education."  I don't think we make this distinction enough.  One is not superior to the other.  They are sometimes at concurrent purposes, sometimes separate.  You can develop a skill set and remain "uneducated."  You can educate your mind and remain "unskilled."

I find most people who become truly educated shun consumerism.  The TV commercial says I should buy a new car, but why should I really?
Both Karl Rove and the Ford Motor Company don't like you thinking too much and asking questions.
::)


Well, while I would agree that consumerism is clearly a big agenda in this society, education itself is usually run by "ivory tower" types that don't think in practical enough terms.

Ultimately, skills mean more than things like the humanities or history, because for most of us, the latter 2 won't put food on the table.

Technical education is very underrated in this society.  We spend too much time with English and art and not enough time with economics and trade skills in school.

Most of our children won't be authors or artists -- because the arts in general are the professions of the rich.  Only someone from a privilieged background can usually become a writer or filmmaker these days.  Granted, a lot of the musicians we've come to love weren't necessarily privileged from the start.  Still, it's rare for anyone to really make a living off of the arts.

Education is indeed more than just training for the work world, but in this country, we've erred too much on the side of "imagination" and not spent enough time on employable skills.  We should be pushing engineering more than English.  We should spend more time with business skills than with the arts, and so on.



I don't quite agree.  Words, music, and painting are as important to education as algebra, chemistry, and statistics.  The difference is two plus two must always equal four and so it was easier to "dumb down" the arts and humanities than it was the so-called hard sciences. 

As Albert Einstein said, “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."  No one can call him a fool and a dreamer, right? Wrong.  That's exactly what they called him when he was a kid.  Of course, none of us here are Einstein.  My point is Dr. Einstein's familiar quote is not an invitation to mindless daydreaming (that's my department), but a statement of the importance of using the abstract abilities of the brain. 

You know what the biggest problem with computers is?  They are designed by people who like computers.  Go figure.
::)

When I was in college, I read Euripides in English.  When my grandfather was in college, he read Euripides in classical Greek. 

You know what the biggest problem with computers is?  They are designed by people who like computers.  Go figure.
::)

Get a Mac.  They're designed by egotists who like "pretty things."  j/k ;)

Technical education is very underrated in this society.  We spend too much time with English and art and not enough time with economics and trade skills in school.

Most of our children won't be authors or artists -- because the arts in general are the professions of the rich.  Only someone from a privilieged background can usually become a writer or filmmaker these days.  Granted, a lot of the musicians we've come to love weren't necessarily privileged from the start.  Still, it's rare for anyone to really make a living off of the arts.

Education is indeed more than just training for the work world, but in this country, we've erred too much on the side of "imagination" and not spent enough time on employable skills.  We should be pushing engineering more than English.  We should spend more time with business skills than with the arts, and so on.



An engineer, architect, or computer programmer without imagination is likely to be little more than a mediocre hack.  So to with a n historian, sociologist or political scientist.  Imagination is not restricted to the arts.

Get a Mac.  They're designed by egotists who like "pretty things."  j/k ;)


I love my "pretty thing"  ;)

If too much time were spent in English class, I think more people would be able to string together a coherent sentence or at least spell. However, I notice a remarkable gap in these areas in a lot of people.

Society needs more than just architects. Most people have no use for calculus or advanced chemistry. However, everyone needs to read, develop critical thinking skills, write letters, résumés etc... (even architects).

If too much time were spent in English class, I think more people would be able to string together a coherent sentence or at least spell. However, I notice a remarkable gap in these areas in a lot of people.

Society needs more than just architects. Most people have no use for calculus or advanced chemistry. However, everyone needs to read, develop critical thinking skills, write letters, résumés etc... (even architects).




I think the reason why people can't read or write isn't because they don't attend English class, it's because English class doesn't actually TEACH English these days.

Technical education is very underrated in this society.  We spend too much time with English and art and not enough time with economics and trade skills in school.



I work for a school district.  We have a very large staff of electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc. to maintain our buildings.  They make twice as much as many of our teachers do.   

Just thought I'd throw that in.

I work for a school district.  We have a very large staff of electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc. to maintain our buildings.  They make twice as much as many of our teachers do.   

Just thought I'd throw that in.




I think the fact that trade folk can make so much money is one of the reasons people argue that a college education is unnecessary.  I wouldn't be so bold as to say it's "unnecessary" but there are always alternatives.

I think the fact that trade folk can make so much money is one of the reasons people argue that a college education is unnecessary.  I wouldn't be so bold as to say it's "unnecessary" but there are always alternatives.


I was just countering Macphisto's point that trade skills are undervalued.  I think they're totally valued.  My dad was an electrician, and not only did well, but was very happy.

I agree, I'd probably fry myself if I tried to do stuff myself :D

An engineer, architect, or computer programmer without imagination is likely to be little more than a mediocre hack.  So to with a n historian, sociologist or political scientist.  Imagination is not restricted to the arts.


True, but imagination is not something learned.  It is innate.  You either think in creative ways or you don't.

If too much time were spent in English class, I think more people would be able to string together a coherent sentence or at least spell. However, I notice a remarkable gap in these areas in a lot of people.

Society needs more than just architects. Most people have no use for calculus or advanced chemistry. However, everyone needs to read, develop critical thinking skills, write letters, résumés etc... (even architects).

I think what you're seeing is that some people suck at writing no matter how much instruction you give them.

Some people suck at trades no matter how much you teach them as well.

For example, I'm pretty sure I'd be a crappy surgeon, regardless of how much instruction I got, because I don't have the stomach for it.

I work for a school district.  We have a very large staff of electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc. to maintain our buildings.  They make twice as much as many of our teachers do.   

Just thought I'd throw that in.




That's what I'm talking about though.  If we taught more kids those trades, they'd enter more profitable jobs at an earlier age.  So yes, the payscale for technical trades isn't underrated, but the instruction for it is.

mediocre hack. 

See: Gates, Bill

::)

See: Gates, Bill

::)


If being one of the wealthiest people in the world makes you mediocre....  well damn... sign me up for mediocrity.  ;)

we buried them all in the basement!  ;D

If being one of the wealthiest people in the world makes you mediocre....  well damn... sign me up for mediocrity.  ;)


You can say that it again!  It's not even mediocrity he invented, it's mediocrity he stole!

Q. If you see Bill Gates riding a bicycle, should you swerve to run him over?
A. No.  It might be YOUR bicycle!

:P

I think the fact that trade folk can make so much money is one of the reasons people argue that a college education is unnecessary.  I wouldn't be so bold as to say it's "unnecessary" but there are always alternatives.


Why do people think that trades folk don't receive a college education?  They may not sit in a classroom for 4 years, but I would argue that our training is more intensive than what goes on on a college campus.  I speak from experience in both realms.  College is fraught with cut classes, fluff courses, and camaraderie.  Those of us in the skilled trades, spend 4 years in the classroom and in the field.  We take specified courses and must pass in order to practice in the trade.  There is less leeway in cutting classes, and field work is considered part of that education, so it isn't like you can decide not to work this semester and concentrate on your studies, you do both at the same time or you don't get your license.  When you do get your license your education is not over, you must attend classes to refresh your knowledge, without the refresher courses you can't renew your license and without your license you don't work.

I attended college, I worked on a college campus, in a bank, and in a state office, and can say unequivocally that some of the most educated people I have dealt with have been people in the trades.

Why do people think that trades folk don't receive a college education?  They may not sit in a classroom for 4 years, but I would argue that our training is more intensive than what goes on on a college campus.  I speak from experience in both realms.  College is fraught with cut classes, fluff courses, and camaraderie.  Those of us in the skilled trades, spend 4 years in the classroom and in the field.  We take specified courses and must pass in order to practice in the trade.  There is less leeway in cutting classes, and field work is considered part of that education, so it isn't like you can decide not to work this semester and concentrate on your studies, you do both at the same time or you don't get your license.  When you do get your license your education is not over, you must attend classes to refresh your knowledge, without the refresher courses you can't renew your license and without your license you don't work.

I attended college, I worked on a college campus, in a bank, and in a state office, and can say unequivocally that some of the most educated people I have dealt with have been people in the trades.


I think it is like you said, college tries to turn you into a well-rounded person (which I think is crap, I don't wanna be well-rounded, I wanna be good at a very specific thing :P ) and trade schools are more like a traditional apprenticeship where you get really really super good at something and turn into a Jedi of plumbing or something.  Cue lightplunger.

I think it is like you said, college tries to turn you into a well-rounded person (which I think is crap, I don't wanna be well-rounded, I wanna be good at a very specific thing :P ) and trade schools are more like a traditional apprenticeship where you get really really super good at something and turn into a Jedi of plumbing or something.  Cue lightplunger.


Actually, what I am saying is that a good trade school turns out well rounded people just as colleges do.  There a people who think people go into the trades because they aren't intelligent enough for college, and there isn't anything further from the truth. 

You can say that it again!  It's not even mediocrity he invented, it's mediocrity he stole!

Q. If you see Bill Gates riding a bicycle, should you swerve to run him over?
A. No.  It might be YOUR bicycle!

:P


Well, I'll put it this way.  Again, if mediocrity is the reason why he's one of the world's richest people, it can't be that bad.

I actually respect Gates despite his flaws.  He's put together one of the biggest charities the world has ever seen.

If you want to see a real d-bag though, look at Steve Jobs.  That guy is just pathetically self-absorbed.  Apple is a company that makes most of its money from shallow aesthetics, overpriced products, a refusal to let third party companies get very involved in hardware, and just the general ignorance of many consumers.

I'm not saying everyone who uses a Mac is an idiot, but they're certainly paying much more than PC users for mostly inferior products.  Also, most software companies avoid Apple like the plague because they're a pain in the @$$ to work with.

Not to mention, gaming on a Mac is extremely limited.

Actually, what I am saying is that a good trade school turns out well rounded people just as colleges do.  There a people who think people go into the trades because they aren't intelligent enough for college, and there isn't anything further from the truth. 


I think I understood what you said, I guess our words just aren't gelling together :(

I had a prof do that once, he was literally like "this is why you get good education so you don't have to pick up garbage" and we were all like "WTF".

Why do people think that trades folk don't receive a college education?  They may not sit in a classroom for 4 years, but I would argue that our training is more intensive than what goes on on a college campus.  I speak from experience in both realms.  College is fraught with cut classes, fluff courses, and camaraderie.  Those of us in the skilled trades, spend 4 years in the classroom and in the field.  We take specified courses and must pass in order to practice in the trade.  There is less leeway in cutting classes, and field work is considered part of that education, so it isn't like you can decide not to work this semester and concentrate on your studies, you do both at the same time or you don't get your license.  When you do get your license your education is not over, you must attend classes to refresh your knowledge, without the refresher courses you can't renew your license and without your license you don't work.

I attended college, I worked on a college campus, in a bank, and in a state office, and can say unequivocally that some of the most educated people I have dealt with have been people in the trades.


Some of the wisest people I've ever met dropped out of high school.  Some of the least knowledgeable people I've met have advanced degrees.  A lot of it comes down to individual curiosity.  I've learned more about music and literature on my own than I did in college. 

I'm even more cynical than Rice about college.  They say those liberal arts courses are about making you a well-rounded person, but it's really a money-making racket with the state.  Courses in Shakespeare and geology are fine things, but not when you have to sink up to your neck in debt.  Most people going to UMass, for instance, can't afford to be there without sky-high student loans.  Then they graduate with the equivalent of a house mortgage in debt and they can't find jobs to pay it off. 

They don't do college this way in the rest of the civilized world.  Our pundits and politicians bitch about "our students not being competitive in a global economy," but when you suggest running education the way they do in the countries that are beating us, you're called a socialist!
::)


Well, I'll put it this way.  Again, if mediocrity is the reason why he's one of the world's richest people, it can't be that bad.



Set Gates aside for a second; you assume that a person who is rich must have done something good?
???

I love that university is accessible these days no matter who you are, but I just wish that more people who attend university (particularly mine) would wake up and realise they would have been better off sticking to a two-year college training. I know people younger than me with a college (2 year) training who literally have better and more interesting jobs than I could ever hope to have the first few years after I graduate from university.

I know one girl who works as a journalist for the local newspaper. Practically all my former ESL students were working for Canoë.ca as web developers, making a great income, and none of them had a bachelor's.

I think that a lot of kids aren't sure of what they want to be, and they use the time university studies give them to figure it out. That's fine I guess. I'm two steps away from finally graduating and I still don't know what I'll be using the damn degree for.

Well, I am very much Conservative, but I rarely post in here anymore.

And that is pretty much the reason why myself and most other Conservatives have left this board.

Personally, I love debate.  But most of the topics here are either "Liberal Love Fests", or arguments.  And sadly, more and more it is reminds me of an old bit of 1970's sketch comedy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k

In fact, often times when Conservatives post in here, it sadly resembles the man walking inside of the first door.   :-\\


I watched that sketch just now, it was funny. Someone has a flashy pic of the two arguing as their profile picture on this site.. I forget who.

Set Gates aside for a second; you assume that a person who is rich must have done something good?
???


It depends on what you mean by good.  I'm not thinking of it in a moral sense.  I'm thinking of it as Gates being far from mediocre in his business skills.

So yeah, Gates is obviously very good at business.

I guess the question I have is...  given the extraordinary rise to prominence of Microsoft, what exactly is mediocre about Gates?