• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Dog

Why the Left Can’t Let Go of Racism

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

There is in fact a lot of racism on the part of the people who make decisions for institutions. Obviously a State University is land & buildings, it cannot be racist as an institution. OTOH I can tell you from enfuriating personal experience that a kid named "Daquan" is about five times more likely to have his application go into the circular file than a kid named 'J. Buckminster Randolph III" and that's long before it gets to a board hearing. Ask your boss if he thinks so.

The good news is that almost everybody in our socio-economic system agrees that racism is bad; and those who -would- do these kinds of things do so furtively.... except in situations where guys with overtly racist views  are in charge, fortunately rare... but unfortunately now, exactly what we have at the top, now.

[edit to add] I apologize for the incomplete answer above... yes the impact of bad decisions is a bigger part than "institutionalized" (whatever that means) racism. Two points- why do you want to -further- punish children for the bad choices of their parents, and how do you address inequality resulting from bad decisions without also getting bogged down in a lot of issues which largely fall along racial lines?

One of the best things Obama did was to provide an example of success thru education to black children. Failure to acknowledge Obama as a sign of American opportunity, and the benefit of studying hard, is one of the most racist things about Republicans' snarky attitude about him.

-DSK

I agree with much of this; we have an institution called the State of North Carolina, who was rejected by an appeals court and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the land that they were writing the law specifically to disenfranchise the African American voters in that state.

The Appeals Court said they were targeting those voters with 'surgical precision.'  When laws are still written in America like this how can anyone as esteemed as Shelby Steele deny that institutional racism does not exist in America especially when the President of the United States waves red flags, and hire alt right personalities to counsel him?

It is a well-observed fact that having a black or Hispanic sounding name can lead to early rejection of employment applications we already know and understand this. The problem is that racism has become covert and not as much overt in practice. Business has learned that they cannot reject you for your race and tell that to your face, it is far easier to say that you don't meet their qualifications and never state exactly why, while running your app through a shredder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

<SNIP>

[edit to add] I apologize for the incomplete answer above... yes the impact of bad decisions is a bigger part than "institutionalized" (whatever that means) racism. Two points- why do you want to -further- punish children for the bad choices of their parents, and how do you address inequality resulting from bad decisions without also getting bogged down in a lot of issues which largely fall along racial lines?

One of the best things Obama did was to provide an example of success thru education to black children. Failure to acknowledge Obama as a sign of American opportunity, and the benefit of studying hard, is one of the most racist things about Republicans' snarky attitude about him.

-DSK

How does the idea of encouraging more positive behaviors/decisions "further punish" anyone?  

I hate to sound cold, but I don't know that it's possible to address the inequity caused by poor upbringing/bad decisions once a person has reached age 16/18/21. If we can't fix it early, short of some kind of environmental removal/immersion (like joining the military) I question whether or not we can expect much success in trying to get people to change while they're resident in the same environment that fostered the poor decisions/behaviors, which is why I think that we have to start with the kids.  

I don't agree that the disproportionate # of black people engaging in negative behaviors is indicative of current, active racism. ***  I'd suggest instead that it's a by-product of environment,  You can see this as well in many lily-white small rural towns that are currently experiencing high unemployment, poorly educated populace tied emotionally to the area, increasing drug abuse, single-parent households, dependent upon public assistance for multi-generational  support.  If ya want, Steamers - I can point you to a few of those that are within a 3 hour drive of your place.   

How to fix it for the people who's parents really screwed the pooch for 'em?  I don't have a pat answer - Pragmatically, I don't think that there is any quick fix, and that if we start working the "such& such action is social unacceptable" - that we'd realize the best/fastest benefit w/out the division that comes from trying to establish parity of outcomes from products of unequal ability.   

*** I do believe that the population concentrations of poor black communities is a remnant of past policy, but, like the poor white rust belt kid, they have had the opportunity to move themselves someplace else for the past 50 years - staying in an economically untenable location is a symptom of the self-defeating priorities I am talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I agree with much of this; we have an institution called the State of North Carolina, who was rejected by an appeals court and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the land that they were writing the law specifically to disenfranchise the African American voters in that state.

The Appeals Court said they were targeting those voters with 'surgical precision.'  When laws are still written in America like this how can anyone as esteemed as Shelby Steele deny that institutional racism does not exist in America especially when the President of the United States waves red flags, and hire alt right personalities to counsel him?

It is a well-observed fact that having a black or Hispanic sounding name can lead to early rejection of employment applications we already know and understand this. The problem is that racism has become covert and not as much overt in practice. Business has learned that they cannot reject you for your race and tell that to your face, it is far easier to say that you don't meet their qualifications and never state exactly why, while running your app through a shredder.

It's also worth noting that the North Carolina Legislature, seated by an illegal voting process, has refused to give up it's seats and schedule new elections; and what little effort they are making to redraw districts is just as twisted and unfair as what they did last time. And they are using state funds to defend themselves from private lawsuits. The worst thing is that the voters of the state seem largely OK with it.

I fully expect the NC state gov't to offer Arpaio a job here running the new concentration camps.

 

2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How does the idea of encouraging more positive behaviors/decisions "further punish" anyone?  

I hate to sound cold, but I don't know that it's possible to address the inequity caused by poor upbringing/bad decisions once a person has reached age 16/18/21. If we can't fix it early, short of some kind of environmental removal/immersion (like joining the military) I question whether or not we can expect much success in trying to get people to change while they're resident in the same environment that fostered the poor decisions/behaviors, which is why I think that we have to start with the kids.  

I don't agree that the disproportionate # of black people engaging in negative behaviors is indicative of current, active racism. ***  I'd suggest instead that it's a by-product of environment,  You can see this as well in many lily-white small rural towns that are currently experiencing high unemployment, poorly educated populace tied emotionally to the area, increasing drug abuse, single-parent households, dependent upon public assistance for multi-generational  support.  If ya want, Steamers - I can point you to a few of those that are within a 3 hour drive of your place.   

How to fix it for the people who's parents really screwed the pooch for 'em?  I don't have a pat answer - Pragmatically, I don't think that there is any quick fix, and that if we start working the "such& such action is social unacceptable" - that we'd realize the best/fastest benefit w/out the division that comes from trying to establish parity of outcomes from products of unequal ability.   

*** I do believe that the population concentrations of poor black communities is a remnant of past policy, but, like the poor white rust belt kid, they have had the opportunity to move themselves someplace else for the past 50 years - staying in an economically untenable location is a symptom of the self-defeating priorities I am talking about. 

Boy, not sure how to unpack even half of this.

"How does the idea of encouraging more positive behaviors/decisions "further punish" anyone?" OK who provides the reward, and what sort of cultural norms does this reward reinforce? Who decides what constitutes "more positive behaviors"? Basically you're just urging that we give handouts on the basis of whose a-beein' a good nigger? This is a very negative slant on what you've said but 1- you're not very clear and 2- this is the same kind of game you play with a lot of what I post.

"I don't know that it's possible to address the inequity caused by poor upbringing/bad decisions once a person has reached age 16/18/21" How about a fair chance to get into a college? Vocational programs? How about realistic benchmarks for larger employers? You've stated your resentment of this kind of thing several times in the past.

You say "I don't agree that the disproportionate # of black people engaging in negative behaviors is indicative of current, active racism ***  I'd suggest instead that it's a by-product of environment" and then you go on to say that that environment is a product of past racism. Oh, great.

FWIW the negative view of minorities' behaviors often is due to racism. OTOH it sounds like you're saying self-destructive  or counterproductive behavior a lot of times is a much bigger self-imposed problem than any racism from anybody else; and I'd agree with this. But this doesn't present any way to improve the situation.

If you want to see some lily-white small towns with really devastating problems, mostly self-inflicted; there are several in my county. The same kinds of solutions I've been talking about all along apply to them too. Usually they have one clear advantage- vehicles. Poor rural whites almost always have a car or truck (often several). Urban minorities rarely do. But the drug problem is even more severe in some cases. A friend of mine who is a rural landlord has a serious problem with meth use by the people renting his places.

BTW some of the worst example of white rural sloth: falling down house, junky car in the driveway with rusted hulks of past cars & trucks in the side yard, and the whole yard littered with broken old kids toys, discarded lawn equipment, old boats, etc etc, almost universally have MAGA / Trump-Pence signs in front of them. Still. I have wanted to post some pics of them but Mrs Steam says I should be a nicer person than that.

"How to fix it for the people who's parents really screwed the pooch for 'em? I don't have a pat answer" Again, great <_< All you want to do is screech and yowl about how damn terrible everybody elses' answer is. I'm not looking for a pat answer, just -some- way of addressing it other than working the 'persecuted white guy' angle. And you're totally wrong (as I've said before) about the idea that attempted fixes in place attempt to enforce equal outcome. That's just yowling. There is not a single affirmative action college program requiring equal racial distribution of grades, for example.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

It's also worth noting that the North Carolina Legislature, seated by an illegal voting process, has refused to give up it's seats and schedule new elections; and what little effort they are making to redraw districts is just as twisted and unfair as what they did last time. And they are using state funds to defend themselves from private lawsuits. The worst thing is that the voters of the state seem largely OK with it.

I fully expect the NC state gov't to offer Arpaio a job here running the new concentration camps.

 

Boy, not sure how to unpack even half of this.

"How does the idea of encouraging more positive behaviors/decisions "further punish" anyone?" OK who provides the reward, and what sort of cultural norms does this reward reinforce? Who decides what constitutes "more positive behaviors"? Basically you're just urging that we give handouts on the basis of whose a-beein' a good nigger? This is a very negative slant on what you've said but 1- you're not very clear and 2- this is the same kind of game you play with a lot of what I post.

More positive behaviors have nothing at all to do with handouts and deciding who gets them - those behaviors entail not making bad decisions (jail, kids, quitting school, accepting crippling debt, etc) that preclude one's ability to pursue future opportunities.  Your response speaks an awful lot about your own prejudices. It's not a game - it's broadening awareness that all the open doors in the world aren't going to help someone if that person is chained to failure by the poor decisions that they/their parents have made. 

Quote

"I don't know that it's possible to address the inequity caused by poor upbringing/bad decisions once a person has reached age 16/18/21" How about a fair chance to get into a college? Vocational programs? How about realistic benchmarks for larger employers? You've stated your resentment of this kind of thing several times in the past.

What are "realistic benchmarks"?  What is your exposure to vocational programs?  Not anecdotes, but, your exposure?  How many of the participants in those programs succeed once their participation has concluded?  I taught computer classes in several (in Richmond, VA and in Alexandria) - and the success rate (completion + post course employment) was less than 25%.

That is a "once and done" attempt to provide an open door, without helping anyone understand why they ought to walk thru that door and leave the current environment behind. 

Quote

You say "I don't agree that the disproportionate # of black people engaging in negative behaviors is indicative of current, active racism ***  I'd suggest instead that it's a by-product of environment" and then you go on to say that that environment is a product of past racism. Oh, great.

FWIW the negative view of minorities' behaviors often is due to racism. OTOH it sounds like you're saying self-destructive  or counterproductive behavior a lot of times is a much bigger self-imposed problem than any racism from anybody else; and I'd agree with this. But this doesn't present any way to improve the situation.

If you want to see some lily-white small towns with really devastating problems, mostly self-inflicted; there are several in my county. The same kinds of solutions I've been talking about all along apply to them too. Usually they have one clear advantage- vehicles. Poor rural whites almost always have a car or truck (often several). Urban minorities rarely do. But the drug problem is even more severe in some cases. A friend of mine who is a rural landlord has a serious problem with meth use by the people renting his places.

BTW some of the worst example of white rural sloth: falling down house, junky car in the driveway with rusted hulks of past cars & trucks in the side yard, and the whole yard littered with broken old kids toys, discarded lawn equipment, old boats, etc etc, almost universally have MAGA / Trump-Pence signs in front of them. Still. I have wanted to post some pics of them but Mrs Steam says I should be a nicer person than that.

That is exactly what I'm talking about - I'm not establishing a negative stereotype of black people who are in those situations, I'm saying that the primary reason that they're in those situations, and what we need to address for everyone who's willing to attempt a change is to tackle the underlying conditions that contribute to the downward spiral of generational repetition of those same bad decisions and executing that same bad behavior.  A 24 yr old kid who's been in jail twice already, who can't leave the area because they're on house arrest/probation, can't afford to take on any job training because they're paying their fines for the next 10 years is doomed, no matter what doors are opened to them by way of affirmative action.   This is partially what I was referring to in the point I made about stopping our courts from being local revenue generation centers.   That it happens, even with slightly different physical symptoms, in poor white communities too oughta be a huge fuggin' christmas tree lit clue that the issue isn't race, it's economics and education. 

Quote

"How to fix it for the people who's parents really screwed the pooch for 'em? I don't have a pat answer" Again, great <_< All you want to do is screech and yowl about how damn terrible everybody elses' answer is. I'm not looking for a pat answer, just -some- way of addressing it other than working the 'persecuted white guy' angle. And you're totally wrong (as I've said before) about the idea that attempted fixes in place attempt to enforce equal outcome. That's just yowling. There is not a single affirmative action college program requiring equal racial distribution of grades, for example.

-DSK

The affirmative action programs try to equalize the outcome of admissions - (get it, getting in to a school is the OUTCOME of an admissions application, graduating is the OUTCOME of successfully completing the prescribed curriculum).  1960s?  70s?  yeah - I could see that need, as the generation in power at the time were still used to treating race as a valid discriminator.  Today?  yeah - i don't think that that's any longer the case, and even though you will undoubtedly find some isolated instances of such, I can't accept based upon my own experiences that the institutional racism (meaning that the institution's practices and policies tolerate discrimination, /vs/ individual racism, which is simply the bias of an individual, and I think much less insidious or harmful) exists in such volume that its as harmful as the issues I mentioned. 

Let me ask you something - you agree that the changes I've suggested are necessary and appropriate.  Nothing in what I've suggested is demeaning to anyone, nothing is beyond the abilities of a normally capable person.  Why do you persist in trying to paint what I've suggested as mean-spirited, wrong and "yowling"?  How is recognition of the self-defeating actions that people are taking, I think often without an awareness of their alternatives and consequences, and proposing ways to overcome those things a "persecuted white guy" angle?  Nothing I've said in this conversation is about me, what I want, or anything other than what I see as the necessary changes to achieve the objective I thought we both shared - enabling people who are having a difficult time to make things better for themselves and their families in the future.   

I've already repeated, numerous times, how to start to fix this, that the fix is societal change, that it will take generations to bear fruit.  You start by making such decisions socially unacceptable, by establishing that the people who do this to themselves are capable of doing better, providing early childhood intervention to ensure that kids are fed/nurtured so that they have the physical capacity to develop their physical and mental capabilities, and then continue that growth and nurturing until they can stand with their peers, or they've made the decision to not do so, in which case - unfortunately, they're going to repeat the mistakes of the past.    If you think that there's some kind of benefit or program that will produce this result?   I'm all ears. 

Do you want to discuss real fixes, real equality of access, or are you only interested in what everyone else should be doing for "them"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

:lol: Thanks for many words. Same to random. Sweeping rejection of science makes my head explode.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

No I still believe in those things, I'm just more pragmatic now. I like things that work. 

Thanks for illustrating Steele's "to be liberal is to be good" point so clearly.

You have a documented track record of lying to all in PA.  There is no reason to believe anything you post.  Using the "I was once like you ... " thing is an old worn tactic. 

You are a lying shill.  This tread proves that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

Keep railing against the "dark side". You just prove Steele's point.

And you just proved that your responses have nothing to do with the posts you quote.  As usual, fact and truth free content from the Doggy.  Just continuing the deception.

But Steele has proved his own point, no other work required.  Then people like you propagate it mindlessly, pretending to be just another poster on PA while clearly working to a right-wing agenda, posting links that start with 'Liberals ...".

Fuck off Doggy, we all have you clearly identified or what you are.  The scam doesn't work any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

And you just proved that your responses have nothing to do with the posts you quote.  As usual, fact and truth free content from the Doggy.  Just continuing the deception.

But Steele has proved his own point, no other work required.  Then people like you propagate it mindlessly, pretending to be just another poster on PA while clearly working to a right-wing agenda, posting links that start with 'Liberals ...".

Fuck off Doggy, we all have you clearly identified or what you are.  The scam doesn't work any more.

If Dog wants to be Happy Jack's successor he should try out or interview for the job. Posting Happy Jack crap and then being unable to properly defend it won't get him there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Confucius say, words not cook rice.  

Confucius say: She who slide down bannister have no hair by cracky 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the lefties here honestly think we progress beyond the current point?   If you have an approach that you think will work, describe it, the assumptions inherent to that approach, constraints, requirements (to include who will satisfy those requirements), measurements of success, schedule and logical conclusion.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, random said:

And you just proved that your responses have nothing to do with the posts you quote.  As usual, fact and truth free content from the Doggy.  Just continuing the deception.

But Steele has proved his own point, no other work required.  Then people like you propagate it mindlessly, pretending to be just another poster on PA while clearly working to a right-wing agenda, posting links that start with 'Liberals ...".

Fuck off Doggy, we all have you clearly identified or what you are.  The scam doesn't work any more.

Don't be hatin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How do the lefties here honestly think we progress beyond the current point?   If you have an approach that you think will work, describe it, the assumptions inherent to that approach, constraints, requirements (to include who will satisfy those requirements), measurements of success, schedule and logical conclusion.  

 

The answer existed 70 odd years ago when the government gave soldiers the GI Bill. It allowed soldiers to go to school and earn degrees allowing them to advance as far as their capabilities allowed them. It also guaranteed loans for housing which created our vast middle class and allowed families to grow and prosper. This allowed families to build schools, parks, businesses, Little League teams, boy scouts, girl scouts, and communities that fostered advancement.

The problem is that World War II came too soon in our sociological infancy and blacks were not allowed to participate completely. Housing was restricted in many areas, and banks wouldn't loan in inner cities despite the loans guarantee by the government. College likewise was difficult for blacks because of housing and the need to provide at home, so they lost out on advancement also. Jobs were ground zero for discrimination and blacks were relegated to the lowest paid positions, and only a small number were able to escape and advance. 

The problem is how do we help the poor in this country rise? We tried affirmative action, but whites got tired of being placed behind minorities. Despite that, blacks are moving up but at a painfully slow pace and that keeps racism alive.Urban sprawl has allowed blacks to become home owners, but they still missed out on the wealth building of decades of GI's who became flat out rich in many cases from home ownership. 

We ended up packing people in substandard housing, gave them the opportunity of lousy underpaid jobs, coupled with substandard education, then keep them locked in with no chance of moving out and moving up. Does anyone think that living like that doesn't produce long term simmering anger? Then we throw in the problem of local government administering like they could care less about the local problems and excoriate people for their inability to behave like white people. Does it take a rocket scientist to see what we have built? This issue is common, we find it in London, Indonesia, America, Africa, South America and wherever the are many people without opportunity. 

70 years ago, this problem could have been prevented by politicians with vision and courage to see discrimination and racism and stop it dead in its tracks by addressing it with law. That didn't happen, so we have this discussion periodically where we see how much pain we can afford trying to solve it.

In my humble opinion, the easiest way to fix this is to change the way we do business in this country. We have no imagination and haven't had a vision since John F. Kennedy. We need to stop trying to make employment and earning goals with wars. We need big goals like a colony on Mars, beat cancer, end hunger, address climate change, long term goals with societal advances. We need to rethink how we deal with debt, and more how we deal with a unified world and its challenges.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

... ...

What are "realistic benchmarks"?  What is your exposure to vocational programs?

Ive taught in three different industrial technology programs in three different states, thru the community college system. One in HVAC, one in metrology, and one in generalized mechanical skills. I was recruiting sailing crew in the metrology program, teaching about medical instrumentation, when I met the future Mrs. Steam. I was also working full time as a plant operator & calibration technician at the same time.

I don't make talky-talk about shit I don't know about.

Meanwhile, you have a lot of nice-sounding but maddeningly vague bullshit that boils down to , you want to be "fair" and you want "opportunity" but you don't have any idea what is currently being done or what the results are; and you think that everybody who is in favor of real programs with measurable goals must be some kind of communist faggot.

Good thing your beloved Republican Party is too dysfunctional to actually carry out it's goals of bringing about a new Jim Crow. It sounds like you'd be fine with it.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ive taught in three different industrial technology programs in three different states, thru the community college system. One in HVAC, one in metrology, and one in generalized mechanical skills. I was recruiting sailing crew in the metrology program, teaching about medical instrumentation, when I met the future Mrs. Steam. I was also working full time as a plant operator & calibration technician at the same time.

 

 

Without getting into name calling or anything, there is one point that republicans make that is typically unaddressed in these conversations.  The US spends almost 1 trillion dollars per year on education right now and it seems to be inadequate.  Education exceeds military spending by about 150 billion dollars.

Everyone seems to hate military spending but the gross majority of that goes to pay wages and O/M costs - replacement parts which are typically made by factories - usually by mandate - employing skilled but not necessarily college educated workers.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php?title=US_Education_Spending&expand=20&meta=education

How much more needs to be spent?  Is there any guess?    Or is even ASKING that question a sign of evil intent and wanting to return to Jim Crow?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The answer existed 70 odd years ago when the government gave soldiers the GI Bill. It allowed soldiers to go to school and earn degrees allowing them to advance as far as their capabilities allowed them. It also guaranteed loans for housing which created our vast middle class and allowed families to grow and prosper. This allowed families to build schools, parks, businesses, Little League teams, boy scouts, girl scouts, and communities that fostered advancement.

The problem is that World War II came too soon in our sociological infancy and blacks were not allowed to participate completely. Housing was restricted in many areas, and banks wouldn't loan in inner cities despite the loans guarantee by the government. College likewise was difficult for blacks because of housing and the need to provide at home, so they lost out on advancement also. Jobs were ground zero for discrimination and blacks were relegated to the lowest paid positions, and only a small number were able to escape and advance. 

The problem is how do we help the poor in this country rise? We tried affirmative action, but whites got tired of being placed behind minorities. Despite that, blacks are moving up but at a painfully slow pace and that keeps racism alive.Urban sprawl has allowed blacks to become home owners, but they still missed out on the wealth building of decades of GI's who became flat out rich in many cases from home ownership. 

We ended up packing people in substandard housing, gave them the opportunity of lousy underpaid jobs, coupled with substandard education, then keep them locked in with no chance of moving out and moving up. Does anyone think that living like that doesn't produce long term simmering anger? Then we throw in the problem of local government administering like they could care less about the local problems and excoriate people for their inability to behave like white people. Does it take a rocket scientist to see what we have built? This issue is common, we find it in London, Indonesia, America, Africa, South America and wherever the are many people without opportunity. 

70 years ago, this problem could have been prevented by politicians with vision and courage to see discrimination and racism and stop it dead in its tracks by addressing it with law. That didn't happen, so we have this discussion periodically where we see how much pain we can afford trying to solve it.

In my humble opinion, the easiest way to fix this is to change the way we do business in this country. We have no imagination and haven't had a vision since John F. Kennedy. We need to stop trying to make employment and earning goals with wars. We need big goals like a colony on Mars, beat cancer, end hunger, address climate change, long term goals with societal advances. We need to rethink how we deal with debt, and more how we deal with a unified world and its challenges.

 

hell of a post. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

Without getting into name calling or anything, there is one point that republicans make that is typically unaddressed in these conversations.  The US spends almost 1 trillion dollars per year on education right now and it seems to be inadequate.  Education exceeds military spending by about 150 billion dollars.

Everyone seems to hate military spending but the gross majority of that goes to pay wages and O/M costs - replacement parts which are typically made by factories - usually by mandate - employing skilled but not necessarily college educated workers.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php?title=US_Education_Spending&expand=20&meta=education

How much more needs to be spent?  Is there any guess?    Or is even ASKING that question a sign of evil intent and wanting to return to Jim Crow?

 

Well, the problem here is that a huge amount of that money isnt spent on "education" at all, despite that being in the title of the allocations. "Schools" now are transporting and feeding and providing other forms of care for young people, and all this is expensive.

We need to break down expenses by how much is actually spent on EDUCATION and how much of the "education budget" goes for all the other stuff. Most of it is pretty important stuff, and the needs should be addressed somehow, but it needs to not be chalked up against "education" and causing a lot of Republican anger.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

We have no imagination and haven't had a vision since John F. Kennedy.

Unfortunately, if another one comes along, he or she will probably get the same treatment.

The people who run America don't want a leader, they want people to do what they are told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

We need to break down expenses by how much is actually spent on EDUCATION and how much of the "education budget" goes for all the other stuff. Most of it is pretty important stuff, and the needs should be addressed somehow, but it needs to not be chalked up against "education" and causing a lot of Republican anger.

-DSK

A lot of republicans are idiots but your comment does get to the root of one of the problems.

Say that you are a conservative in the true sense of that word.  You look at the spending - a trillion dollars! - and are frustrated because it doesn't seem to be getting the job done.  You don't necessary object to more spending but you do object to throwing good money after bad.  Education itself seems to be one giant shell game where money gets appropriated for one purpose but spent on whatever triage seems most critical.

What can that person say that ultimately doesn't get them labeled as a racist asshole? 

Our current political approach pretty much rewards the groups that yell loudest.  I don't think there's a great answer other than trying to look at each argument for what it's worth, not by who said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The answer existed 70 odd years ago when the government gave soldiers the GI Bill. It allowed soldiers to go to school and earn degrees allowing them to advance as far as their capabilities allowed them. It also guaranteed loans for housing which created our vast middle class and allowed families to grow and prosper. This allowed families to build schools, parks, businesses, Little League teams, boy scouts, girl scouts, and communities that fostered advancement.

The problem is that World War II came too soon in our sociological infancy and blacks were not allowed to participate completely. Housing was restricted in many areas, and banks wouldn't loan in inner cities despite the loans guarantee by the government. College likewise was difficult for blacks because of housing and the need to provide at home, so they lost out on advancement also. Jobs were ground zero for discrimination and blacks were relegated to the lowest paid positions, and only a small number were able to escape and advance. 

The problem is how do we help the poor in this country rise? We tried affirmative action, but whites got tired of being placed behind minorities. Despite that, blacks are moving up but at a painfully slow pace and that keeps racism alive.Urban sprawl has allowed blacks to become home owners, but they still missed out on the wealth building of decades of GI's who became flat out rich in many cases from home ownership. 

We ended up packing people in substandard housing, gave them the opportunity of lousy underpaid jobs, coupled with substandard education, then keep them locked in with no chance of moving out and moving up. Does anyone think that living like that doesn't produce long term simmering anger? Then we throw in the problem of local government administering like they could care less about the local problems and excoriate people for their inability to behave like white people. Does it take a rocket scientist to see what we have built? This issue is common, we find it in London, Indonesia, America, Africa, South America and wherever the are many people without opportunity. 

70 years ago, this problem could have been prevented by politicians with vision and courage to see discrimination and racism and stop it dead in its tracks by addressing it with law. That didn't happen, so we have this discussion periodically where we see how much pain we can afford trying to solve it.

In my humble opinion, the easiest way to fix this is to change the way we do business in this country. We have no imagination and haven't had a vision since John F. Kennedy. We need to stop trying to make employment and earning goals with wars. We need big goals like a colony on Mars, beat cancer, end hunger, address climate change, long term goals with societal advances. We need to rethink how we deal with debt, and more how we deal with a unified world and its challenges.

 

What we need is less self serving big government and more private sector capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

What we need is less self serving big government and more private sector capitalism.

Right. Because making profits out of public services is good for ... umm.... well, it'll sure be nice for the few people who make a lot of money out of it.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

What we need is less self serving big government and more private sector capitalism.

I bet you would have LOVED the UK's response to the Irish famine had you been around in the 1840s.

The government sent "food removal soldiers" to Ireland to make SURE the plentiful crops in Ireland were safely harvested and shipped to England. A contract is a contract and business is business.

WTF is wrong with those Irish anyway? Sit around drinking and having more kids than they can feed instead of working. Fuck them until they learn to act like the English protestants that stole their land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

What we need is less self serving big government and more private sector capitalism.

Honestly, the private sector capitalism has become sort of a weird fun-house mirror of itself.

For example, there's a collection of 'private exchanges' where major private investment groups trade shares in companies not on the public exchanges. Most of the companies that 'go public' now are simply a cash out option after the private exchanges milked the major growth.  The megafunds - like pension funds, major endowments, etc. are actually stuck cleaning up the remnants since THEY can't really invest in these private growth opportunities.  What's really keeping the whole thing afloat is the massive increase in ETFs where people are just blanket investing in the S&P.  Almost ANY company that goes public today gets that support, no matter how feeble the cow is once it gets there. 

After the milking of the public markets and corresponding stock beat down, the company is then acquired or 're-privatized' for another round of pump and dump.   That's one of the 'unintended' consequences of the massive QE efforts of the Fed Reserve.  By flattening the bond markets, the pension funds literally have no where to go for growth except buying up the table scraps, massive leveraging, and hoping for rain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

A lot of republicans are idiots but your comment does get to the root of one of the problems.

Say that you are a conservative in the true sense of that word.  You look at the spending - a trillion dollars! - and are frustrated because it doesn't seem to be getting the job done.  You don't necessary object to more spending but you do object to throwing good money after bad.  Education itself seems to be one giant shell game where money gets appropriated for one purpose but spent on whatever triage seems most critical.

What can that person say that ultimately doesn't get them labeled as a racist asshole? 

Our current political approach pretty much rewards the groups that yell loudest.  I don't think there's a great answer other than trying to look at each argument for what it's worth, not by who said it.

Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and it's also the way democracy tends to work too.

I think a couple of things have been happening under the banner 'Education.' One is coming directly from the goal of education, kids that have overwhelming needs tend to not learn much. So the school feeds 'em, etc etc. But that has had a sort of mission creep into generalized doo-gooding-for-kiddies. Outside the education perimeter, we're just providing a warehouse for kids that are destined for either jail or a long-term habilitation facility. This costs money. Then there's transportation, kids can't learn as much if they don't get to the school in the first place. All this costs plenty.

Another factor is that it's easy to beg money for education. EDUCATION FOR OUR YOUTH! How you can deny education funding? School bonds tend to pass, you rarely see bond issues up for vote under the heading "A lot of park-barrelling that will also pump cash into the administrations' pockets"

As for not being labelled a racist asshole, all one has to do is not wave that banner so often. Explaining a little further, for example, rather than whining about always being accused of being a racist asshole, maybe. Talking about how goddam libby-rulls always want to reward "negative behaviors" which are of course defined along racial lines, is another good one. Why, it's just common sense, those thugs don't want jobs or to go to college anyway.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Honestly, the private sector capitalism has become sort of a weird fun-house mirror of itself.

For example, there's a collection of 'private exchanges' where major private investment groups trade shares in companies not on the public exchanges. Most of the companies that 'go public' now are simply a cash out option after the private exchanges milked the major growth.  The megafunds - like pension funds, major endowments, etc. are actually stuck cleaning up the remnants since THEY can't really invest in these private growth opportunities.  What's really keeping the whole thing afloat is the massive increase in ETFs where people are just blanket investing in the S&P.  Almost ANY company that goes public today gets that support, no matter how feeble the cow is once it gets there. 

After the milking of the public markets and corresponding stock beat down, the company is then acquired or 're-privatized' for another round of pump and dump.   That's one of the 'unintended' consequences of the massive QE efforts of the Fed Reserve.  By flattening the bond markets, the pension funds literally have no where to go for growth except buying up the table scraps, massive leveraging, and hoping for rain.

 

Entrepreneurship would probably have been a better word than capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The answer existed 70 odd years ago when the government gave soldiers the GI Bill. It allowed soldiers to go to school and earn degrees allowing them to advance as far as their capabilities allowed them. It also guaranteed loans for housing which created our vast middle class and allowed families to grow and prosper. This allowed families to build schools, parks, businesses, Little League teams, boy scouts, girl scouts, and communities that fostered advancement.

The problem is that World War II came too soon in our sociological infancy and blacks were not allowed to participate completely. Housing was restricted in many areas, and banks wouldn't loan in inner cities despite the loans guarantee by the government. College likewise was difficult for blacks because of housing and the need to provide at home, so they lost out on advancement also. Jobs were ground zero for discrimination and blacks were relegated to the lowest paid positions, and only a small number were able to escape and advance. 

The problem is how do we help the poor in this country rise? We tried affirmative action, but whites got tired of being placed behind minorities. Despite that, blacks are moving up but at a painfully slow pace and that keeps racism alive.Urban sprawl has allowed blacks to become home owners, but they still missed out on the wealth building of decades of GI's who became flat out rich in many cases from home ownership. 

We ended up packing people in substandard housing, gave them the opportunity of lousy underpaid jobs, coupled with substandard education, then keep them locked in with no chance of moving out and moving up. Does anyone think that living like that doesn't produce long term simmering anger? Then we throw in the problem of local government administering like they could care less about the local problems and excoriate people for their inability to behave like white people. Does it take a rocket scientist to see what we have built? This issue is common, we find it in London, Indonesia, America, Africa, South America and wherever the are many people without opportunity. 

70 years ago, this problem could have been prevented by politicians with vision and courage to see discrimination and racism and stop it dead in its tracks by addressing it with law. That didn't happen, so we have this discussion periodically where we see how much pain we can afford trying to solve it.

In my humble opinion, the easiest way to fix this is to change the way we do business in this country. We have no imagination and haven't had a vision since John F. Kennedy. We need to stop trying to make employment and earning goals with wars. We need big goals like a colony on Mars, beat cancer, end hunger, address climate change, long term goals with societal advances. We need to rethink how we deal with debt, and more how we deal with a unified world and its challenges.

 

BL - I appreciate your perspective, and think that what you mentioned indeed did contribute to where we are today.  That said - I think that anyone who for the past 20 years has remained in those areas has done so either willingly, or because they aren't aware of the other opportunities that exist.   W/R/T your idea of changing how we do business - how do think we best create the qualified workforce to support those ventures?    I'd posit that for the demographic we're discussing, that the behavioral changes I described above are still necessary, and that awareness of the opportunities that the "big goals" you mentioned, coupled with the awareness and opportunity to prepare for those occupations would be a motivator to make those behavioral changes. 

RE: the long term simmering anger - that's a big issue, how do you see us getting past that, especially now, since anyone has been able to go anywhere they want and do anything they want since the late 70s? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Right. Because making profits out of public services is good for ... umm.... well, it'll sure be nice for the few people who make a lot of money out of it.

-DSK

Yes, making a profit providing goods and services to the public is good. Far better for society than dependence on government cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and it's also the way democracy tends to work too.

I think a couple of things have been happening under the banner 'Education.' One is coming directly from the goal of education, kids that have overwhelming needs tend to not learn much. So the school feeds 'em, etc etc. But that has had a sort of mission creep into generalized doo-gooding-for-kiddies. Outside the education perimeter, we're just providing a warehouse for kids that are destined for either jail or a long-term habilitation facility. This costs money. Then there's transportation, kids can't learn as much if they don't get to the school in the first place. All this costs plenty.

Another factor is that it's easy to beg money for education. EDUCATION FOR OUR YOUTH! How you can deny education funding? School bonds tend to pass, you rarely see bond issues up for vote under the heading "A lot of park-barrelling that will also pump cash into the administrations' pockets"

As for not being labelled a racist asshole, all one has to do is not wave that banner so often. Explaining a little further, for example, rather than whining about always being accused of being a racist asshole, maybe. Talking about how goddam libby-rulls always want to reward "negative behaviors" which are of course defined along racial lines, is another good one. Why, it's just common sense, those thugs don't want jobs or to go to college anyway.

-DSK

I agree completely with your description of "education funding".   It ties in nicely with my suggestion that we need to intervene with kids starting even before they are school age to ensure that they are physically and emotionally healthy enough for education to work for them.  We've saddled schools with the responsibility of delivering social services that should be provided by the families, without the funding/authority to properly satisfy those responsibilities. 

As to the rest - you've proposed absolutely nothing - yet you expend much energy trying to find fault w/suggestions that you agree with, simply because you don't like the person offering those suggestions. 

Find fault with anything I proposed, find anything I defined along racial lines, and you might have a point.  You can't, you don't.  It might be that you've just decide that you don't like me personally, ya might just hate conservatives, I hear that's popular in your myopic circles these days. Either way, I'm OK with it - your BS stands for all to judge for themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I agree completely with your description of "education funding".  

Good that means you are finally getting some sense :rolleyes:

It ties in nicely with my suggestion that we need to intervene with kids starting even before they are school age to ensure that they are physically and emotionally healthy enough for education to work for them.  

We already are doing just that. You've indicated that you hate those programs because they reward negative behavior.

 

Find fault with anything I proposed, find anything I defined along racial lines, and you might have a point.  You can't, you don't. 

Actually I've quoted you directly a bunch of times, you just deny you said that. Kind of like a certain President. Tell you what, I'll lighten up in the future, just because it helps build character.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yes, making a profit providing goods and services is good. Far better for society than dependence on government cheese.

True.

But making a profit on PUBLIC services is not so much; there is a reason why activities which tend to not be profitable (such as building moon rockets and operating a military) are undertaken by public (ie government) operation rather than by private for-profit enterprise. A better example, providing health insurance to low-income sick people. Generally, when these kinds of activities (like prisons) are undertaken FOR PROFIT then they become corrupt and inefficient.

OTOH maybe we should think about privatizing the military. We could make a lot more money invading rich countries than by occupying impoverished shit holes like Afghanistan, nyet?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW:  The FDA just approved a potential cure for the most common childhood cancer.  The price tag is around 1/2 a million dollars per treatment.  All the Pharmas popped yesterday.

I don't believe that achieving a 'cure for cancer' will help broad economic development at all.   It might certainly reduce suffering and be a good thing - but as an economic stimulus, I'm pretty dubious.   It'll help Big Pharma (who employs a relatively small group of extremely specialized workers), hurt hospitals a little because less chronic care billing, be neutral for insurance since they're a pass through, drive up health care costs in the short run - who's goig to turn down a 'cure for cancer for kids' - with a modest chance of decreasing long term costs assuming it really is a 'cure' and that the cancer doesn't just show up later in a mutated form that requires yet another treatment every 5 years for the rest of the person's life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

BTW:  The FDA just approved a potential cure for the most common childhood cancer.  The price tag is around 1/2 a million dollars per treatment.  All the Pharmas popped yesterday.

I don't believe that achieving a 'cure for cancer' will help broad economic development at all.   It might certainly reduce suffering and be a good thing - but as an economic stimulus, I'm pretty dubious.   It'll help Big Pharma (who employs a relatively small group of extremely specialized workers), hurt hospitals a little because less chronic care billing, be neutral for insurance since they're a pass through, drive up health care costs in the short run - who's goig to turn down a 'cure for cancer for kids' - with a modest chance of decreasing long term costs assuming it really is a 'cure' and that the cancer doesn't just show up later in a mutated form that requires yet another treatment every 5 years for the rest of the person's life.

 

Spot on. Half a million for a child's life is not such a bad deal, especially if (as I saw on the news this morning) you're not billed if it doesn't work.

Every "cure for cancer" is just a stepping stone for the next, hopefully better, one. This one has some scary risks we don't really know much about yet.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually I've quoted you directly a bunch of times, you just deny you said that. Kind of like a certain President. Tell you what, I'll lighten up in the future, just because it helps build character.

-DSK

Don't worry about me - I'm good with what I think, and with why I do.  You'd have to actually have a heavy idea to hit with to "lighten up".  I'm OK for you to continue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

BTW:  The FDA just approved a potential cure for the most common childhood cancer.  The price tag is around 1/2 a million dollars per treatment.  All the Pharmas popped yesterday.

I don't believe that achieving a 'cure for cancer' will help broad economic development at all.   It might certainly reduce suffering and be a good thing - but as an economic stimulus, I'm pretty dubious.   It'll help Big Pharma (who employs a relatively small group of extremely specialized workers), hurt hospitals a little because less chronic care billing, be neutral for insurance since they're a pass through, drive up health care costs in the short run - who's goig to turn down a 'cure for cancer for kids' - with a modest chance of decreasing long term costs assuming it really is a 'cure' and that the cancer doesn't just show up later in a mutated form that requires yet another treatment every 5 years for the rest of the person's life.

 

Yes, those are undeniable facts, yet big ticket items can go a long way changing the focus we have as a society. All my life, all America has represented is war, death, and destruction, as we have gotten in constant worldwide skirmishes, alliances with bad actors, bad foreign investments. Our national debt is the best evidence that I have that we have squandered opportunity at every junction. I can't imagine what our quality of life, our collective dream, and our world leadership, would have looked like if we had gone down a different path. I'm not saying that all of our military campaigns were bad. Certainly, some were well deserved, but the dreams of our forefathers were nothing like what we have accomplished and delivered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Don't worry about me - I'm good with what I think, and with why I do.  You'd have to actually have a heavy idea to hit with to "lighten up".  I'm OK for you to continue.  

Actually, I should lighten up for my benefit not yours. Maybe you should think about the fact that the only person who agrees with you about my truthiness level is Gunbunny Jeff, who is nursing a grudge over what the Declaration of Independence says vs what he wishes it said.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

BTW:  The FDA just approved a potential cure for the most common childhood cancer.  The price tag is around 1/2 a million dollars per treatment.  All the Pharmas popped yesterday.

I don't believe that achieving a 'cure for cancer' will help broad economic development at all.   It might certainly reduce suffering and be a good thing - but as an economic stimulus, I'm pretty dubious.   It'll help Big Pharma (who employs a relatively small group of extremely specialized workers), hurt hospitals a little because less chronic care billing, be neutral for insurance since they're a pass through, drive up health care costs in the short run - who's goig to turn down a 'cure for cancer for kids' - with a modest chance of decreasing long term costs assuming it really is a 'cure' and that the cancer doesn't just show up later in a mutated form that requires yet another treatment every 5 years for the rest of the person's life.

 

Wet dream of every Pharma Bro :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, I should lighten up for my benefit not yours. Maybe you should think about the fact that the only person who agrees with you about my truthiness level is Gunbunny Jeff, who is nursing a grudge over what the Declaration of Independence says vs what he wishes it said.

-DSK

SO - you assume from the absence of engagement that everyone else agrees with you?  That's rich, but, OK.   As to your "truthiness" - let's go upstream just a little, shall we, and I'll directly quote my comment, and your reply, and let's see what your "truthiness" looks like: 

 

19 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Boy, not sure how to unpack even half of this.

"How does the idea of encouraging more positive behaviors/decisions "further punish" anyone?" OK who provides the reward, and what sort of cultural norms does this reward reinforce? Who decides what constitutes "more positive behaviors"? Basically you're just urging that we give handouts on the basis of whose a-beein' a good nigger? This is a very negative slant on what you've said but 1- you're not very clear and 2- this is the same kind of game you play with a lot of what I post.

More positive behaviors have nothing at all to do with handouts and deciding who gets them - those behaviors entail not making bad decisions (jail, kids, quitting school, accepting crippling debt, etc) that preclude one's ability to pursue future opportunities.  Your response speaks an awful lot about your own prejudices. It's not a game - it's broadening awareness that all the open doors in the world aren't going to help someone if that person is chained to failure by the poor decisions that they/their parents have made. 

In your reply you: 1) Ignore the question  2) Immediately project your own prejudices in the most disparaging terms you think you can imagine 3) Try to malign the intention of the original comment, even after you previously agreed with the premise of my comment" 
"[edit to add] I apologize for the incomplete answer above... yes the impact of bad decisions is a bigger part than "institutionalized" (whatever that means) racism. Two points- why do you want to -further- punish children for the bad choices of their parents, and how do you address inequality resulting from bad decisions without also getting bogged down in a lot of issues which largely fall along racial lines?"

You seem to be determined to paint the issues as being based in racism against black people, when I took great pains to point out that we have a very different demographic w/the poor whites who are suffering similarly because of those same negative behaviors.  I get that there are still people who don't like people who don't look like them - but, that's not the biggest thing holding people back - the multi-generational downward spiral of bad decisions heaped on top of bad decisions is.  

I'm OK with you having a different focus, but, when you try to paint anyone with a different perspective as racist or unthinking, while offering not one solid factual rebuttal, after agreeing with them?  It certainly paints the picture to me that you're not really interested in the discussion as much as you are finding something to disagree about. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

SO - you assume from the absence of engagement that everyone else agrees with you?  That's rich, but, OK.   As to your "truthiness" - let's go upstream just a little, shall we, and I'll directly quote my comment, and your reply, and let's see what your "truthiness" looks like: 

 

In your reply you: 1) Ignore the question  2) Immediately project your own prejudices in the most disparaging terms you think you can imagine 3) Try to malign the intention of the original comment, even after you previously agreed with the premise of my comment" 
"[edit to add] I apologize for the incomplete answer above... yes the impact of bad decisions is a bigger part than "institutionalized" (whatever that means) racism. Two points- why do you want to -further- punish children for the bad choices of their parents, and how do you address inequality resulting from bad decisions without also getting bogged down in a lot of issues which largely fall along racial lines?"

You seem to be determined to paint the issues as being based in racism against black people, when I took great pains to point out that we have a very different demographic w/the poor whites who are suffering similarly because of those same negative behaviors.  I get that there are still people who don't like people who don't look like them - but, that's not the biggest thing holding people back - the multi-generational downward spiral of bad decisions heaped on top of bad decisions is.  

I'm OK with you having a different focus, but, when you try to paint anyone with a different perspective as racist or unthinking, while offering not one solid factual rebuttal, after agreeing with them?  It certainly paints the picture to me that you're not really interested in the discussion as much as you are finding something to disagree about. 

 

You seem to be determined to hammer back anything which YOU PERCEIVE to be giving an advantage to black people. You seem especially pissed off by black people getting into college, painting that as "a result" although it is clearly not an end in itself; and you continually insist that affirmative action is racism against white people.

I'm OK with you having a different focus, and I understand that coming from the right-wing hate-o-sphere culture you must insult anybody you disagree with, but you seem to be mostly pissed off at me for holding up a mirror for you to see what your views look like. OTOH if I wanted to be insulting, there would be no doubt whatever in anybody's mind, as I recently demonstrated to Dog.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news:

Back in the day many a plane crash was blamed on pilot error. ALPA (pilot's union) got involved and helped spur a whole new way of looking at accidents. If the model X kept landing gear up, maybe the gear switch being right next to and identical to the flap switch might be related. Maybe having 4 fuel tanks and 2 fuel gauges is not the best idea - how can I be out of gas if the gauge says full :rolleyes: (thanks Beechcraft for that one :angry: )

So maybe - unless we actually think "African" DNA causes crack dealing and baggy pants buying - there is a REASON certain populations act like they do and maybe those casual factors can be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Unfortunate choice of words given the timing, but, I think that after listening to it that he was trying to de-escalate the situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Unfortunate choice of words given the timing, but, I think that after listening to it that he was trying to de-escalate the situation. 

Well I can see wanting to say that in an ironic/sarcastic way, but I sure as hell would not at work in hearing range of any person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

In other news:

Back in the day many a plane crash was blamed on pilot error. ALPA (pilot's union) got involved and helped spur a whole new way of looking at accidents. If the model X kept landing gear up, maybe the gear switch being right next to and identical to the flap switch might be related. Maybe having 4 fuel tanks and 2 fuel gauges is not the best idea - how can I be out of gas if the gauge says full :rolleyes: (thanks Beechcraft for that one :angry: )

So maybe - unless we actually think "African" DNA causes crack dealing and baggy pants buying - there is a REASON certain populations act like they do and maybe those casual factors can be changed.

<GASP>  It doesn't?   You mean maybe a perceived lack of options and economic despair might cause some of those behaviors?  A desire to fit in w/those around the neighborhood and not be singled out for being different? Who'd'a thunk it. 

To the fuel gauges?  yeah man. I never flew anything that we had to manage multiple tank/gauge configs (well, a couple hours in a 414) - but, in Army flight school, we were taught to religiously perform fuel consumption calculations, comparing actual/expected and time to 30 min reserve.  The only indicators in the cockpit that we ever counted upon were N1/N2, and the radio frequencies.  The rest were considered perpetually suspect. Having to sit the aircraft down because you ran it low on fuel was considered to be negligence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

<GASP>  It doesn't?   You mean maybe a perceived lack of options and economic despair might cause some of those behaviors?  A desire to fit in w/those around the neighborhood and not be singled out for being different? Who'd'a thunk it. 

To the fuel gauges?  yeah man. I never flew anything that we had to manage multiple tank/gauge configs (well, a couple hours in a 414) - but, in Army flight school, we were taught to religiously perform fuel consumption calculations, comparing actual/expected and time to 30 min reserve.  The only indicators in the cockpit that we ever counted upon were N1/N2, and the radio frequencies.  The rest were considered perpetually suspect. Having to sit the aircraft down because you ran it low on fuel was considered to be negligence. 

I flew a 4 tank Baron with 2 gauges and a switch. The switch was not linked to the tank selector valve.

Now back to bad behaviour - ever look at the school to prison pipeline? It isn't that you get in trouble for merely being pigmented darker than average, but white suburban kids get all kinds of breaks where their hood-dwelling buddies do not.

I was once getting tags for my car at the Annapolis Honda dealership. A Black man was in there too waiting for something. A cop comes in and the Black guy immediately says "I am so sorry officer for driving with expired tags". The cop is visibly annoyed, says he was there to buy a car and not on the clock, and then cuffs the Black guy and says something like "I'll be back after I book this guy" and leaves with his new prisoner.

WTF? I can't imagine Ms. Suburban Soccer Mom getting anything but a reminder to fix the tags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

That seems to me like an incredibly poorly-judged smartass remark, a joke. Not necessarily an example of racism IMHO.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I flew a 4 tank Baron with 2 gauges and a switch. The switch was not linked to the tank selector valve.

Beechcraft was as good as good got for GA aircraft. I know that you're right - I've read some of the FAA crash reports, but, I still can't imagine how that design was approved by Beech engineers.  Apt analogy, though, for a design feature creating unintended consequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That seems to me like an incredibly poorly-judged smartass remark, a joke. Not necessarily an example of racism IMHO.

-DSK

That is not how the minority community will take it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Beechcraft was as good as good got for GA aircraft. I know that you're right - I've read some of the FAA crash reports, but, I still can't imagine how that design was approved by Beech engineers.  Apt analogy, though, for a design feature creating unintended consequences. 

Beechcraft also switched the flap and gear controls after a certain year and old Barons have the throttle in the center of the quadrant and then moved it to the left after a certain year. If you fly 5 different versions of the planes, you REALLY need to remember which one you are in that day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Beechcraft also switched the flap and gear controls after a certain year and old Barons have the throttle in the center of the quadrant and then moved it to the left after a certain year. If you fly 5 different versions of the planes, you REALLY need to remember which one you are in that day!

We gotta remember the V-Tail Bonanza, too - how many docs did that kill before the ruddervator mod came out? (that was before I started flying, but, the airport I worked at in Carlisle to support my flying lessons had 2 of 'em there - and the owners had gotten them after the fix) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How do the lefties here honestly think we progress beyond the current point?   If you have an approach that you think will work, describe it, the assumptions inherent to that approach, constraints, requirements (to include who will satisfy those requirements), measurements of success, schedule and logical conclusion.  

 

First off:

Answer this.

When did race equality become a left - right issue??

It seems to this observer we were steadily becoming more and more blind to skin color. The blindness was beat into us since the mid sixties.  "Martin Luther King was right. Content of a man's character matters. NOTHING ELSE!!!!"

But recently, those who haven't bought in are coming out of their closet. 

And worse??

They are being given attention.

People are allowing the racists to control the rhetoric. 

The difference between having a right to say something and it being acceptable to be caught saying it has been misrepresented, blurred, and grossly misunderstood. 

The lack of vigorous rejection of Racists and those who reject all other cultures by the current POTUS is bothersome to some. Those who generally support the POTUS generally discount his lack of action and describe how he has at least somewhat rejected.

Thise who don't like the POTUS use his lack of vigorous rejection as one more justification for attack. 

 

Here is a fact: Name calling of those he does not like has come easy for this POTUS. 

He DOES NOT have pet names for racists. 

There is no:

Dippy Dukey

Pebble Brains Suhayda

 

or anything of the sort. The fact is the POTUS showed more disrespect for Lyin' Ted snd Little Rubio than he has for leaders of the KKK and Nazis.

The Democrats may or may not have more contempt for racists than the Republicans, but for some reason, the Republicans do not seem eager to treat racists as pariahs in our modern society. 

 

To Dog and others like him who wonder why some of us "just won't  let go" of this race issue??

The answer is to be found in your own toleration of racists. 

Your leader has not tweeted:

Dont wave Trump signs at your racist rallies. I want nothing to do with you.

 

KKK losers!

 

Crawl back under your rock Nazi pigs!

 

Beat those Nazis. I will pay your legal bills 

*******

Is it any wonder some of us believe he is one of them?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

First off:

Answer this.

When did race equality become a left - right issue??

It seems to this observer we were steadily becoming more and more blind to skin color. The blindness was beat into us since the mid sixties.  "Martin Luther King was right. Content of a man's character matters. NOTHING ELSE!!!!"

But recently, those who haven't bought in are coming out of their closet. 

And worse??

They are being given attention.

People are allowing the racists to control the rhetoric. - COUNTERPOINT - the people looking for offense where none exists are vying closely for that control, reasoned perspectives seem to be being pushed to the sidelines. 

The difference between having a right to say something and it being acceptable to be caught saying it has been misrepresented, blurred, and grossly misunderstood. <SNIP>

The dividers are winning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I think that's one for "reasonable and understandable".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Did you read the article?  Help me understand why this isn't a case of much ado about nothin', 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

I think that's one for "reasonable and understandable".

sure seems like an awful lot of sites on the right that don't want to let go of race with regards to this issue...And one poster who brought it here....  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

sure seems like an awful lot of sites on the right that don't want to let go of race with regards to this issue...And one poster who brought it here....  

 

Reasonable and understandable or bat shit crazy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Did you read the article?  Help me understand why this isn't a case of much ado about nothin', 

I read it.  I need to know a bit more to pass judgment on it.  Being that this was in Mississippi, and there is a bit of history there on this topic, what was done with the banana peel?  I've thrown plenty of banana peels away over the years, but never had one land in a tree.  Given the completely fair and balanced reporting on that site, I'd like to know a bit more about that issue, because like just about anything posted by Dog to gin up some racial outrage, I suspect that there is much more to the story.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Reasonable and understandable or bat shit crazy?

Incomplete story.  I'd like to know more.  Have anything that tells the whole tale?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Did you read the article?  Help me understand why this isn't a case of much ado about nothin', 

http://thedmonline.com/greek-life-retreat-ends-abruptly-bias-concerns/

She said the image was especially disturbing in light of an incident on American University’s campus in May of this year. The morning Taylor Dumpson was to take over as the school’s first female black student government president, students found bananas hanging from nooses across campus. Some of the bananas were inscribed with references to Dumpson’s sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1620x2160.jpeg.dae0610934ee40419c2827f8d

Million to one shot.  Complete accident.  

The stupid part was cancelling the event, which apparently was meant to discuss stuff like that, which they had been discussing before the young man decided that he could not be bothered to find a trash can.  They should have re-convened the discussion, and let him explain his actions, and tell that story to the other participants to their face, without the benefit of plausible deniability and someone to get the partial story onto the Internet for propagandists to spread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Thanks - how do you interpret the circumstances?  

 

Edited to add this link to a letter to the editor: http://thedmonline.com/letter-editor-makala-mcneil/

I want to quote Miss McNeil's last paragraph: 
"It is no exaggeration to say that black students often feel as though they are under attack. We must confront a culture that dismisses black experiences, supporting the notion that constructive dialogue can actually foster a level of cultural understanding amongst different races."

I agree, and suggest that the tone of engagement on everyone's part has much to do with how dialogue progresses.  Anyone professing an honest offense and trying to explain the reason that offense is perceived should be afforded all due respect and attention.   Negating the validity of that experience, or initiating the dialogue by hurling epithets and accusations isn't likely to further progress towards the goal of "fostering a level of cultural understanding among different races".  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks - how do you interpret the circumstances?  

 

Edited to add this link to a letter to the editor: http://thedmonline.com/letter-editor-makala-mcneil/

I want to quote Miss McNeil's last paragraph: 
"It is no exaggeration to say that black students often feel as though they are under attack. We must confront a culture that dismisses black experiences, supporting the notion that constructive dialogue can actually foster a level of cultural understanding amongst different races."

I agree, and suggest that the tone of engagement on everyone's part has much to do with how dialogue progresses.  Anyone professing an honest offense and trying to explain the reason that offense is perceived should be afforded all due respect and attention.   Negating the validity of that experience, or initiating the dialogue by hurling epithets and accusations isn't likely to further progress towards the goal of "fostering a level of cultural understanding among different races".  

 

Thank you.  There's the other side of the story, specifically what has been going on, on that campus, that would make folks take it as something more than a banana....

Quote

Yet, what they so easily overlook is that within the past four years, students placed a noose on James Meredith’s statue, klansmen marched on our campus and a community member alluded to lynching black people in online comments.

That's the stuff that never comes through when Dog brings his propaganda sites here.  There is ALWAYS more to the story.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2017 at 6:49 AM, badlatitude said:

Posting Happy Jack crap and then being unable to properly defend it won't get him there.

It worked for Happy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks - how do you interpret the circumstances?  

 

Don't think I don't appreciate country music.  I happen to have George Jones' old tour bus parked out behind our Lauderdale office.  I think it is an 80s vintage, but he and Tammy might have had a go for old times sake in it at some point....  That has to make me a historian of some sort.

That wasn't me making fun of country music, that's me making fun of Dog's white victimhood.  I have a penchant for playing around with lyrics from popular songs, but I seldom follow through with it, lest I end up like Weird Al.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

Without getting into name calling or anything, there is one point that republicans make that is typically unaddressed in these conversations.  The US spends almost 1 trillion dollars per year on education right now and it seems to be inadequate.  Education exceeds military spending by about 150 billion dollars.

Everyone seems to hate military spending but the gross majority of that goes to pay wages and O/M costs - replacement parts which are typically made by factories - usually by mandate - employing skilled but not necessarily college educated workers.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php?title=US_Education_Spending&expand=20&meta=education

How much more needs to be spent?  Is there any guess?    Or is even ASKING that question a sign of evil intent and wanting to return to Jim Crow?

 

One reason we spend so much on education is that there is ALSO a violent aversion to federalizing it. We leave it to the states, and many of them do it in a really shoddy fashion. And much of it has been politicized and abused (Creationists on your school board, anyone?).

In Rhode Island, a state with a population of around one million, there are 39 Cities & Towns. A few of them consolidated, so there are only 36 actual school systems. 36 superintendents, and their supporting secretaries and infrastructure. 36 Administrative offices. 36 School Committees.

This is a state with about 142,000 students. 16,000 teachers, and 300+ schools. 

Thirty-six districts.

I can't believe there's no room for improvements in efficiencies there. Rhode Island has five counties that nobody uses...if you consolidated the schools into five districts there would be millions in savings. Though they'd have a lot of unemployed administrators...

BTW there's 36 police forces + the state police, as well as something like 16 SWAT teams. In a state you can drive across in 40 minutes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Don't think I don't appreciate country music.  I happen to have George Jones' old tour bus parked out behind our Lauderdale office.  I think it is an 80s vintage, but he and Tammy might have had a go for old times sake in it at some point....  That has to make me a historian of some sort.

That wasn't me making fun of country music, that's me making fun of Dog's white victimhood.  I have a penchant for playing around with lyrics from popular songs, but I seldom follow through with it, lest I end up like Weird Al.  

Weird Al has done OK for himself.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/richest-comedians/weird-al-yankovic-net-worth/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

One reason we spend so much on education is that there is ALSO a violent aversion to federalizing it. We leave it to the states, and many of them do it in a really shoddy fashion. And much of it has been politicized and abused (Creationists on your school board, anyone?).

In Rhode Island, a state with a population of around one million, there are 39 Cities & Towns. A few of them consolidated, so there are only 36 actual school systems. 36 superintendents, and their supporting secretaries and infrastructure. 36 Administrative offices. 36 School Committees.

This is a state with about 142,000 students. 16,000 teachers, and 300+ schools. 

Thirty-six districts.

I can't believe there's no room for improvements in efficiencies there. Rhode Island has five counties that nobody uses...if you consolidated the schools into five districts there would be millions in savings. Though they'd have a lot of unemployed administrators...

BTW there's 36 police forces + the state police, as well as something like 16 SWAT teams. In a state you can drive across in 40 minutes.

 

Truth.

The city I live has two neighbor cities that share a school district.  The three communities really are, for all intents, the same city.  There has even been talk of a 'rotating mayor' wherein each city's mayor serves for a year as the overall mayor but it's never happened.  Driving around, there's no way to tell the "cities" apart without a map.  In fact, there's even a shared road where one side is one city and the other side is another city.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

COUNTERPOINT - the people looking for offense where none exists are vying closely for that control, reasoned perspectives seem to be being pushed to the sidelines. 

There certainly have been those. How many times fis we hear "the Kenyan wants to destroy America."

The probably are some making similarly absurd claims about the current guy.

Racism isn't one of them. He throws more distasteful rhetoric at members of his own party than anything he regularly says about racists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the reason for this angst about race is partially about scapegoating and partially about fighting over crumbs.

If we look at the bottom 5% of income earners, regardless of skin color, we probably will find attitudes and behaviors of which we do not approve. Numerically, whites constitute the greater percentage of these poor folks, but the degree to which blacks are overrepresented based on overall population statistics is the source of the debate. Trying to figure out which came first, the poverty or the attitude is occupying a great deal of Chessy's time, but the more liberal of us posters tend to think that doesn't matter. Once the slide into poverty has occurred, statistically we will find reasons to dislike these people as a group.

That way, we don't have to think that poverty could happen to us, or our family, or those we care about.

But we are all just a few poor decisions or a good disease, ugly divorce, a named storm, or an unexpected mental disorder away from grinding poverty. And then we would suddenly be faced with the awful, long, arduous uphill climb back to solvency. 

Statistically, folks climb out of that pit at some rate. Having a good education, strong family ties, good social networks go a long way to increasing your odds. But the people born there, who have absolutely no ties to higher society? They have a much harder time.

Because America has become much more unequal in terms of income growth, especially since the recession, we are not a land of opportunity. So we are looking to scapegoat communities for that problem, rather than look in the mirror. 

By sending my kids to a private school, providing them with countless enriching trips and camps and clubs and such, I am increasing the gap between their potential and that of inner city impoverished kids. I SHOULD give more to charity, but I focus on my kids, and no one, but the government, has the power to change my behavior.

The government has a different calculus, or at least it should. It should want to invest in infrastructure, on defense, and in its citizenry. It should invest in education, healthcare, transportation, child care, youth nutrition and legal protections for the most vulnerable. Because by providing opportunities to escape poverty, it can create new and happy taxpayers with higher incomes to tax. 

Want to reduce welfare, increase tax revenues and have happier (less race-obsessed) citizens? Invest in the most vulnerable and watch the ROI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, phillysailor said:

It seems to me that the reason for this angst about race is partially about scapegoating and partially about fighting over crumbs.

If we look at the bottom 5% of income earners, regardless of skin color, we probably will find attitudes and behaviors of which we do not approve. Numerically, whites constitute the greater percentage of these poor folks, but the degree to which blacks are overrepresented based on overall population statistics is the source of the debate. Trying to figure out which came first, the poverty or the attitude is occupying a great deal of Chessy's time, but the more liberal of us posters tend to think that doesn't matter. Once the slide into poverty has occurred, statistically we will find reasons to dislike these people as a group.

That way, we don't have to think that poverty could happen to us, or our family, or those we care about.

But we are all just a few poor decisions or a good disease, ugly divorce, a named storm, or an unexpected mental disorder away from grinding poverty. And then we would suddenly be faced with the awful, long, arduous uphill climb back to solvency. 

Statistically, folks climb out of that pit at some rate. Having a good education, strong family ties, good social networks go a long way to increasing your odds. But the people born there, who have absolutely no ties to higher society? They have a much harder time.

Because America has become much more unequal in terms of income growth, especially since the recession, we are not a land of opportunity. So we are looking to scapegoat communities for that problem, rather than look in the mirror. 

By sending my kids to a private school, providing them with countless enriching trips and camps and clubs and such, I am increasing the gap between their potential and that of inner city impoverished kids. I SHOULD give more to charity, but I focus on my kids, and no one, but the government, has the power to change my behavior.

The government has a different calculus, or at least it should. It should want to invest in infrastructure, on defense, and in its citizenry. It should invest in education, healthcare, transportation, child care, youth nutrition and legal protections for the most vulnerable. Because by providing opportunities to escape poverty, it can create new and happy taxpayers with higher incomes to tax. 

Want to reduce welfare, increase tax revenues and have happier (less race-obsessed) citizens? Invest in the most vulnerable and watch the ROI.

Sounds good...but as Thomas Sowell (who knows something about escaping the grinding poverty of the ghetto) said "we have replaced what works with what sounds good". Government declared "War on Poverty" in 1964. 53 years later and we are well aware of the ROI thank you.

We do need a safety net but it has become a way of life that robs people of their self respect, initiative and humanity. It destroys families and replaces them with gangs. No, you can't solve the problem with higher taxes and more welfare spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, phillysailor said:

It seems to me that the reason for this angst about race is partially about scapegoating and partially about fighting over crumbs.

If we look at the bottom 5% of income earners, regardless of skin color, we probably will find attitudes and behaviors of which we do not approve. Numerically, whites constitute the greater percentage of these poor folks, but the degree to which blacks are overrepresented based on overall population statistics is the source of the debate. Trying to figure out which came first, the poverty or the attitude is occupying a great deal of Chessy's time, but the more liberal of us posters tend to think that doesn't matter. Once the slide into poverty has occurred, statistically we will find reasons to dislike these people as a group.

That way, we don't have to think that poverty could happen to us, or our family, or those we care about.

But we are all just a few poor decisions or a good disease, ugly divorce, a named storm, or an unexpected mental disorder away from grinding poverty. And then we would suddenly be faced with the awful, long, arduous uphill climb back to solvency. 

Statistically, folks climb out of that pit at some rate. Having a good education, strong family ties, good social networks go a long way to increasing your odds. But the people born there, who have absolutely no ties to higher society? They have a much harder time.

Because America has become much more unequal in terms of income growth, especially since the recession, we are not a land of opportunity. So we are looking to scapegoat communities for that problem, rather than look in the mirror. 

By sending my kids to a private school, providing them with countless enriching trips and camps and clubs and such, I am increasing the gap between their potential and that of inner city impoverished kids. I SHOULD give more to charity, but I focus on my kids, and no one, but the government, has the power to change my behavior.

The government has a different calculus, or at least it should. It should want to invest in infrastructure, on defense, and in its citizenry. It should invest in education, healthcare, transportation, child care, youth nutrition and legal protections for the most vulnerable. Because by providing opportunities to escape poverty, it can create new and happy taxpayers with higher incomes to tax. 

Want to reduce welfare, increase tax revenues and have happier (less race-obsessed) citizens? Invest in the most vulnerable and watch the ROI.

You made some decent points in this post, Philly - but, i would like to correct one thing: My mention of behaviors is not founded in dislike, it's founded in an honest desire to see folks that are struggling do better for themselves.  I have been trying to lay out what I think are the best chances for that to happen. There's no magic bullet - there are demonstrable behaviors that lead to success, and that lead to economic destitution, and those have nothing to do with a person's race.  

Breaking the cycle is crucial - and as you mentioned, the people born into multi-generational economic despair have a lot harder time climbing out - and my point is that it's not institutional racism that's keeping those families there, (lot's of white people in that same condition)  it's their own behaviors.  If we can accept that, then we should enable their success by helping them change those behaviors. This should be where we focus our energy and attention, rather than trying to mitigate the impacts of poor decisions and negative behaviors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You made some decent points in this post, Philly - but, i would like to correct one thing: My mention of behaviors is not founded in dislike, it's founded in an honest desire to see folks that are struggling do better for themselves.  I have been trying to lay out what I think are the best chances for that to happen. There's no magic bullet - there are demonstrable behaviors that lead to success, and that lead to economic destitution, and those have nothing to do with a person's race.  

Breaking the cycle is crucial - and as you mentioned, the people born into multi-generational economic despair have a lot harder time climbing out - and my point is that it's not institutional racism that's keeping those families there, (lot's of white people in that same condition)  it's their own behaviors.  If we can accept that, then we should enable their success by helping them change those behaviors. This should be where we focus our energy and attention, rather than trying to mitigate the impacts of poor decisions and negative behaviors.

Your advice is great for an individual - stay in school, don't get/get anyone pregnant, don't do drugs, don't sell drugs, learn proper English, etc. etc.

For society in general, not so much. I know that rich white men have written about the issues with poor people behaving badly for hundreds of years for sure and likely thousands of years if I could be arsed to go read up on some Pharoah's reports on bad behaviour of pyramid building slaves.

Just telling people to quit acting like hillbillies or hood rats is not enough and in both cases it is a mix of bad habits and an environment more or less designed to encourage bad habits to say the least.

* here is one good example - lead poisoning. Urban poor people are the most likely people to be victims and lead causes low IQ, tendencies towards violent behaviour, and poor impulse control. Both Freddy Gray and one of the officers that arrested him suffered from lead poisoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
59 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You made some decent points in this post, Philly - but, i would like to correct one thing: My mention of behaviors is not founded in dislike, it's founded in an honest desire to see folks that are struggling do better for themselves.  I have been trying to lay out what I think are the best chances for that to happen. There's no magic bullet - there are demonstrable behaviors that lead to success, and that lead to economic destitution, and those have nothing to do with a person's race.  

Breaking the cycle is crucial - and as you mentioned, the people born into multi-generational economic despair have a lot harder time climbing out - and my point is that it's not institutional racism that's keeping those families there, (lot's of white people in that same condition)  it's their own behaviors.  If we can accept that, then we should enable their success by helping them change those behaviors. This should be where we focus our energy and attention, rather than trying to mitigate the impacts of poor decisions and negative behaviors.

Your advice is great for an individual - stay in school, don't get/get anyone pregnant, don't do drugs, don't sell drugs, learn proper English, etc. etc.

For society in general, not so much. I know that rich white men have written about the issues with poor people behaving badly for hundreds of years for sure and likely thousands of years if I could be arsed to go read up on some Pharoah's reports on bad behaviour of pyramid building slaves.

Just telling people to quit acting like hillbillies or hood rats is not enough and in both cases it is a mix of bad habits and an environment more or less designed to encourage bad habits to say the least.

* here is one good example - lead poisoning. Urban poor people are the most likely people to be victims and lead causes low IQ, tendencies towards violent behaviour, and poor impulse control. Both Freddy Gray and one of the officers that arrested him suffered from lead poisoning.

Right. But these darn poor people, they're just too lazy and stupid to run hedge funds.

Blindfolding academics with regard to race would be a nice ideal. Unfortunately it would lead to our universities being totally dominated (rather than partially, like now) by Asians. The largest bias in college admissions is toward $$. Should we say fuck it and go back to having only rich people get college educations?

Affirmative action is kind of like the sequester. Everybody hates it but it is mandated fairness. And so far, no rightie who likes to screech about "racism against whites" has come up with any reason why the student population of a large state university should not reflect the percentages of races present in the states general  population. Or why the workers of a large corporation etc etc. Dabs liked to whine that he was "forced to hire minorities" but the problem he was faced with was years of NOT hiring minorities and having to make up the difference. Oh yeah, don't talk about that part. There's no institutionalized racism, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Right. But these darn poor people, they're just too lazy and stupid to run hedge funds.

Blindfolding academics with regard to race would be a nice ideal. Unfortunately it would lead to our universities being totally dominated (rather than partially, like now) by Asians. The largest bias in college admissions is toward $$. Should we say fuck it and go back to having only rich people get college educations?

Affirmative action is kind of like the sequester. Everybody hates it but it is mandated fairness. And so far, no rightie who likes to screech about "racism against whites" has come up with any reason why the student population of a large state university should not reflect the percentages of races present in the states general  population. Or why the workers of a large corporation etc etc. Dabs liked to whine that he was "forced to hire minorities" but the problem he was faced with was years of NOT hiring minorities and having to make up the difference. Oh yeah, don't talk about that part. There's no institutionalized racism, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

-DSK

I think that your premise is intentionally ignoring what the people who comprise the demographic makeup want to do,are capable of doing, and what they're willing to do to enable themselves to pursue those opportunities.  I contend that racial demographics shouldn't play at ALL in the decision making, not that any one should be favored or impeded. 

You're running a factory - and need people to operate & maintain robotics.  There is a defined skillset that is required to do so safely and efficiently.  Should the business be more interested in having a workforce that is 16% black, 9% hispanic, 40% female, or should they be more interested in attracting, hiring, training and retaining qualified individuals regardless of those demographics?    When I was a kid on the Eastern Shore - most of the people picking crabs and shucking oysters were the wives/daughters of the watermen, black and white.  Now?  It's mostly immigrant workers on temporary visas, because there are a lot fewer watermen, people are more mobile and are seeking the "better" opportunities that mobility provides, and frankly, many of today's pampered prissies are too afraid of breaking a nail to do that kind of work. That mobility, BTW is partially responsible for opening the doors for the people (mostly women) who come up from Mexico during season to work in the seafood factories.  Should the seafood plants stop using the H2B visa program to satisfy their employment requirements in the interest of making sure that their workforce matches the local demographic makeup? 

We aren't in 1965 anymore - anti-discrimination laws have been on the books for 50 years, have been accepted and embraced, society (fringe elements aside) has accepted that discrimination is illegal and wrong, people are empowered and have assistance in pursuing legal redress when discrimination occurs, courts have established precedent that provides for punishing instances of demonstrated racism.   Schools and businesses want to succeed - discrimination impedes that success, and it's my humble opinion that anyone who doesn't know and embrace that will find themselves out of business.  

"Forcing fairness" doesn't create it - having people accepted as equals because of their character and contributions does. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think that your premise is intentionally ignoring what the people who comprise the demographic makeup want to do,are capable of doing, and what they're willing to do to enable themselves to pursue those opportunities.

??? I was making fun of the idea, sometimes stated outright but more often just hinted at by righties, that they are lazy and stupid. Of course -some- are, some aren't. Just like everybody else.

I contend that racial demographics shouldn't play at ALL in the decision making, not that any one should be favored or impeded. 

That's a lovely idea. Does everybody get a free pony, too?

You're running a factory - and need people to operate & maintain robotics.  There is a defined skillset that is required to do so safely and efficiently.  Should the business be more interested in having a workforce that is 16% black, 9% hispanic, 40% female, or should they be more interested in attracting, hiring, training and retaining qualified individuals regardless of those demographics?    When I was a kid on the Eastern Shore - most of the people picking crabs and shucking oysters were the wives/daughters of the watermen, black and white.  Now?  It's mostly immigrant workers on temporary visas, because there are a lot fewer watermen, people are more mobile and are seeking the "better" opportunities that mobility provides, and frankly, many of today's pampered prissies are too afraid of breaking a nail to do that kind of work. That mobility, BTW is partially responsible for opening the doors for the people (mostly women) who come up from Mexico during season to work in the seafood factories.  Should the seafood plants stop using the H2B visa program to satisfy their employment requirements in the interest of making sure that their workforce matches the local demographic makeup? 

That's a problem for the state or the county to decide IMHO. Personally, I would make the HSB visa -just- -barely- expensive enough that hiring local workers was slightly more profitable. OTOH it may be that nobody wants those jobs, or it may be that everybody locally is working for hedge funds or tech start-ups.

We aren't in 1965 anymore - anti-discrimination laws have been on the books for 50 years, have been accepted and embraced, society (fringe elements aside) has accepted that discrimination is illegal and wrong, people are empowered and have assistance in pursuing legal redress when discrimination occurs, courts have established precedent that provides for punishing instances of demonstrated racism.   Schools and businesses want to succeed - discrimination impedes that success, and it's my humble opinion that anyone who doesn't know and embrace that will find themselves out of business.  

"Forcing fairness" doesn't create it - having people accepted as equals because of their character and contributions does. 

 

I contend that while we may not be in 1965, we are not far advanced from it. The shenanigans making the news ought to convince anybody of that. Maybe you aren't paying attention, maybe you're just a victim of wishful thinking?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I contend that while we may not be in 1965, we are not far advanced from it. The shenanigans making the news ought to convince anybody of that. Maybe you aren't paying attention, maybe you're just a victim of wishful thinking?

-DSK

And just perhaps - there are people who stand to profit from racial division and are fanning the flames of that division to make a match look like a bonfire?  

Maybe it's because I've spent my entire adult life in the military and professional environments, that my personal observations and experiences are so different than what many of you are professing to be the norm.  I don't see pervasive institutional/systemic bias, quite the contrary, in fact, great effort is expended to ensure that everyone understands that bias is not acceptable, and anyone exhibiting personal biases in a professional decision will be quickly shown the door.  I think that if we spent as much time looking for ways to come together as we do looking for offense that we'd all be a lot more tolerant and welcoming of different perspectives, but, then what would the perpetually butthurt crowd do for fun? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites