The HB1 program, per the gov website, is for workers in more technical fields. In principle, I'd support it. I would object, as noted in a comment on this page, to it being abused for low-skill, low wage workers. However, if the analyses concluded that there was a considerable deficit in available and willing citizen workers, that's a bit more reasonable. If in either cases if employers were seeking HB1 visas for foreign workers that they can low ball and then layoff citizen employees when there is sufficient labor in the market currently, I'd object to it.bearister said:
My reaction was twofold:
1. The irony was not lost on me that Breitbart is willing to purportedly advocate for African Americans when it suites its narrative and
2. I am skeptical of the conclusion reached by the author based on conversations I have had with people in the agriculture and construction industries (both magnets for Latino immigrant labor) who have told me that Americans, White and Black, have no interest in doing the back breaking work involved in those industries.
What say you?
Shiiiiiiiithole in Chief
28,683 Views |
194 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by bearister
That's how I interpreted it and believe that's what he was insinuating. The implicit message being why allocate an arbitrarily conceived number of additional visas among a finite lot of visas to a specific country's people that has a low probability of offering value. You're free to disagree that that was his intention. I certainly agree the optics are bad, particularly when over half the country and basically the entire media are salivating at the mouth.Quote:
In a different thread you distinguished the President's sh*thole quote as being intended toward the countries, less their people. That's a funny distinction that I don't think signaled the virtue you intended.
I will not agree, and this is a big reason why these topics are so radioactive: certain triggers evoke a reflexive, emotive response which is ignorant of and *******izes the meaning of racism. This is virtue signaling aimed at tainting any views, whether objectively credible or not, that a person has. Nowhere was it explicitly or implicitly stated that my views factor in race AT ALL. This is a common pretense to a discussion with people nowadays, one that doesn't get any less tedious and seemingly unveils more about the plaintiff than of the accused. As a general rule, when you concoct faux victims from a cognitive dissonance and ideological biases, you create real ones. Nowhere, it seems, is this more evident than in the soft bigotry of low expectations and the incessant need to defend and protect identity groups from ghosts.Quote:
You want a policy debate, which is worth having, but let's agree up front that you are likely a racists and it's your racial instincts that provide what appear to be exceptional motivation. I'm not big on accusing people of being racist, and I might be wrong, but your limited body of work here indicates a ready disregard for classes of people that suggests as much. You're going to get derided either way, may as well own it honestly and take a little pride.
The rest of your post seems a roundabout defense of open borders under the unintelligible pretense that the rejection of it stems from tribalism -- the US admits about 400,000 immigrants every year (the other 600,000 are change of status immigrants already here). Programs like HB1 are work and merit based (in theory). If you want to apply some people's rejection to some variation of 'ethnic foreigners' out of some version of xenophobia to my argument, you'd be dishonest in doing so. I want foreigners who have skills and provide value.
You appear to use the logic that a considerable sum of individuals who don't look to be capable of providing value and flourishing on their own here is a valid argument, but it's more an appeal to anecdotes and heart strings. I don't doubt that a considerable number of inmates who have committed violent crime, if set free, would be reformed citizens who would 'make good' in society and perhaps even flourish. This is irrelevant (and data happens to show the recidivism rate of violent offenders is very high). I don't doubt that a lot of college applicants with lower scores and GPAs would actually excel as well or better than some of their peers with higher scores that were admitted. You go by the information you have, and play the odds.
You play the odds and take 'the best' because the land, resources, jobs etc are finite. Take your unlimited open border to its logical extreme: if every person from a sh*thole country is banging down our door, what do you do? Immigration to the U.S. is far greater than migration from the U.S. Pertaining to immigration, The U.S. is a Cal, Stanford, Harvard, in a world full of Evergreen St Colleges. Seats are finite.
While true, this is not an argument in support of the 'rightness/wrongness' of said 'narrative', which is what we're after here, or in any conversation, I assume, unless maybe I'm unveiling the priorities of certain folks, which is that being right is relatively meaningless compared to feeling good.sycasey said:
The Republican/conservative narrative about Black Lives Matter, black crime, black poverty, and black families is so convincing that African-American voters vote for Democrats 90% of the time. Well, at least they got Ben Carson.
What is the 'narrative' on these matters? Let's focus on what is correct. The conclusion I arrive at is the underachievement of certain groups has little to do with race and everything to do with culture and values. I believe this not because I want to, or because I chose a narrative that I prefer -- I don't like coming to this conclusion. I wish the Leftist regressive dream were true, that if only we could magically eliminate every racist thought and action from the ethos overnight, blacks would start graduating HS more, going out to get more jobs, stop having children before wedlock and having jobs, stop killing each other at rates much worse than other groups.
The poverty argument is not true. Black poverty was extremely high pre-civil rights movement in an era where racism was sanctioned and cultural racism was rampant, yet the crime rate was much lower than today, when 13% of the population commits over 50% of the homicides, most of them intraracial. The single parent household rate went from something like 15% in 1960 to 72% in 2013. The counter culture 1960's affected all races adversely, as crime across the board went up and so did single parent households. Government became the new daddy, and adversarial sub-cultures within the black community developed, manifesting itself in a gangster rap of the 80's and 90's, which glorified and romanticized attitudes, values and a culture that are rejected in almost every other realm of our society: sexism, misogyny, violence, homicide, homophobia, rape, the list is seemingly endless. But all races of the left combine to either acquiesce, deny, apologize, defend, and even lionize attitudes and values when expressed in this medium. The placation of the problems within these communities is helping sustain these issues.
This is a long topic, but show me an underachieving community, and I will show you a culture/value problem. I don't know if they are wrong or right for voting 90% Democrat. However, I don't believe in identity politics, so I find the idea of voting for a group that typically favors policy that happens to "benefit" the group you identify with based on your race sort of a misnomer
Bull****
You jump in with both feet on the decidedly offensive term sh*thole, using it repeatedly and excessively, readily referring to entire classes of people, both domestic and foreign, as sh*tholes; referring to entire countries as sh*tholes. You claim it's what we're all thinking, but are afraid to admit. You associate creme de la creme with Norway, but those from non-white countries as skill-less parasites who refuse to assimilate, and then accuse others of being regressive and reflexive in their opinions.iwantwinners said:That's how I interpreted it and believe that's what he was insinuating. The implicit message being why allocate an arbitrarily conceived number of additional visas among a finite lot of visas to a specific country's people that has a low probability of offering value. You're free to disagree that that was his intention. I certainly agree the optics are bad, particularly when over half the country and basically the entire media are salivating at the mouth.Quote:
In a different thread you distinguished the President's sh*thole quote as being intended toward the countries, less their people. That's a funny distinction that I don't think signaled the virtue you intended.I will not agree, and this is a big reason why these topics are so radioactive: certain triggers evoke a reflexive, emotive response which is ignorant of and *******izes the meaning of racism. This is virtue signaling aimed at tainting any views, whether objectively credible or not, that a person has. Nowhere was it explicitly or implicitly stated that my views factor in race AT ALL. This is a common pretense to a discussion with people nowadays, one that doesn't get any less tedious and seemingly unveils more about the plaintiff than of the accused. As a general rule, when you concoct faux victims from a cognitive dissonance and ideological biases, you create real ones. Nowhere, it seems, is this more evident than in the soft bigotry of low expectations and the incessant need to defend and protect identity groups from ghosts.Quote:
You want a policy debate, which is worth having, but let's agree up front that you are likely a racists and it's your racial instincts that provide what appear to be exceptional motivation. I'm not big on accusing people of being racist, and I might be wrong, but your limited body of work here indicates a ready disregard for classes of people that suggests as much. You're going to get derided either way, may as well own it honestly and take a little pride.
The rest of your post seems a roundabout defense of open borders under the unintelligible pretense that the rejection of it stems from tribalism -- the US admits about 400,000 immigrants every year (the other 600,000 are change of status immigrants already here). Programs like HB1 are work and merit based (in theory). If you want to apply some people's rejection to some variation of 'ethnic foreigners' out of some version of xenophobia to my argument, you'd be dishonest in doing so. I want foreigners who have skills and provide value.
You appear to use the logic that a considerable sum of individuals who don't look to be capable of providing value and flourishing on their own here is a valid argument, but it's more an appeal to anecdotes and heart strings. I don't doubt that a considerable number of inmates who have committed violent crime, if set free, would be reformed citizens who would 'make good' in society and perhaps even flourish. This is irrelevant (and data happens to show the recidivism rate of violent offenders is very high). I don't doubt that a lot of college applicants with lower scores and GPAs would actually excel as well or better than some of their peers with higher scores that were admitted. You go by the information you have, and play the odds.
You play the odds and take 'the best' because the land, resources, jobs etc are finite. Take your unlimited open border to its logical extreme: if every person from a sh*thole country is banging down our door, what do you do? Immigration to the U.S. is far greater than migration from the U.S. Pertaining to immigration, The U.S. is a Cal, Stanford, Harvard, in a world full of Evergreen St Colleges. Seats are finite.
In this context you ask us to believe that your interest in merit-based immigration is not racial. As though only those who expressly claim to be racist are racist. Whether you're racist or just anti-poor, the distinction is inconsequential if in the end it leaves you hostile to entire classes of people.
You regurgitate bull**** terms like "virtue signaling" that to you sound insightful as though the purpose of debate is to do something other than signal one's virtues, as though your arguments aren't expressly signaling your own virtues, as if the term itself isn't a form of virtue signaling.
And yet it's your critics that are radioactive.
As for the rest of my post, it's not a "roundabout defense of open borders." Open boarders is not a policy we currently employ, and I'm not aware of anyone proposing your straw-man open boarder concept. I'm trying to share my concern for the term "merit" because while we strive for elements of meritocracy, we have as many examples of the need to avoid merit in policymaking. I'm specifically asking you to explain your definition of merit. I'm asking you to give me examples of where this concept has been successful in accomplishing the goals for which it was intended. I'm expressing the weakness of policies formed that potentially demonize "others," and I'm trying to make the point that people with the wherewithal to arrive here illegally are potentially the exact kind of person we'd want to admit. I am particularly leery of this new call for merit-based policy because of how readily it can be tailored to exclude people you define as sh*tholes, but whom others wouldn't.
The great irony in your opposition to the current immigration system that allows for family-based arrivals is that it was itself conceived as a racist policy designed to favor the familiar at the expense of the unfamiliar. It was intended to allow preferred immigrants from Europe and other Anglo-friendly countries to bring in family for the purpose of skewing overall immigration toward those populations. That it would evolve to include brown people was inevitable, as would the call to alter it once this became true. You're right on schedule.
With the pending mass exodus of boomers from the workforce, is our need for immigrants going up or down?
Further forward, should there be an economy that depends less and less on human labor, what would be the role of immigration?
How would the inability of migrants to bring family with them affect their desire to immigrate on merit?
Foremost, you think being American is a static thing. (like your Japan being predominantly Japanese example) It's not. It's designed for the exact opposite. That English may one day become a secondary language is entirely within its concept, and it's the potential for these kinds of evolutions which are most fundamentally American. We are about what's possible. Our idea is big. The sh*t you're peddling is small.
You proclaim that your conclusion about a problem with black "culture" and "values" is clearly "correct," yet the only evidentiary support you provide are statistics showing that, yes, there are problems with crime and broken families in the African-American community. Sure, you're right about that. But I see no real attempt here to connect that to any potential CAUSE of such problems. (Other than to point to the violence/misogyny/homophobia expressed in rap music, as if that's the only kind of popular music from that era to express such things. Have you listened to any heavy metal or punk rock lyrics from that time? Paragons of virtue, those artists were not.)iwantwinners said:While true, this is not an argument in support of the 'rightness/wrongness' of said 'narrative', which is what we're after here, or in any conversation, I assume, unless maybe I'm unveiling the priorities of certain folks, which is that being right is relatively meaningless compared to feeling good.sycasey said:
The Republican/conservative narrative about Black Lives Matter, black crime, black poverty, and black families is so convincing that African-American voters vote for Democrats 90% of the time. Well, at least they got Ben Carson.
What is the 'narrative' on these matters? Let's focus on what is correct. The conclusion I arrive at is the underachievement of certain groups has little to do with race and everything to do with culture and values. I believe this not because I want to, or because I chose a narrative that I prefer -- I don't like coming to this conclusion. I wish the Leftist regressive dream were true, that if only we could magically eliminate every racist thought and action from the ethos overnight, blacks would start graduating HS more, going out to get more jobs, stop having children before wedlock and having jobs, stop killing each other at rates much worse than other groups.
The poverty argument is not true. Black poverty was extremely high pre-civil rights movement in an era where racism was sanctioned and cultural racism was rampant, yet the crime rate was much lower than today, when 13% of the population commits over 50% of the homicides, most of them intraracial. The single parent household rate went from something like 15% in 1960 to 72% in 2013. The counter culture 1960's affected all races adversely, as crime across the board went up and so did single parent households. Government became the new daddy, and adversarial sub-cultures within the black community developed, manifesting itself in a gangster rap of the 80's and 90's, which glorified and romanticized attitudes, values and a culture that are rejected in almost every other realm of our society: sexism, misogyny, violence, homicide, homophobia, rape, the list is seemingly endless. But all races of the left combine to either acquiesce, deny, apologize, defend, and even lionize attitudes and values when expressed in this medium. The placation of the problems within these communities is helping sustain these issues.
This is a long topic, but show me an underachieving community, and I will show you a culture/value problem. I don't know if they are wrong or right for voting 90% Democrat. However, I don't believe in identity politics, so I find the idea of voting for a group that typically favors policy that happens to "benefit" the group you identify with based on your race sort of a misnomer
These problems do not exist in a vacuum. Here's one possible cause: right around the time period you cite (late '60s to early '70s), a few things happened. One is that the Civil Rights Movement (featuring MLK et al) agitated for and eventually won more rights for black Americans. In response, Nixon and the Republican Party specifically began to employ the "Southern Strategy" to start winning over Southern voters again. This was a deliberate (and fairly well-documented) attempt to divide the country along racial lines and convince white voters to vote with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Another thing that happened was that America's "War on Drugs" began in earnest. That's not something you can entirely lay at the feet of Republicans; the war ramped up through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Many argue that this war disproportionately impacted black families, as sentencing and enforcement was generally harsher for blacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
What does that mean? More black men in prison means more broken homes, which means more youths turning to crime, which means more of them in prison. This also leads to more reliance on government safety-net programs, not because they want to, but because they have to. A vicious cycle, not all of it based on black people having a worse "culture" or "values," and in fact you could argue that this culture EMERGED from the bad situation a lot of these families found themselves in. There's a lot more to unpack here than your original comments would let on.
You are logically correct that African-Americans voting heavily Democratic does not PROVE they are right that Republican and/or conservative ideas about how to help their community are wrong-headed. However, I would argue that if I were truly interested in helping a group of historically oppressed people (and not just scoring political and rhetorical points to help my own causes), I might listen to what they have to say about their problems and where they come from. If 90% of them said my ideas were wrong, that would give me pause. If I didn't really care about that and only cared about how this debate could benefit me, then I would very easily ignore them.
Now, let's talk about how this might relate to immigration. I'm sure you will vociferously disagree, but the general feeling I get from your posts is that immigration is strictly a self-centered enterprise for you. If immigrants don't immediately benefit you or your country, then they shouldn't be let in. Anyone who wants to advocate for more immigration needs to show that this will immediately and monetarily benefit the country, or no deal. I think that's short-sighted. Yes, of course those things should be a concern. But is there not also a moral obligation to help those in need as much as possible? What about those from war-torn countries, sometimes from wars we had a hand in starting? What about one of the foundational values of the country, embodied on that Statue of Liberty quote about tired, huddled masses yearning to breathe free? That is the real push-pull dynamic at play here, the practical issues of immigration policy butting up against the values we want to embody as a nation. If you lose the latter, then I think you lose the plot a little bit. Ruthless self-interest, IMO, only takes you so far.
Of course it's also true that a pure "open border" scenario wouldn't work either. For good reason, you want to (at minimum) try to prevent terrorists or other criminals from entering the country for nefarious purposes. Some vetting will always be required. Here's the thing: no one is arguing that it isn't. "Open borders" in the way you describe it is not a serious position advanced by any elected officials in Congress. The questions are of degree and purpose.
Here's what's actually being debated right now: how to handle DACA recipients. When Trump made his "s***hole" comments it was not in a meeting where someone was trying to convince him to support an "open border" policy, it was in a meeting with Senators to discuss a potential deal on DACA. This is about undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children (through no fault of their own), who were temporarily granted (by Obama) some manner of legal protection to remain in the country, as long as they (1) maintain a clean criminal record and (2) manage to keep a job or stay in school. To me, those seem like the kinds of immigrants who have demonstrated their worth to our society and who should be allowed to stay. What exactly is the utility of making comments about "s***hole countries" in this context? Is there any way that kind of comment is helpful here?
Sycasey - the goal of people like iwantwinners is to demonize the democrats. They would rather argue that democrats are comin' fer yer guns than argue about precisely what level of gun control strikes the right balance. Similarly, they argue that democrats are for open borders (SOROS!!!!) because they would like to avoid a nuanced discussion of what level of immigration is appropriate and what the mix should be (skilled/unskilled/educated/diversity/etc.). Even though no one of consequence is advocating for open borders, conservatives like to attribute that as the ultimate end goal of anyone who is advocating anything other than closed borders ('cept for Norwegians apparently).
I keep bringing up H1-B because it exposes a clear hole in their deflection scheme. On the one hand when discussing the movement of unskilled laborers across the southern border (which is actually flat/negative over the last decade) they point out that our country really needs skilled foreigners to help us out. On the other hand, when discussing H1-B in a vacuum they say that those immigrants are taking away good jobs from Americans and the system is being abused. Of course the system could be reformed (as proposed by Zoe Lofgren with backing from Silicon Valley businesses) to remedy this abuse, but instead we have incoherent and contradictory proclamations from Trump and his administration which throws the entire system into doubt.
I keep bringing up H1-B because it exposes a clear hole in their deflection scheme. On the one hand when discussing the movement of unskilled laborers across the southern border (which is actually flat/negative over the last decade) they point out that our country really needs skilled foreigners to help us out. On the other hand, when discussing H1-B in a vacuum they say that those immigrants are taking away good jobs from Americans and the system is being abused. Of course the system could be reformed (as proposed by Zoe Lofgren with backing from Silicon Valley businesses) to remedy this abuse, but instead we have incoherent and contradictory proclamations from Trump and his administration which throws the entire system into doubt.
Middle aged white people are dying at unprecedented rates from drug addiction and suicide. Why? A breakdown of family values, under achievement, and the scourge of country music from the 1960's where drunkenness, and cheating on women were celebrated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.amp.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.amp.html
Anarchistbear said:
Middle aged white people are dying at unprecedented rates from drug addiction and suicide. Why? A breakdown of family values, under achievement, and the scourge of country music from the 1960's where drunkenness, and cheating on women were celebrated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.amp.html
LONESOME L.A. COWBOY
(PETER ROWAN)
CHORUS:
I'M JUST A LONESOME L.A. COWBOY,
HANGIN' OUT, HANGIN' ON
TO YOUR WINDOW LEDGE, CALLIN' YOUR NAME
FROM MIDNIGHT UNTIL DAWN
I BEEN SMOKIN' DOPE, SNORTIN' COKE,
TRYIN' TO WRITE A SONG
FORGETTIN' EVERYTHING I KNOW
'TIL THE NEXT LINE COMES ALONG
FORGETTIN' EVERYTHING I KNOW
'TIL THE NEXT LINE COMES ALONG
THERE'S SO MANY PRETTY PEOPLE IN THE CITY,
I SWEAR SOME OF THEM ARE GIRLS
I MEET'EM DOWN AT BARNEY'S BEANERY
WITH THEIR PLATFORM HEELS AND SPIT CURLS
I BUY'EM DRINKS, WE SMOKE OUR HOPES
TRY TO MAKE IT ONE MORE NIGHT
BUT WHEN I'M LEFT ALL ALONE AT LAST
I FEEL LIKE I'LL DIE FROM FRIGHT
REPEAT CHORUS:
WELL, I KNOW CHRIS AND RITA, AND MARTY MULL
ARE MEETING AT THE TROUBADOUR
WE'LL GET IT ON WITH THE JOY OF COOKING
WHILE THE CROWD CRYS OUT FOR MORE
'ROUND SIX O'CLOCK THIS MORNING
I'LL BE GETTIN' KIND OF SLOW
WHEN ALL THE SHOWS ARE OVER, HONEY,
TELL ME, WHERE DO YOU THINK I GO?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“98 yards with my boys” Yeah, sure.
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“98 yards with my boys” Yeah, sure.
bearister said:Anarchistbear said:
Middle aged white people are dying at unprecedented rates from drug addiction and suicide. Why? A breakdown of family values, under achievement, and the scourge of country music from the 1960's where drunkenness, and cheating on women were celebrated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.amp.html
LONESOME L.A. COWBOY
(PETER ROWAN)
CHORUS:
I'M JUST A LONESOME L.A. COWBOY,
HANGIN' OUT, HANGIN' ON
TO YOUR WINDOW LEDGE, CALLIN' YOUR NAME
FROM MIDNIGHT UNTIL DAWN
I BEEN SMOKIN' DOPE, SNORTIN' COKE,
TRYIN' TO WRITE A SONG
FORGETTIN' EVERYTHING I KNOW
'TIL THE NEXT LINE COMES ALONG
FORGETTIN' EVERYTHING I KNOW
'TIL THE NEXT LINE COMES ALONG
THERE'S SO MANY PRETTY PEOPLE IN THE CITY,
I SWEAR SOME OF THEM ARE GIRLS
I MEET'EM DOWN AT BARNEY'S BEANERY
WITH THEIR PLATFORM HEELS AND SPIT CURLS
I BUY'EM DRINKS, WE SMOKE OUR HOPES
TRY TO MAKE IT ONE MORE NIGHT
BUT WHEN I'M LEFT ALL ALONE AT LAST
I FEEL LIKE I'LL DIE FROM FRIGHT
REPEAT CHORUS:
WELL, I KNOW CHRIS AND RITA, AND MARTY MULL
ARE MEETING AT THE TROUBADOUR
WE'LL GET IT ON WITH THE JOY OF COOKING
WHILE THE CROWD CRYS OUT FOR MORE
'ROUND SIX O'CLOCK THIS MORNING
I'LL BE GETTIN' KIND OF SLOW
WHEN ALL THE SHOWS ARE OVER, HONEY,
TELL ME, WHERE DO YOU THINK I GO?
Sounds like the exact script to a night I had in LA back in the day.
So bizarre and sad how many Trump flunkies will destroy their own credibility to prop up the nekkid Emperor. KAC and alternative facts, Spicer claiming some people knew what covfefe meant, etc.
Now the DHS Secretary, whose first name is Kirstjen, declined to acknowledge under oath that Norway's population is majority White?!? FFS that's as nutty as refusing to denounce Nazis and Klansmen. Such weird hills to die on.
Now the DHS Secretary, whose first name is Kirstjen, declined to acknowledge under oath that Norway's population is majority White?!? FFS that's as nutty as refusing to denounce Nazis and Klansmen. Such weird hills to die on.
NYCGOBEARS said:bearister said:Anarchistbear said:
Middle aged white people are dying at unprecedented rates from drug addiction and suicide. Why? A breakdown of family values, under achievement, and the scourge of country music from the 1960's where drunkenness, and cheating on women were celebrated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.amp.html
LONESOME L.A. COWBOY
(PETER ROWAN)
CHORUS:
I'M JUST A LONESOME L.A. COWBOY,
HANGIN' OUT, HANGIN' ON
TO YOUR WINDOW LEDGE, CALLIN' YOUR NAME
FROM MIDNIGHT UNTIL DAWN
I BEEN SMOKIN' DOPE, SNORTIN' COKE,
TRYIN' TO WRITE A SONG
FORGETTIN' EVERYTHING I KNOW
'TIL THE NEXT LINE COMES ALONG
FORGETTIN' EVERYTHING I KNOW
'TIL THE NEXT LINE COMES ALONG
THERE'S SO MANY PRETTY PEOPLE IN THE CITY,
I SWEAR SOME OF THEM ARE GIRLS
I MEET'EM DOWN AT BARNEY'S BEANERY
WITH THEIR PLATFORM HEELS AND SPIT CURLS
I BUY'EM DRINKS, WE SMOKE OUR HOPES
TRY TO MAKE IT ONE MORE NIGHT
BUT WHEN I'M LEFT ALL ALONE AT LAST
I FEEL LIKE I'LL DIE FROM FRIGHT
REPEAT CHORUS:
WELL, I KNOW CHRIS AND RITA, AND MARTY MULL
ARE MEETING AT THE TROUBADOUR
WE'LL GET IT ON WITH THE JOY OF COOKING
WHILE THE CROWD CRYS OUT FOR MORE
'ROUND SIX O'CLOCK THIS MORNING
I'LL BE GETTIN' KIND OF SLOW
WHEN ALL THE SHOWS ARE OVER, HONEY,
TELL ME, WHERE DO YOU THINK I GO?
Sounds like the exact script to a night I had in LA back in the day.
In that case, this one is dedicated to you:
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“98 yards with my boys” Yeah, sure.
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“98 yards with my boys” Yeah, sure.
What a tRump porn video would look like:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jimmy-kimmel-donald-trump-porn-video-would-look-like_us_5a606454e4b0ccf9f121965f
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jimmy-kimmel-donald-trump-porn-video-would-look-like_us_5a606454e4b0ccf9f121965f
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“98 yards with my boys” Yeah, sure.
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“98 yards with my boys” Yeah, sure.
bearister said:
What a tRump porn video would look like:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jimmy-kimmel-donald-trump-porn-video-would-look-like_us_5a606454e4b0ccf9f121965f
Timeline on Stormy Daniels affair is brutal: 60 year old guy, 1 year into his third marriage, fifth kid was 4 months old. Access Hollywood tape is from the same time as well as another affair with a Playboy Playmate (also paid off).
Personally was disgusted with Bubba's shenanigans, so can understand the ensuing contempt from religious leaders. Inexplicable that unconscionable evangelicals are still sticking with Trump. Were silent about Newt's third wife (following a six year affair) being appointed Vatican Ambassador. Campaigned hard for Roy Moore.
Highly unlikely Trump serves two terms and may not get through 4 years, so evangelical "leaders" need to jump off the Trump bandwagon way sooner and faster than cowardly GOP political hacks. They'd be way more comfortable with Pence, even without Trump's baggage.
People who support the president will ignore it. "Let he who is without sin" etc. Happened with Bill and will happen here. Hell, this isn't one of the top 100 bad things Trump has done. He pretended to be a PR person so he could brag to the media about cheating on his first wife.
When people speak of evangelicals in this context, they mean Southern Protestant evangelicals and all the Saturday night sin followed by the Sunday morning redemption as popularized by Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Bakker and even Clinton. These people thrive on sin, the fall from grace and redemption, rinse, repeat. I think there are serious religious leaders outside of this crew that do despise Trump
The Pope doesn't seem to be a fan.
sycasey said:
The Pope doesn't seem to be a fan.
Best pope in my lifetime.
Bubba's original plan was to run for POTUS in 1988, but he had to pass because his campaign manager confronted him with a list of double digit alleged affairs and Clinton couldn't credibily dismiss them days before the scheduled announcement.
Seriously doubt Bannon ever even asked Trump about affairs/sexual assaults/pay offs and no way Trump would have ever admitted anything. Pretty clear that Michael Cohen is Trump's long time bag man and knows more about Trunp's dirt than anyone other than Trump himself. Cohen can use attorney/client privilege, but he would be pardoned ahead of even Trump's kids when push comes to shove. Both Cohen and Trump are hosed if Cohen's implicated in money laundering.
Seriously doubt Bannon ever even asked Trump about affairs/sexual assaults/pay offs and no way Trump would have ever admitted anything. Pretty clear that Michael Cohen is Trump's long time bag man and knows more about Trunp's dirt than anyone other than Trump himself. Cohen can use attorney/client privilege, but he would be pardoned ahead of even Trump's kids when push comes to shove. Both Cohen and Trump are hosed if Cohen's implicated in money laundering.
The tax cuts for the poor and the middle class are the bribe to allow a larger and more permanent cut for the wealthy and uber wealthy. It's a terrible thing for this nation right now, when taxes actually should have gone up rather than down on personal income and capital gains on the top brackets.iwantwinners said:This post illuminates a lot about the modern Left, even though you said nothing at all other than make statements of opinion guised as facts without actually supporting it.Cave Bear said:(1) "massive tax cuts" -- This "accomplishment" is a crime against the nation.ARbear said:
To start, massive tax cuts, created tons of jobs, economy is soaring, illegal immigration is down, destroying ISIS, Jerusalem is recognized as Israel's capital. Also, Trump has not lied. He has been doing exactly what he promised during his campaign. Most politicians promise tons of things while campaigning and quickly go back on their word.
(2) "economy is soaring" -- The continuing economic recovery in 2017 is to Obama's credit. Trump changed nothing in the structure of Obama's economic policies until December. The economy is also not "soaring", only the securities markets. It's not surprising that a conservative equates these, of course.
(3) "illegal immigration is down" -- This is a false accomplishment. It wasn't a problem to begin with.
(4) "destroying ISIS" -- This is not Trump's accomplishment. It's like saying Truman won WWII.
(5) "Jerusalem is recognized as Israel's capital" -- Another criminal deed.
Your list of Trump's "accomplishments" boils down to three items he deserves little or no credit for and two items that are awful things.
Also, Trump has lied hundreds of times. I don't know what you think there is to gain from making a claim that can be disproved so easily:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
Tax cuts putting money into the poor and middle class' hands is a "crime against the nation". OK. Keep giving away more of your stuff to an invisible entity.
Trump indeed has nothing to do with the economy. The tax plan was the first thing he did to help put more money into Americans' pockets
Illegal immigration is "flat", at 11.1 million in 2017. Roughly 8 million of them work, while roughly only 3.4 million of them paid taxes. Studies report illegal immigrants receive anywhere from $12-$85 billion a year in federal, state and local benefits. Obama saw illegal immigration as a problem, deporting more illegal immigrants through immigration orders than any other president in history. He should be lauded for this, but the modern Left is either silent on this or critical of him, or they don't care. Funnily enough they care now. But yeah, immigration policy is a non-issue.
Economic impact is not limited to to net taxes paid vs benefits received. The balance on that equation should be larger on the benefits side when the subject is a person under the poverty limit. Those 8 million working people add more to this economy in their productivity and consumption than they cost in services and depressed domestic wages.iwantwinners said:This post illuminates a lot about the modern Left, even though you said nothing at all other than make statements of opinion guised as facts without actually supporting it.Cave Bear said:(1) "massive tax cuts" -- This "accomplishment" is a crime against the nation.ARbear said:
To start, massive tax cuts, created tons of jobs, economy is soaring, illegal immigration is down, destroying ISIS, Jerusalem is recognized as Israel's capital. Also, Trump has not lied. He has been doing exactly what he promised during his campaign. Most politicians promise tons of things while campaigning and quickly go back on their word.
(2) "economy is soaring" -- The continuing economic recovery in 2017 is to Obama's credit. Trump changed nothing in the structure of Obama's economic policies until December. The economy is also not "soaring", only the securities markets. It's not surprising that a conservative equates these, of course.
(3) "illegal immigration is down" -- This is a false accomplishment. It wasn't a problem to begin with.
(4) "destroying ISIS" -- This is not Trump's accomplishment. It's like saying Truman won WWII.
(5) "Jerusalem is recognized as Israel's capital" -- Another criminal deed.
Your list of Trump's "accomplishments" boils down to three items he deserves little or no credit for and two items that are awful things.
Also, Trump has lied hundreds of times. I don't know what you think there is to gain from making a claim that can be disproved so easily:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
Tax cuts putting money into the poor and middle class' hands is a "crime against the nation". OK. Keep giving away more of your stuff to an invisible entity.
Trump indeed has nothing to do with the economy. The tax plan was the first thing he did to help put more money into Americans' pockets
Illegal immigration is "flat", at 11.1 million in 2017. Roughly 8 million of them work, while roughly only 3.4 million of them paid taxes. Studies report illegal immigrants receive anywhere from $12-$85 billion a year in federal, state and local benefits. Obama saw illegal immigration as a problem, deporting more illegal immigrants through immigration orders than any other president in history. He should be lauded for this, but the modern Left is either silent on this or critical of him, or they don't care. Funnily enough they care now. But yeah, immigration policy is a non-issue.
https://www.cfr.org/report/economic-logic-illegal-immigration
I don't care what Obama did. He was wrong too. So what?
Getting cheap labor so you don't have to raise wages to get natives to do the work is double edged sword and where you come out on it depends on your views on globalism.
Agriculture benefits from importing cheap labor because it would have to raise wages considerably to get citizens to do this highly laborious work. That would raise the cost of production, and thus the cost of goods. Cheap labor depresses wages (generally not good). Higher wages increases the cost of goods (generally not good).
Raising taxes on the top brackets only makes sense because of a huge deficit and debt. And therein lies the rub. The government racking up debt by giving things to their base and not cutting anything else to pay for it gives them never ending license to tax and tax for more revenue. Now there is a logical argument to raise taxes: "We need additional revenue to pay off this debt we got you all into"
Agriculture benefits from importing cheap labor because it would have to raise wages considerably to get citizens to do this highly laborious work. That would raise the cost of production, and thus the cost of goods. Cheap labor depresses wages (generally not good). Higher wages increases the cost of goods (generally not good).
Raising taxes on the top brackets only makes sense because of a huge deficit and debt. And therein lies the rub. The government racking up debt by giving things to their base and not cutting anything else to pay for it gives them never ending license to tax and tax for more revenue. Now there is a logical argument to raise taxes: "We need additional revenue to pay off this debt we got you all into"
None of this is applicable to what I've written.Unit2Sucks said:
Sycasey - the goal of people like iwantwinners is to demonize the democrats. They would rather argue that democrats are comin' fer yer guns than argue about precisely what level of gun control strikes the right balance. Similarly, they argue that democrats are for open borders (SOROS!!!!) because they would like to avoid a nuanced discussion of what level of immigration is appropriate and what the mix should be (skilled/unskilled/educated/diversity/etc.). Even though no one of consequence is advocating for open borders, conservatives like to attribute that as the ultimate end goal of anyone who is advocating anything other than closed borders ('cept for Norwegians apparently).
I keep bringing up H1-B because it exposes a clear hole in their deflection scheme. On the one hand when discussing the movement of unskilled laborers across the southern border (which is actually flat/negative over the last decade) they point out that our country really needs skilled foreigners to help us out. On the other hand, when discussing H1-B in a vacuum they say that those immigrants are taking away good jobs from Americans and the system is being abused. Of course the system could be reformed (as proposed by Zoe Lofgren with backing from Silicon Valley businesses) to remedy this abuse, but instead we have incoherent and contradictory proclamations from Trump and his administration which throws the entire system into doubt.
I've stated what the right balance of immigration I'd support. A need-based immigration policy. Period. If there is an occupation that is short of labor, provide visas to those who have the skills to close that gap. Pay to play. No arbitrary visa allotments in loyalty to "diversity". Diversity of color or ethnic background is an absurd goal and has no inherent moral or cultural value in and of itself, given that thankfully we live in an era where one's immutable characteristics don't matter, the content of your character and the value you offer does. MLK and many others fought hard to achieve that cultural value, and seemingly many in our society have sprung out of the woodwork and are attempting to turn back the clock to a darker time where skin color and status determine your character and "privilege" and value.
I don't not acknowledge the historical impact of discrimination of blacks, just like the discrimination of Japanese, Irish, Italian, Jewish immigrants etc. From the CIA conspiring to infiltrate poor neighborhoods with crack to redlining, it's ugly.sycasey said:You proclaim that your conclusion about a problem with black "culture" and "values" is clearly "correct," yet the only evidentiary support you provide are statistics showing that, yes, there are problems with crime and broken families in the African-American community. Sure, you're right about that. But I see no real attempt here to connect that to any potential CAUSE of such problems. (Other than to point to the violence/misogyny/homophobia expressed in rap music, as if that's the only kind of popular music from that era to express such things. Have you listened to any heavy metal or punk rock lyrics from that time? Paragons of virtue, those artists were not.)iwantwinners said:While true, this is not an argument in support of the 'rightness/wrongness' of said 'narrative', which is what we're after here, or in any conversation, I assume, unless maybe I'm unveiling the priorities of certain folks, which is that being right is relatively meaningless compared to feeling good.sycasey said:
The Republican/conservative narrative about Black Lives Matter, black crime, black poverty, and black families is so convincing that African-American voters vote for Democrats 90% of the time. Well, at least they got Ben Carson.
What is the 'narrative' on these matters? Let's focus on what is correct. The conclusion I arrive at is the underachievement of certain groups has little to do with race and everything to do with culture and values. I believe this not because I want to, or because I chose a narrative that I prefer -- I don't like coming to this conclusion. I wish the Leftist regressive dream were true, that if only we could magically eliminate every racist thought and action from the ethos overnight, blacks would start graduating HS more, going out to get more jobs, stop having children before wedlock and having jobs, stop killing each other at rates much worse than other groups.
The poverty argument is not true. Black poverty was extremely high pre-civil rights movement in an era where racism was sanctioned and cultural racism was rampant, yet the crime rate was much lower than today, when 13% of the population commits over 50% of the homicides, most of them intraracial. The single parent household rate went from something like 15% in 1960 to 72% in 2013. The counter culture 1960's affected all races adversely, as crime across the board went up and so did single parent households. Government became the new daddy, and adversarial sub-cultures within the black community developed, manifesting itself in a gangster rap of the 80's and 90's, which glorified and romanticized attitudes, values and a culture that are rejected in almost every other realm of our society: sexism, misogyny, violence, homicide, homophobia, rape, the list is seemingly endless. But all races of the left combine to either acquiesce, deny, apologize, defend, and even lionize attitudes and values when expressed in this medium. The placation of the problems within these communities is helping sustain these issues.
This is a long topic, but show me an underachieving community, and I will show you a culture/value problem. I don't know if they are wrong or right for voting 90% Democrat. However, I don't believe in identity politics, so I find the idea of voting for a group that typically favors policy that happens to "benefit" the group you identify with based on your race sort of a misnomer
These problems do not exist in a vacuum. Here's one possible cause: right around the time period you cite (late '60s to early '70s), a few things happened. One is that the Civil Rights Movement (featuring MLK et al) agitated for and eventually won more rights for black Americans. In response, Nixon and the Republican Party specifically began to employ the "Southern Strategy" to start winning over Southern voters again. This was a deliberate (and fairly well-documented) attempt to divide the country along racial lines and convince white voters to vote with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Another thing that happened was that America's "War on Drugs" began in earnest. That's not something you can entirely lay at the feet of Republicans; the war ramped up through both Republican and Democratic administrations. Many argue that this war disproportionately impacted black families, as sentencing and enforcement was generally harsher for blacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
What does that mean? More black men in prison means more broken homes, which means more youths turning to crime, which means more of them in prison. This also leads to more reliance on government safety-net programs, not because they want to, but because they have to. A vicious cycle, not all of it based on black people having a worse "culture" or "values," and in fact you could argue that this culture EMERGED from the bad situation a lot of these families found themselves in. There's a lot more to unpack here than your original comments would let on.
You are logically correct that African-Americans voting heavily Democratic does not PROVE they are right that Republican and/or conservative ideas about how to help their community are wrong-headed. However, I would argue that if I were truly interested in helping a group of historically oppressed people (and not just scoring political and rhetorical points to help my own causes), I might listen to what they have to say about their problems and where they come from. If 90% of them said my ideas were wrong, that would give me pause. If I didn't really care about that and only cared about how this debate could benefit me, then I would very easily ignore them.
Now, let's talk about how this might relate to immigration. I'm sure you will vociferously disagree, but the general feeling I get from your posts is that immigration is strictly a self-centered enterprise for you. If immigrants don't immediately benefit you or your country, then they shouldn't be let in. Anyone who wants to advocate for more immigration needs to show that this will immediately and monetarily benefit the country, or no deal. I think that's short-sighted. Yes, of course those things should be a concern. But is there not also a moral obligation to help those in need as much as possible? What about those from war-torn countries, sometimes from wars we had a hand in starting? What about one of the foundational values of the country, embodied on that Statue of Liberty quote about tired, huddled masses yearning to breathe free? That is the real push-pull dynamic at play here, the practical issues of immigration policy butting up against the values we want to embody as a nation. If you lose the latter, then I think you lose the plot a little bit. Ruthless self-interest, IMO, only takes you so far.
Of course it's also true that a pure "open border" scenario wouldn't work either. For good reason, you want to (at minimum) try to prevent terrorists or other criminals from entering the country for nefarious purposes. Some vetting will always be required. Here's the thing: no one is arguing that it isn't. "Open borders" in the way you describe it is not a serious position advanced by any elected officials in Congress. The questions are of degree and purpose.
Here's what's actually being debated right now: how to handle DACA recipients. When Trump made his "s***hole" comments it was not in a meeting where someone was trying to convince him to support an "open border" policy, it was in a meeting with Senators to discuss a potential deal on DACA. This is about undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children (through no fault of their own), who were temporarily granted (by Obama) some manner of legal protection to remain in the country, as long as they (1) maintain a clean criminal record and (2) manage to keep a job or stay in school. To me, those seem like the kinds of immigrants who have demonstrated their worth to our society and who should be allowed to stay. What exactly is the utility of making comments about "s***hole countries" in this context? Is there any way that kind of comment is helpful here?
Today, what can a white person do that a black person cannot? What resources or opportunities are afforded to whites and not to blacks on the basis of their skin color? If you come up with something, go ahead and call the DOJ, as it's a violation of civil rights. They will appreciate you bringing something that has been unbeknownst to others to their attention.
If you eliminate all racist thought and action from the ethos today, what changes tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next decade for blacks without an act of will? We can talk about what contributed to certain anti-social sub-cultures within black communities, but what can be done today and tomorrow to improve their situation? It will take a cultural shift, an end to the placation of what degenerative values and attitudes that are antithetical to flourishing in any racial community exist in these under performing communities.
Breaking cycles of poverty, crime, education, or negative cultural traits take an act of will, supported by mentors who advocate for the traits that lead to success, not moral charlatans who are advocates of victimhood and putting the onus on the external rather than the self for one's own life. It takes black leaders communicating heartbreaking truths about 'racism' and culture. It cannot be done by a government program (money). It takes acts of will at the individual/family level, for one person to recognize and break the cycle, and thus pass it on to their family, community, children. And so a new cycle begins, a cycle of positive success, a cycle that also usually requires acts of will to SUSTAIN that cycle.
You and others seem to take great umbrage at a comment of fact happens to be lacking in tact. You are free to be outraged over such as some sort of mission to be offended so that you can view yourself as an 'advocate' of Haitians in this case and ethnic immigrants more generally. I won't argue that it wasn't tactful or 'appropriate' given the setting.
iwantwinners said:
I don't not acknowledge the historical impact of discrimination of blacks, just like the discrimination of Japanese, Irish, Italian, Jewish immigrants etc. From the CIA conspiring to infiltrate poor neighborhoods with crack to redlining, it's ugly.
Today, what can a white person do that a black person cannot? What resources or opportunities are afforded to whites and not to blacks on the basis of their skin color? If you come up with something, go ahead and call the DOJ, as it's a violation of civil rights. They will appreciate you bringing something that has been unbeknownst to others to their attention.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that prior discrimination (really, outright persecution) against blacks has no impact on their current descendants. I think that's a faulty assumption.
That said, here's one thing a white person can usually get that a black person cannot: a call back to interview for a job.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
iwantwinners said:
You and others seem to take great umbrage at a comment of fact happens to be lacking in tact. You are free to be outraged over such as some sort of mission to be offended so that you can view yourself as an 'advocate' of Haitians in this case and ethnic immigrants more generally. I won't argue that it wasn't tactful or 'appropriate' given the setting.
I can't speak for everyone else, but personally I take the most umbrage that the current negotiations over how to handle DACA recipients (an important issue that affects a lot of people) are being derailed in part by Trump and his lack of tact. The President should be above the use of juvenile insults when negotiating something like this.
[url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/][/url]You've got to do better than this. Like the 'women get paid 75 cents on the dollor for the same job as men' garbage as 'proof' of widespread sexism.Quote:
That said, here's one thing a white person can usually get that a black person cannot: a call back to interview for a job.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
The grievance industry is a business, and it needs customers. The loudest claiming racism seem to be the least interested in equality or seeking solutions to the culprits of widespread underachievement within certain communities. We are not afraid to tell "white trailer trash" why they are failures and why we don't like them. It's their culture and values.
This idea that an incomplete and biased study not taking into account the contents of such resumes suggests that white collar black candidates being passed over on the basis of their name is why blacks don't graduate form HS as much, or commit half the homicides. If in studies there are lots of jobs where 10 candidates for a job and 9 are black and one is white and the white person gets the job, is that proof or even suggestive of racism? If the study shows in many that 9 are white and one is black and the black person gets the job, is that suggestive racism doesn't exist? No and no.
iwantwinners said:[url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/][/url]You've got to do better than this. Like the 'women get paid 75 cents on the dollor for the same job as men' garbage as 'proof' of widespread sexism.Quote:
That said, here's one thing a white person can usually get that a black person cannot: a call back to interview for a job.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
The grievance industry is a business, and it needs customers. The loudest claiming racism seem to be the least interested in equality or seeking solutions to the culprits of widespread underachievement within certain communities. We are not afraid to tell "white trailer trash" why they are failures and why we don't like them. It's their culture and values.
This idea that an incomplete and biased study not taking into account the contents of such resumes suggests that white collar black candidates being passed over on the basis of their name is why blacks don't graduate form HS as much, or commit half the homicides. If in studies there are lots of jobs where 10 candidates for a job and 9 are black and one is white and the white person gets the job, is that proof or even suggestive of racism? If the study shows in many that 9 are white and one is black and the black person gets the job, is that suggestive racism doesn't exist? No and no.
I don't think your posts are accomplishing what you think. Unless it's pity you seek.
From the fact-checking article I linked:iwantwinners said:[url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/][/url]You've got to do better than this. Like the 'women get paid 75 cents on the dollor for the same job as men' garbage as 'proof' of widespread sexism.Quote:
That said, here's one thing a white person can usually get that a black person cannot: a call back to interview for a job.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
The grievance industry is a business, and it needs customers. The loudest claiming racism seem to be the least interested in equality or seeking solutions to the culprits of widespread underachievement within certain communities. We are not afraid to tell "white trailer trash" why they are failures and why we don't like them. It's their culture and values.
This idea that an incomplete and biased study not taking into account the contents of such resumes suggests that white collar black candidates being passed over on the basis of their name is why blacks don't graduate form HS as much, or commit half the homicides. If in studies there are lots of jobs where 10 candidates for a job and 9 are black and one is white and the white person gets the job, is that proof or even suggestive of racism? If the study shows in many that 9 are white and one is black and the black person gets the job, is that suggestive racism doesn't exist? No and no.
Quote:
A reputable study by respected economists of callback rates for resumes with white- and black-sounding names backs up this point.
I'll stand by my point.
However, I will give you one point: I'm not sure that government programs targeted specifically at race are going to be as effective now as they were in MLK's day. The issue now is that so much of the historical racial oppression is tied up in economic well-being, as in: because your family was prevented from earning money, owning property, etc., in the past, you're now starting from a lower rung in trying to advance up the social ladder. Of course this does not affect blacks exclusively, but disproportionately it did.
So perhaps the new focus needs to be on government programs to combat income inequality and our country's steady slide towards oligarchy. Only this time they should not discriminate against non-white people as they did in FDR's time.
Yes, blacks and other minorities are playing catch-up due to history, but what is and what will determine the rate of improvement will be culture and values, not eliminating every thought of racism or more government programs or placating their failures. Is it not self-evident that Asian-American success, which includes having higher per capita than whites despite being minority immigrants, is due to cultural values of education, family obedience, respect of behavioral authority figures, professional status, etc? They have no 'privilege,' no head start. The battles blacks have fighting cycles of poverty that initiated with historical discrimination and perpetuated in large part due to a development of adversarial cultural attitudes and values within certain subcultures face the same obstacles other poor communities of any race face. They have access to all the public resources and benefits that other races do. You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink. All communities and cultures have to develop the value system that embraces the methods of obtaining entry into the middle and upper classes at similar levels as their peers.sycasey said:
However, I will give you one point: I'm not sure that government programs targeted specifically at race are going to be as effective now as they were in MLK's day. The issue now is that so much of the historical racial oppression is tied up in economic well-being, as in: because your family was prevented from earning money, owning property, etc., in the past, you're now starting from a lower rung in trying to advance up the social ladder. Of course this does not affect blacks exclusively, but disproportionately it did.
So perhaps the new focus needs to be on government programs to combat income inequality and our country's steady slide towards oligarchy. Only this time they should not discriminate against non-white people as they did in FDR's time.
It depends on a lot more than just your view on globalism. I'm not interested in maintaining the unregulated wage labor pool for our agribusinesses. They don't deserve that kind of protection and I'd think would deserve your scorn for hiring undocumented workers since they're breaking the law both in letter and in spirit given how you're so attached to legalism. Amnesty and guest worker status will force employers to start paying them the minimum wage and giving them access to labor protections. The impact on US wages gets slashed into a fraction, as now US laborers aren't competing against workers who can command lower wages. I'll be all for more tax breaks and subsidies for the small minority of the agribusiness market that are small farmers and the big firms can eat it as they should. We should add these people to our nation, not keep them around for criminally low wage labor.iwantwinners said:
Getting cheap labor so you don't have to raise wages to get natives to do the work is double edged sword and where you come out on it depends on your views on globalism.
Agriculture benefits from importing cheap labor because it would have to raise wages considerably to get citizens to do this highly laborious work. That would raise the cost of production, and thus the cost of goods. Cheap labor depresses wages (generally not good). Higher wages increases the cost of goods (generally not good).
Economics is not the deepest issue in the immigration debate nor is law and order. The deepest issue is racism and nativism. Political groups with white ethnic and nativist identity elements are afraid of the nation's demographics. If Canada was hit with a hypothetical disaster that turned it into the economic, ethical and humanitarian catastrophe that Mexico is, we would have millions of refugees from that country streaming across our border and we would not forsake them. Not to mention, we would mount a historic economic and governmental effort to repair their nation, something we have never been interested in attempting with Mexico. After we crushed them and took half of their country we were pretty much hoping to have nothing to do with them. If there's any foreign country we should be doing nation building in it's Mexico.
Raising taxes on the top brackets makes sense for a lot of reasons and requires neither a huge deficit or debt. Raising taxes will help the economy and raise standards of living throughout the country. It will unlock a huge portion of the nation's wealth that now circulates between the financial market and the wealthy.Quote:
Raising taxes on the top brackets only makes sense because of a huge deficit and debt. And therein lies the rub. The government racking up debt by giving things to their base and not cutting anything else to pay for it gives them never ending license to tax and tax for more revenue. Now there is a logical argument to raise taxes: "We need additional revenue to pay off this debt we got you all into"
This tax cut is an example of government racking up debt by pandering to their base. It's going to result in a massive long term shortfall of federal revenue that will not be met with adequate spending cuts and not provide the value of economic benefit claimed by the plan's advocates.
We ran balanced budget governments powered by huge tax rates for decades after WWII when we had massive debt and it was incredibly productive. We should do it again and never undo it. Instead we get a massive tax cut tailored to give the majority of its relief to the wealthy. The sound of champagne bottles uncorking is heard throughout Wall Street. We're going to continue to run huge deficits while actually reducing services and accelerating the domination of society by the uber wealthy.
That's fine. I think that "value system" has a better chance to develop if the members of that community are not thrown in jail at higher rates than the rest of the population or prevented from acquiring better jobs because of outside perceptions of said community. I think that those outside perceptions have a better chance of changing if people like you (and that hack Dinesh D'Souza) are not peddling ideas about how "black culture" is inherently flawed and that their problems have nothing to do with racism (current or historical).iwantwinners said:Yes, blacks and other minorities are playing catch-up due to history, but what is and what will determine the rate of improvement will be culture and values, not eliminating every thought of racism or more government programs or placating their failures. Is it not self-evident that Asian-American success, which includes having higher per capita than whites despite being minority immigrants, is due to cultural values of education, family obedience, respect of behavioral authority figures, professional status, etc? They have no 'privilege,' no head start. The battles blacks have fighting cycles of poverty that initiated with historical discrimination and perpetuated in large part due to a development of adversarial cultural attitudes and values within certain subcultures face the same obstacles other poor communities of any race face. They have access to all the public resources and benefits that other races do. You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink. All communities and cultures have to develop the value system that embraces the methods of obtaining entry into the middle and upper classes at similar levels as their peers.sycasey said:
However, I will give you one point: I'm not sure that government programs targeted specifically at race are going to be as effective now as they were in MLK's day. The issue now is that so much of the historical racial oppression is tied up in economic well-being, as in: because your family was prevented from earning money, owning property, etc., in the past, you're now starting from a lower rung in trying to advance up the social ladder. Of course this does not affect blacks exclusively, but disproportionately it did.
So perhaps the new focus needs to be on government programs to combat income inequality and our country's steady slide towards oligarchy. Only this time they should not discriminate against non-white people as they did in FDR's time.
This is an invalid argument, as it presupposes if one group has a higher rate of something than it MUST be discrimination. Is racist cops the reason why blacks commit 50% of homicides while being 13% of the population, or that 93% of black victims of crime were perpetrated by other blacks? Is racism why blacks aren't graduating HS at rates close to their peers, or why subcultures within the community promote and glorify all the values the left proselytize about and it's acquiesced by our society in light of their skin color?Quote:
That's fine. I think that "value system" has a better chance to develop if the members of that community are not thrown in jail at higher rates than the rest of the population or prevented from acquiring better jobs because of outside perceptions of said community. I think that those outside perceptions have a better chance of changing if people like you (and that hack Dinseh D'Souza) are not peddling ideas about how "black culture" is inherently flawed and that their problems have nothing to do with racism (current or historical).
Black culture isn't inherently flawed, that's racism, just like it would be to say a certain race is inherently inferior. The fact is that negative subcultures antithetical to flourishing in society developed post-civil rights movement that should render it at the margins of their community, but it doesn't, and it doesn't help that people exalt racism as enemy #1 and the primary obstacle towards achieving success when there are no facts that support it. Regardless of how and what spawned these cultural developments, the primary goal is to change it going forward. Eliminating racism does nothing in this regard if that were possible.
"Black culture isn't inherently flawed, but here are some reasons why I think it's all their own fault. Not a racist, though! Just want to make that clear."iwantwinners said:
Black culture isn't inherently flawed, that's racism, just like it would be to say a certain race is inherently inferior. The fact is that negative subcultures antithetical to flourishing in society developed post-civil rights movement that should render it at the margins of their community, but it doesn't, and it doesn't help that people exalt racism as enemy #1 and the primary obstacle towards achieving success when there are no facts that support it. Regardless of how and what spawned these cultural developments, the primary goal is to change it going forward. Eliminating racism does nothing in this regard if that were possible.
I'm interested in hearing some examples for what kinds of facts could exist that would support itiwantwinners said:This is an invalid argument, as it presupposes if one group has a higher rate of something than it MUST be discrimination. Is racist cops the reason why blacks commit 50% of homicides while being 13% of the population, or that 93% of black victims of crime were perpetrated by other blacks? Is racism why blacks aren't graduating HS at rates close to their peers, or why subcultures within the community promote and glorify all the values the left proselytize about and it's acquiesced by our society in light of their skin color?Quote:
That's fine. I think that "value system" has a better chance to develop if the members of that community are not thrown in jail at higher rates than the rest of the population or prevented from acquiring better jobs because of outside perceptions of said community. I think that those outside perceptions have a better chance of changing if people like you (and that hack Dinseh D'Souza) are not peddling ideas about how "black culture" is inherently flawed and that their problems have nothing to do with racism (current or historical).
Black culture isn't inherently flawed, that's racism, just like it would be to say a certain race is inherently inferior. The fact is that negative subcultures antithetical to flourishing in society developed post-civil rights movement that should render it at the margins of their community, but it doesn't, and it doesn't help that people exalt racism as enemy #1 and the primary obstacle towards achieving success when there are no facts that support it. Regardless of how and what spawned these cultural developments, the primary goal is to change it going forward. Eliminating racism does nothing in this regard if that were possible.
Your agenda and emotive bias allow you to perceive it that way. It's about what to do going forward to change outcomes. Regardless of how you purport blame, addressing degenerative subcultures within these communities is what will drive and sustain positive generational outcomes.sycasey said:"Black culture isn't inherently flawed, but here are some reasons why I think it's all their own fault. Not a racist, though! Just want to make that clear."iwantwinners said:
Black culture isn't inherently flawed, that's racism, just like it would be to say a certain race is inherently inferior. The fact is that negative subcultures antithetical to flourishing in society developed post-civil rights movement that should render it at the margins of their community, but it doesn't, and it doesn't help that people exalt racism as enemy #1 and the primary obstacle towards achieving success when there are no facts that support it. Regardless of how and what spawned these cultural developments, the primary goal is to change it going forward. Eliminating racism does nothing in this regard if that were possible.
Placating their problems by cloaking them in dishonest calls to racism exacerbate the issue, and it does promote any kind of change. It's "people are racist, and until we wipe racism out, you guys are screwed". The facts reject this conclusion.
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Advances Past Virginia Tech In Double Overtime
by Cal Athletics
Bear Insider Video: Cal WR Coach Kyle Cefalo
by Jim McGill