"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: It behooves all of us to be just as indignant about racism in any venue, regardless of ethnicity of the racist. But whites are often the sole receipient of that indignation, Kim. Show me a message anywhere in any of these newsgroups at any time where you've expressed any indignation whatsoever about the racism of any other racial group. If you're typical, I seriously doubt you can do so. Instead, you attempt to explain away the racism of others like you've done below. I doubt I am typical, Dwight. I also don't know if you'd find any posts like you describe above. However, you're quite wrong about my being indignant toward *any* form of discrimination. I am and always have been, as far as I know. I remember even as a kid being offended by such things. I am just as adamant about women bashing men as I am about anyone else bashing based on gender, race, etc. That having been said, I can understand some of the seclusion each race enjoys from others, IF the purpose is cultural. What is specific to a black mayors conference are those things specifically related to black issues in the community(ies) they represent. (snip) I thought a mayor is elected to represent the whole community, not solely the "black issues in the community(ies) they represent." What about the whites issues in the communities they represent? Why aren't those black mayors getting together to discuss those? Dwight, for goodness sake. I am not going to get into a huge idiosynchratic dialogue with you about this issue. Suffice it to say that days like Black Mayoral Conferences are set aside to deal specifically with, well, specific things. I have no doubt that someone who is on the up and up about their position in a community--regardless of who they are--is doing their job as they should be. It sounds like it's an issue for you, though. Sorry I don't buy into it. Since those black mayors won't, who does address those issues? Absolutely nobody is the only answer. Then, I doubt they'll be in office long. It's as simple as that. If a white mayor, or any other politician (black or white, police chief to president), expresses even a hint of concern for white issues, the word "racist" is immediately thrown around. Sure. By nitwits who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Do you choose to listen to them, believe them, appreciate or agree with them? I don't. In the end, a concern for whites is just about an ultimate sin in this government. And it is going to stay that way until whites start demanding some representation for their issues in this government. I don't know, Dwight. That sounds pretty serious to me...and I haven't really witnessed such a thing. You point out behaviors that are certainly around--I won't deny that. But, they are in the minority and displayed by blithering idiots. I am certain that if there were issues that needed addressing in a "whites only" venue, then you'd see a white mayors conference and, honestly, I am not so sure there isn't one. Be serious, Kim. First, I suspect a conference like that would be considered illegal by the Justice Department - minorities can but whites cannot. Second, if such a conference were held, groups throughout the country would be out outraged, demonstrations would be held, lawsuits would be filed, and people like you would be running around screaming your indignation again. "People like me"? People like me?! Describe a "people like me" won't you? I'm quite offended by the characterization there, Dwight, I'll tell you that. The chaos you describe above is that of movies and books. I think this country and the people in it have moved a little bit further ahead than the concepts which you depict above. We're all still quite capable of senseless rage once in a while--but, for the most part, we've become very civil in our dealings with each other. Thank goodness for that. And, we have a long, long way to go. What we may find generally attractive in a representative for the United States in a Miss America, is totally different from what the Black/Negro/Colored (depending on the part of society and geographical/historical perspective you come from) find in a representative specific to Black America. And that justifies the intentional and specific exclusion of other races in those pageants? Yeah. Probably. Why would what you say not be true for whites, yet such an event held by whites which specificially excludes other races is illegal. I doubt that quite seriuosly. Check out many clubs around this country and let me know how many non-white members you see. Hell, there are probably some golf courses Tiger Woods isn't allowed on, for goodness sake. And I'll add to JJ's examples. What about black colleges which exclude other races? Are you as upset about gender specific schools? I gave some other examples, such as women's sports, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Masons, Eastern Star--all and many more of which are specific to "types" of membership, Dwight. I've got pretty much no problem with them. What about black owned businesses with not a single white employee in the entire building (many in my town alone)? Aw, c'mon. How many non-Chinese people are working at your local Chinese restaraunt? Have *you* applied for a positoin at the company you mention, above? Maybe no one's applied. Not saying they don't practice discrimination. If they do, then they're as wrong as wrong can be. Do something about it. What about the "Negro College Fund" which offers benefits only to blacks. What about "Black Entertainment Television?" I could list more. The point is that it would all be illegal (discrimination) if done by whites. I think you're going way, way overboard. What about "SPIKE" TV? Ya upset about that? I don't see that a all male organization is necessarily discriminatory, either. (snip) If the goals of that male-only organization were to promote the political and/or social advancement of males, would you still hold that same opinion? Personally, I *hope* they *are* promoting the political and/or social advancement of males. Seen the requirements of some finishing schools lately? What about a sports organization that won't allow women? Based on physical strength, not racial, social, or ethnic, considerations, Kim. There is a huge difference. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Pah....there it is. Now, that is as discriminatory as you can get, Dwight. And, I'm glad you walked right into what I was hoping I'd be able to demonstrate. Based on your opinion of women as demure and refined (ok, I'm going overboard there), you believe that sports organizations are keeping women out for the reason of their weakness. That's crap. You don't think there's women who could train and get pumped up enough to be on a male basketball team? Football, etc.? Sorry, I've seen 'em in the Ladies' Room. We are all people. I have every comfort in people feeling the need to "separate" into their corners once in a while. It is when the separatism becomes hateful that I have a problem... Kim W5TIT |
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "charlesb" wrote: Government does not and cannot provide prosperity. But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..." Yep. Which means to help those things along, not guarantee them. Equality of opportunity doesn't mean equality of result. In my opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy). I agree! Now how should the govt. go about promoting that? We've already talked about reducing immigration to increase demand for workers, thereby decreasing unemployment and increasing pay/benefit packages. The law of supply and demand says that higher prices will be the result of such a move. What else should be done? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes: Heck, some folks PAY for the privilege of "pick your own" (enter appropriate farm product name). But they get to keep what they pick. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: Dwight, I don't know how it is where you are, but here there is no one willing to do the work a lot of our immigrant population are willing to do--and do. Nonsense, Kim. The reason most people aren't willing to do those jobs is because the wages are so low. Offer decent wages and people will gladly do those jobs. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to be paying the price of your philosophy noted above. Oh. And how dare you tell me "nonsense," Dwight. I am relaying to you things from my own experience and you say to me, "NONSENSE?" Do you know how much like Larry Roll you are sounding? There are non-immigrant workers throughout this country busting their butts in construction jobs, laborer jobs, crappy jobs, and dangerious jobs. They do so because the wages are decent. My god, there are even people willing to walk into a nuclear reactor if the pay is good enough. Offer decent wages for almost ANY job and I'm fully convinced there will be plenty of non-immigrant workers willing to do those jobs. I see nothing to even suggest otherwise. And you'd better be ready to not be able to afford almost anything you buy cheaply right now BECAUSE of things as they are. I remember many times asking my teen-aged son to go get a job and, when he'd retort with, "there aren't any jobs," I would mention some of the things I knew were avaiable: farm work (building fences, etc.); any fast food chain, stock clerk, etc. He was indignant, at best, when he thought his mother would suggest such a thing to her own son...that was not work he was about to go do. Why should he work? He's living at home with mommy where everything is free and he's spoiled rotten. Uh, I don't know what home you're talking about, but my kids were not spoiled rotten. They got no car unless they bought it themselves. They did NOT get any monetary support from me for any of their wants or needs in any area except school and clothing. And, they were told they could either spend my $200.00 on one outfit at Gadzooks for the whole schoolyear, or they could go to Wal-Mart and get several pairs of Rustler Jeans and some shirts and shoes. When he is old enough, throw his butt out and watch how fast his work ethic changes. In the meantime, sharply reduce the money you give him (no car, no fancy school cloths, no expensive shoes, no music CD's, no stereo, and so on) and tell him to get a job if he wants those extras. After he throws a temper tantrum for a few months, wears out of the stuff he has now, and realises you're serious, a job will look much more appealing to him. He will have to do all this eventually anyway, so now is a good time to start properly preparing him for his future. Later, once he has to start paying for them, he'll miss the free food you gave him and the free shelter you provided. Like I said. Don't know whose home you've been peering into, but it ain't mine. My sons are long from teen-aged any more. Now, I meet adults with the same attitude. I am very thankful for that part of my community with people who are willing to take on the immense task of the "physical labor" jobs that many of us wouldn't be caught doing. Very thankful indeed, for no one else would do them. Like those other adults you mention, there are many jobs I will not do today, Kim. I can't afford to do those low paying jobs if I want to feed my family, live in a decent home, and make the car payments. And I'm certainly not willing to live twenty to a hotel room or apartment like you see so many poor illegal immigrants doing today. And, lets face it, I just can't physically do some of those jobs anymore. But none of that suggests for a moment that I'm not willing to work. Likewise, none of that suggests there are no younger non-immigrants willing to do those jobs if the wages were decent. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Didn't say you aren't willing to work. And you're comments above about how tough those jobs are for very little pay and how you wouldn't do them...just highlights exactly what I was saying. Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Dwight Stewart wrote: "N2EY" wrote: OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor? If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed going there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked side-by-side with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However, because of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do some those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few farmers in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for the fun of it. Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject. No, the damned rub is in how much our products would cost if the jobs migrant and transient workers do were paid at much higher pay scales!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not that I want to see anyone suffering... However, I doubt you'd find the workforce needed to do the jobs even *with* a higher payscale... Physical labor is an art these days. Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dwight Stewart wrote: "N2EY" wrote: OK fine. You wanna do migrant farm labor? If I could still physically do it, I'd be thrilled to do so, Jim. My grandmother owned a huge farm in North Carolina and I truly enjoyed going there every summer during my teenage years to work. I worked side-by-side with the hired laborers and did every single job they did. However, because of the low wages for most of those jobs today, I certainly wouldn't do some those jobs today (even if I could physically do so). However, a few farmers in the area still pay well and they have no problems finding labor. If I could do it, I wouldn't mind doing one of those jobs one summer just for the fun of it. Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject. No, the damned rub is in how much our products would cost if the jobs migrant and transient workers do were paid at much higher pay scales!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not that I want to see anyone suffering... But where do we stop? As I noted to Jim, there are new jobs "going away" from America, like those in some IT fields. Don't expect it to stop there. The companies can pay much less for the help in India, and I guess we are to be happy that our software may cost less. I'd pay a little more for tech help I can understand. Anymore, it is getting really hard to make out what the tech help is telling me. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Dwight, for goodness sake. I am not going to get into a huge idiosynchratic dialogue with you about this issue. Suffice it to say that days like Black Mayoral Conferences are set aside to deal specifically with, well, specific things. (snip) But there cannot be a white mayors conference to discuss, well, specific things. There are laws against discrimination in this country which makes such events illegal. But those laws don't apply to blacks and other minorities. If it did, the Justice Department would have shut down the black mayors' conference. "People like me"? People like me?! Describe a "people like me" won't you? I'm quite offended by the characterization there, Dwight, I'll tell you that. "People like you" are those who accuse a person of racism without giving that person an opportunity to explain anything you objected to. You did so in the very first message you posted to this thread. "People like you" are those who express indignation against one type of discrimination while trying to justify or explain away another. I doubt that quite seriuosly. (snip) You doubt there are laws prohibiting discrimination? Where have you been for the last few decades? A white oriented event or activity that specifically excludes other races is, and has been for a number of years, illegal. Yet there are events and activities throughout this country each year (such as the black mayor's conference) that specifically exclude whites. Openly allowing discrimination against whites while asserting court litigation against whites who discriminate against minorities is patently unfair. If you want one to be illegal, both should be illegal. And I simply don't think that is a racist view. Are you as upset about gender specific schools? I gave some other examples, such as women's sports, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Masons, Eastern Star--all and many more of which are specific to "types" of membership, Dwight. I've got pretty much no problem with them. Most of those are private organizations, not political or business organizations, Kim. The courts say there is a huge difference. And I agree there is a huge difference, which is why I've not mentioned a single private organization (black or otherwise) throughout this discussion. Instead, I've focused solely on business and political organizations. Aw, c'mon. How many non-Chinese people are working at your local Chinese restaraunt? Have *you* applied for a position at the company you mention above? Maybe no one's applied. (snip) First of all, I don't work for others anymore. I own my own companies. However, to address your specific point, the courts have ruled that the simple absense of minority employees in a place of business can show a "practice of discrimination." But, as I've already said, that doesn't apply to black owned businesses which refuse to hire white employees - as far as I know, there has never been a single successful case against a black owned company for discrimination against whites. I think you're going way, way overboard. What about "SPIKE" TV? Ya upset about that? What is there to be upset about? Are they excluding blacks in the television programs they show? Most of the shows I've seen on Spike TV have minorities in them. Pah....there it is. Now, that is as discriminatory as you can get, Dwight. And, I'm glad you walked right into what I was hoping I'd be able to demonstrate. Based on your opinion of women as demure and refined (ok, I'm going overboard there), you believe that sports organizations are keeping women out for the reason of their weakness. That's crap. You don't think there's women who could train and get pumped up enough to be on a male basketball team? Football, etc.? Sorry, I've seen 'em in the Ladies' Room. That's not what I think, Kim. Actually, since I'm not involved in sports in any way, I haven't given it much thought at all. Regardless, as I understand it, the practice is based on studies that have shown that women are injured more when allowed to participate in extremely physical sports activities with men. That was backed up by medical studies that have shown that the typical woman's bone structure is not as strong as the typical man's, no matter how much she pumps up her muscles in the gym. Where those, and other physical differences, are significant, certain exclusions have been allowed by the courts. Where it is not significant, exclusions are not allowed. Women participating in those sports activities seem to agree with the courts. Since few of the top women weight lifters, for example, can lift as much as a male in the same weight class, few have expressed any interest whatsoever in competing directly with men. That seems to be the case with most other similar sports activities. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Here lies the rub, Dwight! Although I disagree with a lot of your views on race, you are spot on on this thread sub-subject. Few people always agree with others on everything, Mike. It would be one darn boring world if we did, now wouldn't it? The reason that this is "undesirable" work is simply because the producers are allowed to get away with paying such low wages. If they don't even pay minimum, how is a citizen even supposed to legally hold the job? I agree. Coming from a semi-farm background myself, I certainly know a little bit about the profits earned from farming and the business practices (including labor practices) used throughout the industry. My grandmother and I have talked about such things many times. Anyway, I've seen a slow decline in the wages paid over the years. And I'm not talking about the small family farms. Family farms don't hire that many outside workers. Instead, the practice is seen most often on the large, corporate owned, farms - the farms owned by industries generating billions of dollars in profits each year. And nobody is going to convince me these corporations cannot afford to pay higher wages. If my grandmother can do it and still make good profits, these much more wealthy corporations can certainly do so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
Y'know, it's interesting that so far nobody has directly answered the question as to whether my grandparents should have been allowed into the country... Sorry, Jim, I didn't realize you expected a direct answer to that. In a round about way, I did answer your question when I talked about how immigrates years ago clearly benefited this country. Nobody is criticizing past immigration. The issue is massive immigration today and where we go with it. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: But government was created exactly to "...promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..." In my opinion, those blessings include a decent living and a fair share in the benefits of this country for all Americans (not just the wealthy). I get it....the federal government takes from the states, the states take from its workers. The Federal government redistributes the monies received from the state and the people back to the states, that now redistributes it to the people. Sounds like the failed Socialist system....just with one more step. Sorry.....that ain't what is 'supposed' to happen in this country. Don't get me started on that one. No, you don't get it, Dan. There is nothing in my comment about the federal government or state governments taking anything. Throughout this discussion, I've only talked about government policies to stimulate fair wages and reasonable business practices. The government has been doing that, in some form or another, since just about the very first day this country was created (though, IMO, has been doing a fairly poor job of it lately). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com