|
"JJ" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: Consider this. I've been toying with the idea over the last few years that it will the "menial" (as was put by someone else--I don't agree with the term) jobs that will gradually grow to the higher paid jobs in this country...because there will be less and less people who *will* do them. The "services" of a migrant worker or a fast food person, or a municipal worker or construction worker will become so highly needed, that they will be able to demand a pretty penny for their work. And when this happens your taco and a coke at Taco Bell will cost you $15. Yep, my point exactly... Kim W5TIT |
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all? Prior to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and Senate, insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery. Slavery was only abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States (which included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in that vote. (snip) why, in it's aftermath, did one of the most famous Confederate Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest, organize the Ku Klux Klan? (snip) When you answer that, perhaps you can also answer why so many Northerners join the KKK. Dwight: I consider the KKK to be about racism, not slavery. It was originally started as a response to the heavy-handed political disenfranchisement of the former Confederate states by Northern "Carpetbaggers" who essentially swept into the South and took over in the aftermath of the Civil War. I don't believe that was right and never said so. However, the KKK, instead of targeting the mostly white Yankee politicians who violated the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Southern states, chose instead to target ethnic and religious groups, such as blacks, Catholics, and particularly Jews. Therefore, their motives were wrong from the start. The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip) Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states that profited from the sale of slaves? Or more to answer for than those who used indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early 1900's? Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous century, or in the many centuries before that? I never said that slavery wasn't practiced in the North. (snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. (snip) Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what happened in a past long before they were born. However, in the context of our modern and presumably more enlightened times, they represent something that is, best, an anachronistic example of age-old prejudices. We should all be united under one flag, and that flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes -- not a big "X" running through it. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes: Larry, I'd gently remind you that there wouldn't be any citizens (well, very few - only the decendents of the original folks after the revolutionary war) at all under those rules. My great-grandfather and my grandfather (when he was 7) immigrated to the US in the late 1800s (my dads side). My mother's grandfather (my great-grandfather) immigrated from Canada. If their children couldn't become citizens, I wouldn't be one now. Heck, how could they hold a draft back in WWII with no citizens? Only draft foreigners? 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA Jim: The United States, like any other nation, has a right and a responsibility to control it's immigration policies. I don't believe that in these modern times it makes sense to grant automatic, natural citizenship to the children of people from other countries who have not undergone the legal immigration and naturalization process. Yes, it is true that we are all the descendants of immigrants; however, the immigrants I descended from all came into this country legally, and were legally naturalized under the existing law. Considering how much this country has to offer, especially in terms of welfare benefits which would turn a poor immigrant from an impoverished nation into a person who would be wealthy by comparison to those from his home country, I don't believe it is too much to ask for them to obey the law. As I stated previously, liberal immigration policies usually serve a political purpose, rather than a purely humanitarian one. For this reason, I think closing some of the loopholes and requiring that those who wish to come to the U.S. and become citizens to follow the correct immigration and naturalization procedures, makes good sense from a "homeland security" standpoint. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"N2EY" wrote:
I think that when Kim writes "no one" in a context like that, she really means "almost no one" or "hardly anyone" rather than the literal standard meaning "not a single person" or "nobody at all". I know what she means, but it's not what she wrote, Jim. And if we can't get past the absoluteness of that "no one," there is little way to continue the discussion. If we're instead talking about "almost no one" or "hardly anyone," then the obvious question becomes why bring in immigrants to take even those few people's jobs or drive down their wages. Of course, I don't really expect Kim to answer those questions. Few seem to care about the Americans who are losing their jobs, or are seeing their wages reduced, as a result of immigration and other government policies. They have their pro-immigration blinders on and refuse to see the obvious fallout of these government policies. I look around and see many in my hometown (a small town) unemployed or working in low paying jobs while every factory in the area closes and immigrants move in to take jobs. A friend, who has been doing lawn care for almost three decades, recently lost a long-standing contract to another out-of-state company using all immigrant employees. As a result, he filed for bankruptcy and had to fire his entire workforce - Americans who were willing to work. I'm feeling the pressure right now. One of my companies (wetland maintenance) is facing competition from a company with almost all illegal immigrant employees. I just barely held onto a county contract last time, but profits are now dismal. To hold onto that contract next time, either I cut my employee's wages sharply or I replace them with illegal immigrants. The only other option is to not even bid at all, which means the other company (with it's illegal immigrants) is assured the contract (and I let employees go). The economy of this country is quickly heading to hell in a handbasket and few seem to even notice or care. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Robert Casey" wrote:
I'm a city boy, so I don't know much about farming, except for a vague idea that farmers grow stuff that gets converted to food sold at supermarkets. And that there are massive government subsidies for farmers. To make for cheap food in the USA. Or something like that........ Most of those subsidies are in the form of market management, Robert. In other words, they're designed to prevent gluts or shortages of farm goods. Perhaps the easiest way to understand it is to look at an example. Lets say there is a shortage of green beans this year, which has driven up the costs (and, for the farmer, sale price) of green beans. At the same time, there are too many tomatoes on the store shelves this year, driving down costs (and the sale price for farmers). Obviously, farmers want to make maximum profits, so farmers throughout the country next year will decide not to grow tomatoes and to grow green beans instead. Of course, if this happens, there is going to be an extreme shortage of tomatoes next year and way too many green beans. To prevent this, the government steps in to ask some farmers to grow tomatoes instead of green beans. But, to comply, the farmer has to give up any potential extra profit he might make if he can beat other farmers to market next year before the price of green beans fall as a result of the glut. And, of course, there won't be any extra profits from the sale of tomatoes next year if the government is successful in getting some farmers to grow them. In the end, few farmers are going to agree to grow tomatoes. At this point, the government sweetens the deal by offering money to some farmers in the form of farm subsidies to encourage them to grow tomatoes instead. Since this extra money is a sure thing, the farmers agree to grow tomatoes. The end result is that there are both tomatoes and green beans on the store shelves next year. This is one form of market management. It also happens when the profits of one product are always lower than the profits of another. For example, there is always more profit in growing corn than watermelons (even with the different prices in the stores). Watermelons are a low yield crop while corn is a high yield crop, meaning yon can grow much more corn then watermelons on the same amount of land. Without farm subsidies to encourage farmers to grow watermelons, very few farmers would. End of Government Agriculture Management, Lesson 101. ;-) As far as I know, my grandmother has never received farm subsidies. In fact, subsidies are rarely even available to farmers with family, small, or mid-size farms since their contributions to the overall market is relatively small. My grandmother's farm was considered a mid-sized farm. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
Agreed! But there's a difference between doing it for a summer at a relative's place, and doing it all year long at various locations all over the country or all over a region. And there's a difference between doing it for a relative and doing it for one's living. Okay, if you want to make that fine of a distinction, while it is certainly true I never worked a farm laborer job as my sole income, let me also add that I did work for other farmers in the area while both a teenager and young adult, as nothing more than another paid laborer (no family connections). Many teenagers in the area did it during the summer to earn extra money and many young adults made a living as farm laborers (I continued to do it occasionally as a young adult to subsidize my income). Of course, I just don't see the fine distinction you're suggesting here. A day, week, or month's work on the farm is a day, week, or month's work on the farm. If you're doing laborer work, the work doesn't change based on who you are or where you live other times of the year. If anything, while working for my grandmother, I felt I had to work harder to earn the other workers' respect of my worth to get the same pay (and to prove I wasn't just a city boy). And I continued to work after they went home for the day. Farm equipment had to be cleaned and put away. Machinery had to be cleaned, fueled, and oiled for the next days' work. Barns had to be monitored. The other normal chores around the farm continued. Later, after those laborers left for the year, fields had to be plowed for next years' crops. For the farmer, work doesn't end with just pulling the crops out of the fields. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
I would point out that back in 1906 there were people criticizing the immigration of those times. Particularly immigrants who weren't from the "right" parts of northern and western Europe... Part of the problem was that immigration was being sold at the time as a way to grow and further tame the West, while many immigrants simply couldn't afford to move West once they got here - something the government seemed to have overlooked. The result was a flood of new immigrants into Eastern cities. Of course, the government did eventually get what it wanted as many in the East simply moved West to get away from the new immigrants. Just kidding (I think). ;-) Immigration quotas were enacted early in the 20th century for all these reasons and more. Many of those quotas lasted well into the 1960's (my wife is a history major and she was just reading about them a few days ago). I think that for the reason of national security alone, we have to: - change the criteria for legal immigration - reduce/eliminate illegal immigration and visa abuse - work towards better labor practices through both government and marketplace action I agree. There isn't going to be an easy solution. Multiple steps, in just the areas you describe, will have to be taken to insure a lasting solution instead of a quick fix that falls apart in a few months. Sadly, we don't seem to have any long term plans in this country - a game plan that stretches out beyond just the next year or so. Bush is gearing up for next year's election, but what about the month or year after that election? What about ten years from now? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"charlesb" wrote:
OH, I see! - You're talking about the government being intelligent enough to keep it's hands off of the economy so that it can mature and grow! I couldn't agree with you more. - And you have history on your side, in this arguement. Every recorded instance of governmental meddling with the parameters of the economy has resulted in fiasco, a net loss. (snip) I'm arguing for a change in the ways things are done now, Charles. Not for more of the same garbage. If you're truly that dissatisfied, you should want some form of change. Instead, you seem to arguing to keep the existing status quo. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
However, in the context of our modern and presumably more enlightened times, they represent something that is, best, an anachronistic example of age-old prejudices. We should all be united under one flag, and that flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes -- not a big "X" running through it. 73 de Larry, K3LT Just saw on the news that more blacks are leaving the North for the South than blacks leaving the South for the North. Reason? More jobs in the South and less racism. |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
I consider the KKK to be about racism, not slavery. It was originally started as a response to the heavy-handed political disenfranchisement of the former Confederate states by Northern "Carpetbaggers" who essentially swept into the South and took over in the aftermath of the Civil War. I don't believe that was right and never said so. However, the KKK, instead of targeting the mostly white Yankee politicians who violated the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Southern states, chose instead to target ethnic and religious groups, such as blacks, Catholics, and particularly Jews. (snip) The "particularly Jews" is news to me. I know the KKK doesn't especially like Jews today (to put it mildly), but I've read a lot about the early KKK and don't remember seeing anything about Jews being targeted, especially "particularly" targeted. Can you provide a source where I can read more about this? However, in the context of our modern and presumably more enlightened times, they represent something that is, best, an anachronistic example of age-old prejudices. We should all be united under one flag, and that flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes -- not a big "X" running through it. I think you're interpreting the whole thing wrong, Larry. Very few in the South see that flag as a statement about slavery or racism. From my observations, most see it as a way to stick up their middle finger at a government they don't particularly like. For example, the flag is displayed most often when a liberal is in the White House and less often when a conservative is in the White House. A few years ago, during the Clinton years, you could see that flag everywhere (vehicles, yards, and so on). Today, it has virtually disappeared. When another liberal gets in the White House, that flag will suddenly show up on everything again. The more liberal that person is, the more you'll see that flag displayed. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message k.net... "charlesb" wrote: OH, I see! - You're talking about the government being intelligent enough to keep it's hands off of the economy so that it can mature and grow! I couldn't agree with you more. - And you have history on your side, in this arguement. Every recorded instance of governmental meddling with the parameters of the economy has resulted in fiasco, a net loss. (snip) I'm arguing for a change in the ways things are done now, Charles. Not for more of the same garbage. If you're truly that dissatisfied, you should want some form of change. Instead, you seem to arguing to keep the existing status quo. Amazing that you can interpret all that from my post, which I had thought to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand. Let's try again: The kind of economic manipulation that you are advocating has been tried many, many times, with consistently poor results. It is not "new" and further manipulations of this kind would not be a "change", as it has been tried extensively already. - Again; With consistently poor results. A good "change" would be to adopt a more intelligent attitude about the market and resist the "Pollyanna" temptation to attempt to legislate prosperity. Of course it could be that you will read this and conclude that I must mean that parrots are smarter than doves, so they would be the best thing to use for a messenger service... After your left-field response to my first post, I would not be at all surprised. This may point out where some of our economic woes may originate.... Are all people who advocate manipulation of the economy by well-meaning fools functionally illiterate? Perhaps that is what keeps them from learning the simple lessons of history, tempting them to advocate old, bad ideas that are conspicuous for thier repeated failure? Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "N2EY" wrote: I think that when Kim writes "no one" in a context like that, she really means "almost no one" or "hardly anyone" rather than the literal standard meaning "not a single person" or "nobody at all". I know what she means, but it's not what she wrote, Jim. And if we can't get past the absoluteness of that "no one," there is little way to continue the discussion. If we're instead talking about "almost no one" or "hardly anyone," then the obvious question becomes why bring in immigrants to take even those few people's jobs or drive down their wages. And, if you want to argue symantecs, Dwight, then you have a roadblock that won't allow for reasonable discussion of the topic. I am telling you that my experience has been that people who are customarily born in this country feel that the jobs we are speaking of are beneath them. Period. Now, the only areas of this country that I have lived in with enough time to gather that opinion is in NE NY and down here in the DFW area. If your experience is different--sobeit. But, how dare you dismiss the experiences I have seen. Not only am I basing the opinion I have off true experience and observations, I am also an above-average (or was) politically active person. When topics like this come up on radio talk-shows, television news magazine shows, and in Congress--which I used to spend hours and hours every day watching--the discussion is that "immigration" is killing jobs in this country vs. that the jobs in this country immigration fills are those that will not customarily be done by people born here. I wish I could say to you, "prove to me that there are people born here who will ______" and you fill in the blank. But that is both unrealistic and not constructive. So, the only mechanism I have by which to comment on the topic *is* from my experience. I even added enough honesty into the discussion to say that, neither now or when I *was* young enough to do it, would *I* do those jobs. And, as Jim/N2EY pointed out, *immigrant* farming is a whole other ballgame than just farming. Immigrant farming involves migrant lifestyles that few of us are even familiar with--let alone willing to do. Of course, I don't really expect Kim to answer those questions. Few seem to care about the Americans who are losing their jobs, or are seeing their wages reduced, as a result of immigration and other government policies. They have their pro-immigration blinders on and refuse to see the obvious fallout of these government policies. And, how dare you again, Dwight. You are being as overhanded with your remarks about my character, related to this conversation as anyone like Larry Roll would be--so don't even bother calling him on the carpet for his behavior!! How dare you imply that I "don't care" about bad policies in this country. Have I once said I don't care? Furthermore, the obvious fallout that you believe is not what I see--and I've just told you I am basing that on experience. Go to the Unemployment lines. I haven't--but I *BET* the majority of people in those lines are not looking for work on farms, at Wal-Mart, with municipalities, landscape companies, construction firms, asbestos abatement firms, chemical and biological hazard waste firms, and our ever-famous convenience stores such as 7-Eleven--all of which need people constantly. I reiterate *CONSTANTLY* because there is no one who will "take" those jobs--*EXCEPT* people who recognize them as a job to take when one is desperate. (An aside--if you want to break off into symantecs and argue about defining "no one," go debate with yourself, Dwight). Those jobs, and so many more that I could think of, are *generally* not taken by people who have been born in this country. There are some who do--and they are in what used to be the ethnic miniorities. All one need do is look around them to see where our youth find important and meaningful employment: McDonald's and other fast food joints, light dining restaraunts, and that's about it. Why did I break-out to light dining restaraunts? Because I don't see teen-agers in the "finer" dining restaraunts--and my husband and I love to eat out so we have some experience. Know why *I* think they (teen-agers) aren't there? Because there, the customer service is higher scale, which demands more personality, better etiquette, and of course--greater work ethic. Guess who we do see serving us in those restaraunts? My husband has been at his formerly family-owned business for 27 years. His mom sold the company last year. For most of those 27 years, until about 10 years ago, they had a great crew of folks. Since then, the main focus of my husband's every day work has been to get someone in there who wants a job and will work. Know how many nieces nephews, and his own kids and my son, he has had through those years? Ten. Not one of them has ever, ever worked there. Know how many great nieces and nephews he has had who, of course, have been old enough to work through those years? They are just now getting in to their early-mid teens. A quick count of those that could work there is somewhere around seven. Not one has ever done it. Oh, I take that back. My husband's daugher worked there--for literally four days. For goodness sake, here's a great example: I am privvy to a situation where I know a kid of coworker's who had "no prospect" (yeah, right) of a job after completing a 2-year program with one of these "tech" type training institutions. So, she's back living with mummy and daddy and pining and sighing every day. I have a co-worker who is from India. He's brought his wife over here and she'd been here for about, oh, three months before they both learned of the medical transcritption service industry that's been popping up over the past few years. He has a problem with his wife going out in the workforce, but she wanted to work to contribute to the recovery of costs it took to get her here, etc. She went to a 6-week (I think it was) school to learn medical transcription, blah, blah, blah, she now has her own home-business with her family doctor as her first customer and she'll get more, I'm sure. We were all talking about this at work. He mentions this to this coworker whose kid has no prospect for a job. Know what the kid's response was? I think you do. So, it isn't only you who has your own company, Dwight, whose livelihood is at stake with things such as they are. I'll come full circle with my indignation again: how dare you imply that I don't care. I look around and see many in my hometown (a small town) unemployed or working in low paying jobs while every factory in the area closes and immigrants move in to take jobs. If the factories are closing, then what jobs are the immigrants moving in to take? And, have you any friends or casual acquaintances that you can ask if they have tried to get those jobs? I am still curious to know if factories are closing, what jobs are available for anyone to take? I take your comment above to be pretty dismal. I've been in dismal (the NE when the oil crisis happened--talk about getting dismal) and I had to move down here to make it. A friend, who has been doing lawn care for almost three decades, recently lost a long-standing contract to another out-of-state company using all immigrant employees. As a result, he filed for bankruptcy and had to fire his entire workforce - Americans who were willing to work. Well, excuse me for the honesty--you'll call it having my blinders on or not caring, maybe even because I am a "liberal"--but, if one contract put this company out of business, then perhaps the person should have gone on to some form of vocational or higher level training in business practices before they took such a jump. I've had my own company too, years ago. And, if I'd had just one "large" job/contract, I would have been in a constant state of panic. And, as an aside, if this person's seeing other companies get the contracts...then go get a job with those companies as a Salesperson, or whatever. Maybe he/she *won't* make the money he's accustomed to--but we gotta do whatever it takes to make adjustments to the things we have no control over. And, if we have no control over the employment situation in this country--we don't whine about it. We knuckle under, get the menial jobs, sell the big house, get the little house, sell the SUV and get the Saturn, and we begin the task of seeing what we can do--if anything--to change the route of what we perceive as being awful. I'm feeling the pressure right now. One of my companies (wetland maintenance) is facing competition from a company with almost all illegal immigrant employees. Then, report the company to INS. REPORT THEM. If the company is getting contracts based on their employment of illegeal aliens, then I am sure the firms they are doing services for will want to know this. For goodness sake, REPORT their ass. I just barely held onto a county contract last time, but profits are now dismal. To hold onto that contract next time, either I cut my employee's wages sharply or I replace them with illegal immigrants. Don't you dare buy in to the illegal and unethical side of this. To join is not to change or conquer. The only other option is to not even bid at all, which means the other company (with it's illegal immigrants) is assured the contract (and I let employees go). And, if it illegal immigration that is nulling you out, you use the laws and shouting as loud as you can shout to fight it. The economy of this country is quickly heading to hell in a handbasket and few seem to even notice or care. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ I don't know who's not noticing or caring. I see a lot of doing nothing to get involved against it, or to even lift a finger of their own to change it. Kim W5TIT |
"JJ" wrote in message
... Larry Roll K3LT wrote: However, in the context of our modern and presumably more enlightened times, they represent something that is, best, an anachronistic example of age-old prejudices. We should all be united under one flag, and that flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes -- not a big "X" running through it. 73 de Larry, K3LT Just saw on the news that more blacks are leaving the North for the South than blacks leaving the South for the North. Reason? More jobs in the South and less racism. The news said that? That there's LESS racism? Compared to where and where?! I come from NE NY and never really saw any racism. Here, the topic is a part of every-day life. Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... For example, the flag [the Rebel flag, sic] is displayed most often when a liberal is in the White House and less often when a conservative is in the White House. A few years ago, during the Clinton years, you could see that flag everywhere (vehicles, yards, and so on). Today, it has virtually disappeared. Maybe that has more to do with the fact that Clinton was from the South and the flags were some form of "solidarity." You sure do see things from a weird perspective, in my opinion. When another liberal gets in the White House, that flag will suddenly show up on everything again. The more liberal that person is, the more you'll see that flag displayed. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Perhaps it will be because the more Southern someone is, the more the Southerners feel more like they are being better represented? I mean, if we're going to come up with divisible concepts...let's make them good at least. Maybe the Norwegian Californians will start waving theirs. shrugging in disgust Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
won't allow for reasonable discussion of the topic. I am telling you that my experience has been that people who are customarily born in this country feel that the jobs we are speaking of are beneath them. Period. It isn't everyone, Kim. I do agree that here in the US, that many people feel that some jobs are "too low class" for them. Educators (and many others in authority) have demeaned jobs they consider beneath dignity. I remember my high school principle personally taking me aside and telling me "Mike, you're a smart kid, why do you want to go to Vo-Tech?" I took the academic courses also, but he was worried about the "Tekker" image and what damage it could do to me. I was flattered for his concern and intervening in what should have been between my guidance counseler and myself, but I went to Vo-Tech anyhow. For goodness sake, here's a great example: I am privvy to a situation where I know a kid of coworker's who had "no prospect" (yeah, right) of a job after completing a 2-year program with one of these "tech" type training institutions. So, she's back living with mummy and daddy and pining and sighing every day. But she has options! She can live with Mommy and Daddy and not work! I never considered that one of my options, so when I was young, I'd take whatever job would put food on the table. And that makes for a big difference in what job is demeaning, and what job isn't. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: If the Civil War was about slavery, then why was there a war at all? Prior to the war, the slave states were the majority in both the House and Senate, insuring no legislation could be passed to end slavery. Slavery was only abolished after the war by not allowing the former Confederate States (which included several, but not all, of the slave states) to participate in that vote. (snip) why, in it's aftermath, did one of the most famous Confederate Generals, Nathan Bedford Forrest, organize the Ku Klux Klan? (snip) When you answer that, perhaps you can also answer why so many Northerners join the KKK. Dwight: I consider the KKK to be about racism, not slavery. It was originally started as a response to the heavy-handed political disenfranchisement of the former Confederate states by Northern "Carpetbaggers" who essentially swept into the South and took over in the aftermath of the Civil War. I don't believe that was right and never said so. However, the KKK, instead of targeting the mostly white Yankee politicians who violated the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Southern states, chose instead to target ethnic and religious groups, such as blacks, Catholics, and particularly Jews. Therefore, their motives were wrong from the start. The South has a lot to answer for, IMHO. (snip) Why would they have any more to answer for than the Northern states that profited from the sale of slaves? Or more to answer for than those who used indentured or bound black workers in the North, even into the early 1900's? Or more to answer for than the many countries around the world which practiced slavery in this last century (the 1900's), the previous century, or in the many centuries before that? I never said that slavery wasn't practiced in the North. (snip) Modern-day Rebels with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks don't do much to heal the wounds of the past. (snip) Perhaps because they have absolutely no responsibility for what happened in a past long before they were born. However, in the context of our modern and presumably more enlightened times, they represent something that is, best, an anachronistic example of age-old prejudices. We should all be united under one flag, and that flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes -- not a big "X" running through it. 73 de Larry, K3LT The flag of the confederacy is NOT the battle flag being displayed as the flag of the Confederacy. When the Tennessee Battle Flag is flown in the South, by real Southerners, it is meant as a sign of respect for the fallen and a symbol of STATES RIGHTS. No one advocates seccession from the Union, or starting another war. But....we get real tired of Northerners and blacks trying to tear the flag down, especially since the reason they want to tear it down is they believe it is a racist symbol. If it IS a racist symbol to them. Then they have fallen for the big lie. Govern yourself accordingly. Dan/W4NTI |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "JJ" wrote in message ... Larry Roll K3LT wrote: However, in the context of our modern and presumably more enlightened times, they represent something that is, best, an anachronistic example of age-old prejudices. We should all be united under one flag, and that flag has 50 stars and 13 stripes -- not a big "X" running through it. 73 de Larry, K3LT Just saw on the news that more blacks are leaving the North for the South than blacks leaving the South for the North. Reason? More jobs in the South and less racism. The news said that? That there's LESS racism? Compared to where and where?! I come from NE NY and never really saw any racism. Here, the topic is a part of every-day life. Kim W5TIT It is a part of everyday life, because it is in the interest of people like Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, etc. to KEEP IT in everyday life. If the 'racism' issue was let to die a natural death, it would go away. As it is....it is being pushed down everyones throat. Dan/W4NTI |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... For example, the flag [the Rebel flag, sic] is displayed most often when a liberal is in the White House and less often when a conservative is in the White House. A few years ago, during the Clinton years, you could see that flag everywhere (vehicles, yards, and so on). Today, it has virtually disappeared. Maybe that has more to do with the fact that Clinton was from the South and the flags were some form of "solidarity." You sure do see things from a weird perspective, in my opinion. When another liberal gets in the White House, that flag will suddenly show up on everything again. The more liberal that person is, the more you'll see that flag displayed. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Perhaps it will be because the more Southern someone is, the more the Southerners feel more like they are being better represented? I mean, if we're going to come up with divisible concepts...let's make them good at least. Maybe the Norwegian Californians will start waving theirs. shrugging in disgust Kim W5TIT Most northerners I know that have crossed the Mason Dixon line and stayed in the South for a period of time have 'adopted' their new surroundings. With one major exception....those from NY. Wonder why that is? That is one of the main reasons I left South Florida. Bunches of New Yorkers bringing all their bad habits with them. When I decided to stay here I was told by a good friend to do two things; 1. Pick a football team. 2. Don't try and change a thing. Good advice.....Roll Tide. Dan/W4NTI |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
.. Just saw on the news that more blacks are leaving the North for the South than blacks leaving the South for the North. Reason? More jobs in the South and less racism. The news said that? That there's LESS racism? Compared to where and where?! I come from NE NY and never really saw any racism. Ask the blacks, they are the ones leaving claiming more racism in the North than the South. |
JJ wrote:
Suggest you and Kim read this: http://www.msnbc.com/news/987498.asp?cp1=1 Ancient liberal press trick of assigning reasons for something to something else. My read: 1. Earlier, a lot of Black people moved north for jobs. 2. Jobs go away, and next generation is better educated. 3. People move to where they can get a job. The closest thing to a quote from an actual person who MOved south and said this is why they moved south was from some dude in the urban league. I hesitate to draw the same conclusions. YMMV - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
JJ wrote: Suggest you and Kim read this: http://www.msnbc.com/news/987498.asp?cp1=1 Ancient liberal press trick of assigning reasons for something to something else. My read: 1. Earlier, a lot of Black people moved north for jobs. 2. Jobs go away, and next generation is better educated. 3. People move to where they can get a job. The closest thing to a quote from an actual person who MOved south and said this is why they moved south was from some dude in the urban league. I hesitate to draw the same conclusions. YMMV - Mike KB3EIA - Why don't you ask the blacks that are moving back south and find out for yourself? As usual, if your views agree with the press then the press is correct, if not then the press is wrong. |
Mike Coslo wrote:
JJ wrote: Suggest you and Kim read this: http://www.msnbc.com/news/987498.asp?cp1=1 Ancient liberal press trick of assigning reasons for something to something else. My read: 1. Earlier, a lot of Black people moved north for jobs. 2. Jobs go away, and next generation is better educated. 3. People move to where they can get a job. I guess you failed to read this part, or you just ignored it because it did not fit with what you want to believe. "That movement north slowed as job opportunities dwindled and *racial tensions rose* in northern cities in the 1960s and 1970s, Ross said." |
JJ wrote:
I guess you failed to read this part, or you just ignored it because it did not fit with what you want to believe. "That movement north slowed as job opportunities dwindled and *racial tensions rose* in northern cities in the 1960s and 1970s, Ross said." I don't deny they got a few parts right. Hey, you want a theory? How about an effort made to get African Americans (traditionally Democrat)to move back to the south to balance out the political leanings of the area? We might be able to get some "authority" to say something like that. - Mike KB3EIA |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
(snip) I am telling you that my experience has been that people who are customarily born in this country feel that the jobs we are speaking of are beneath them. (snip) But, how dare you dismiss the experiences I have seen. Again, I'm not dismissing your experiences. Instead, I'm questioning the conclusions you've made about those experiences. You say, based on your experiences with other people, nobody in this country other than immigrants is willing to do those jobs? How many of those non-immigrant people did you ask if they would take those jobs if the wages were better? I suspect just about all of them would at least consider, and many would gladly take, those jobs under different wage conditions. If I'm right, your conclusions are flat wrong - non-immigrants are willing to do those jobs. And, if you are wrong, to continue to perpetrate a myth that non-immigrants are either too lazy or too uppish to do that work is simply insulting. And, how dare you again, Dwight. (snip) How dare you imply that I "don't care" about bad policies in this country. Have I once said I don't care? (snip) Lay off the false outrage, Kim. Nobody said you didn't care. I said "few seem to care," not "Kim doesn't care." If you apply those words to yourself, you do so in your own mind. If others want to apply those words to you, they'll do so after reading what you've said. (snip) and I've just told you I am basing that on experience. Go to the Unemployment lines. I haven't--but I *BET* the majority of people in those lines are not looking for work on farms, at Wal-Mart, with municipalities, landscape companies, construction firms, asbestos abatement firms, chemical and biological hazard waste firms, and our ever-famous convenience stores such as 7-Eleven--all of which need people constantly. Your experiences are clearly somewhat limited. Walmart doesn't hire through state or outside employment agencies. Potential employees apply at the individual stores and there are rarely shortages of applicants. Municipalities tend to pay fairly well (with good benefits), hence rarely have a shortage of applicants (skilled applicants is another matter). Landscape companies, to keep costs down, are perhaps the largest employers of illegal immigrants. Construction companies only have problems finding skilled applicants (laborers are plentiful). The same with most other companies seeking skilled labor. Convenience store jobs are among the lowest paying, and most dangerous, in the country. In other words, none of these tend to prove your point. (snip) All one need do is look around them to see where our youth find important and meaningful employment: McDonald's and other fast food joints, light dining restaurants, and that's about it. (snip) You've got to be kidding, Kim. You consider employment at fast food joints, some of the lowest paying jobs in this country, to be "important and meaningful employment?" (snip) Why did I break-out to light dining restaurants? Because I don't see teen-agers in the "finer" dining restaraunts - and my husband and I love to eat out so we have some experience. Know why *I* think they (teen-agers) aren't there? Because there, the customer service is higher scale, which demands more personality, better etiquette, and of course--greater work ethic. Or maybe the owners simply don't hire teenagers. Guess who we do see serving us in those restaurants? Who, Kim? You've already said teenagers (immigrant and non-immigrant) don't work in these restaurants. That leaves only adults. I suppose you're now going to say immigrant adults have more personally, better etiquette, and a greater work ethic, than non-immigrant adults in this country, which is why immigrant adults, not non-immigrant adults, work in the restaurants you go to. My husband has been at his formerly family-owned business for 27 years. His mom sold the company last year. For most of those 27 years, until about 10 years ago, they had a great crew of folks. Since then, the main focus of my husband's every day work has been to get someone in there who wants a job and will work. Know how many nieces nephews, and his own kids and my son, he has had through those years? Ten. Not one of them has ever, ever worked there. (snip) Perhaps that says more about your husband than the nieces, nephews, and kids. That's not intended as an insult. Instead, it's just to point out that few kids are willing to work for parents or immediate relatives - parents and relatives tend to be more demanding and more judgmental than the normal employer. If the factories are closing, then what jobs are the immigrants moving in to take? (snip) I am still curious to know if factories are closing, what jobs are available for anyone to take? (snip) Didn't I pretty much answer that in the next paragraph of that message? There are obviously more jobs in town than just factory jobs, Kim. The elimination of those factory jobs simply adds to the competition for those remaining jobs. Well, excuse me for the honesty--you'll call it having my blinders on or not caring, maybe even because I am a "liberal"--but, if one contract put this company out of business, then perhaps the person should have gone on to some form of vocational or higher level training in business practices before they took such a jump. (snip) It happened to be about a $450k per year contract, the loss of which his company could not absorb. (snip) if we have no control over the employment situation in this country--we don't whine about it. We knuckle under, get the menial jobs, sell the big house, get the little house, sell the SUV and get the Saturn, and we begin the task of seeing what we can do--if anything--to change the route of what we perceive as being awful. (snip) Kim, as voters and citizens, we're supposed to have control over the employment situation in this country. We don't simply because too many choose to "knuckle under" instead of demanding better. Of course, they probably don't have that much of a choice as long as most people are heartless enough to think the solution for those people is to sell everything, take a menial job, and live in poverty. Then, report the company to INS. REPORT THEM. If the company is getting contracts based on their employment of illegeal aliens, then I am sure the firms they are doing services for will want to know this. For goodness sake, REPORT their ass. I've already filed complaints. Sadly, it just doesn't work that way, Kim. When it comes to businesses hiring illegal immigrants, government agencies only take on a few, high profile, cases each year (such as Walmart recently). Because of that, you could complain until you're blue in the face and absolutely nothing will come of it. I truly wish it were different, but that's simply the way it is (which is exactly why so many companies are now willing to hire illegal immigrants). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"charlesb" wrote:
Amazing that you can interpret all that from my post, which I had thought to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand. (snip) There is no other possible way to interpret your comments. You're arguing against what you call "economic manipulation," which means you want no change from what exists now. Let's try again: The kind of economic manipulation that you are advocating has been tried many, many times, with consistently poor results. It is not "new" and further manipulations of this kind would not be a "change", as it has been tried extensively already. - Again; With consistently poor results. (snip) It's easy to make rash statements when you offer nothing to support them. Where have the changes I've advocated been tried many times and in what way have the results been poor? The key words there "the changes I've advocated," not your fanciful interpretation of what I've advocated. This may point out where some of our economic woes may originate.... Are all people who advocate manipulation of the economy by well-meaning fools functionally illiterate? Perhaps that is what keeps them from learning the simple lessons of history, tempting them to advocate old, bad ideas that are conspicuous for thier repeated failure? I don't have the time to exchange insults with someone who clearly has no intent to engage in a discussion, Charles. Get back with me when you have something worthwhile to add. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
Maybe that has more to do with the fact that Clinton was from the South and the flags were some form of "solidarity." You sure do see things from a weird perspective, in my opinion. (snip) I have a weird perspective, Kim? I seriously doubt any person other than you would have even come up with the notion that those flags might have been displayed in an effort to demonstrate some form of solidarity with Bill Clinton. Are your strange notions caused by a general lack of knowledge, an inability to reconcile your liberal values with your surroundings in Texas, some form of childhood trauma, or is your brain simply wired differently than most? ;-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:
Most northerners I know that have crossed the Mason Dixon line and stayed in the South for a period of time have 'adopted' their new surroundings. With one major exception....those from NY. Wonder why that is? Lets not forget those from New Jersey. Many of them tend to be strangest, and most negative, of the whole bunch. There was one a few months back that sat on the radio every single night for at least two months telling anyone who would listen how much he disliked the people here, how much they disliked him, how nobody would hire him (all this while he was at work), and just how unhappy he was in general. I finally got fed up one night and told him he should either just kill himself or go back to New Jersey if he was really that darn miserable. Whatever I said must have worked because I never heard him on the radio again and was told a few days later that he had indeed moved back to New Jersey. However, as depressing as he was, he probably did kill himself shortly after arriving there. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
The news said that? That there's LESS racism? Compared to where and where?! I come from NE NY and never really saw any racism. The trend of blacks moving to the South has been covered in the news for many years. Here, the topic is a part of every-day life. Exactly. More people here talk about race issues (all sides) openly and honestly instead of sweeping them under the rug like they doesn't exist (or trying to act like they don't exist). A friend (a reggie recording artist) and his wife just moved here from NY about four years ago. There isn't a week that goes by that we don't discuss, or even argue out, some racial issue or topic. I think we've both learned a lot from each other through this process. Regardless, the conversations are rarely boring and we've all become good friends over the last few years. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article et, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: The flag of the confederacy is NOT the battle flag being displayed as the flag of the Confederacy. When the Tennessee Battle Flag is flown in the South, by real Southerners, it is meant as a sign of respect for the fallen and a symbol of STATES RIGHTS. Dan: When you "real Southerners" fly your Tennessee Battle Flag or whatever you call it, everyone who isn't a "real Southerner" views it as waving a banner of racism under their noses. Whether it is right or not, and whether you like it or not, your flag is a problem for the rest of the country -- especially American Negroes (the proper term for black people in America -- considering the fact that none of them was born in Africa or ever lived in any African country long enough to gain citizenship there). The white "real Southern" rednecks with the "Tennessee Battle Flag" on their pickup trucks are living in the past, at the expense of modern race relations. No one advocates seccession from the Union, or starting another war. That's comforting. But....we get real tired of Northerners and blacks trying to tear the flag down, especially since the reason they want to tear it down is they believe it is a racist symbol. While I was in the military, I had the saying "perception is reality" drummed into me. The way we present ourselves to others forms their opinion of us from the very start. In most cases, that's the only opinion they ever use to judge us from that point onward. I think it's time for you and your fellow "real Southerners" to face the fact that your flag needs to be taken off your flagpoles and replaced with the real American flag -- the Stars and Stripes. No one is questioning the fact that the South is part of the United States, and it's time for the "real Southerners" to stop fighting the Civil War and living in peace with the rest of their country. If it IS a racist symbol to them. Then they have fallen for the big lie. One man's lie is another man's truth. If I were you, I'd concentrate on making sure no one mistook me for a real American. Being a "real Southerner" only leaves the impression that you don't feel as though you belong to the greater whole of our nation. Govern yourself accordingly. I do -- and I'm not the one flying any sort of state-specific "battle flag." I fly the flag of the UNITED States. One of the stars on the field of that flag belongs to Tennessee -- a beautiful state filled with free, united, and loyal Americans -- of all races, ethnic, and religious groups. They are my fellow American citizens, and I expect them to view me as one of theirs. I am living in the unified present-day reality of America -- not in the divided, suspicious, and hateful past. I invite you, my fellow American, to do likewise. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
But its perfectly okay to pay some union bum a ton of wages for doing a
repetitive task, (a skill that same 14 y.o. that passed a ham test could do) therefore jacking the cost of a product, lets say a car for this example, to a ridiculous price??? (actually both the fast food worker and the person on the line at the factory ARE BOTH doing repetitive tasks....) Believe it or not, there are alot more people out there trying to survive on the poverty level wages. Based strictly on my local region, that would be any job under 9-10 dollars per hour before taxes and if any, benefits. And unfortunately some of these people are NOT counted, in the unemployment or other job related statistics, if they are not participating in the various government programs like the employment security commision that Michigan has... (think its called MichiganWorks) -- Ryan KC8PMX All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism. "JJ" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Consider this. I've been toying with the idea over the last few years that it will the "menial" (as was put by someone else--I don't agree with the term) jobs that will gradually grow to the higher paid jobs in this country...because there will be less and less people who *will* do them. The "services" of a migrant worker or a fast food person, or a municipal worker or construction worker will become so highly needed, that they will be able to demand a pretty penny for their work. And when this happens your taco and a coke at Taco Bell will cost you $15. |
But those currently busting their butts, 50-60 hours a week, trying to even
hit the break-even point, who cannot get an even freakin' break, do not have any form of help. -- Ryan KC8PMX Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach that person to use The Internet and they won't bother you for weeks. But those that are unwilling to work when they are able to, shouldn't expect the handout (IMHO). Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
That may have been true many years ago, but the Klan Klowns are pretty much
against anything that does not fit into the Aryan nations views..... -- Ryan KC8PMX Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway. Dwight: I consider the KKK to be about racism, not slavery. It was originally started as a response to the heavy-handed political disenfranchisement of the former Confederate states by Northern "Carpetbaggers" who essentially swept into the South and took over in the aftermath of the Civil War. |
"N2EY" wrote:
Point is, the attitudes that newer is always better and that all change is good have led to all sorts of problems. Agreed. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: (snip) I am telling you that my experience has been that people who are customarily born in this country feel that the jobs we are speaking of are beneath them. (snip) But, how dare you dismiss the experiences I have seen. Again, I'm not dismissing your experiences. Instead, I'm questioning the conclusions you've made about those experiences. You say, based on your experiences with other people, nobody in this country other than immigrants is willing to do those jobs? How many of those non-immigrant people did you ask if they would take those jobs if the wages were better? Have you ever heard the phrase, "I wouldn't do that no matter how much they paid me?" I haven't had to ask, Dwight. I am speaking of people that I have personally been involved with either at casual get-togethers, work, civic organizational meetings, or friends' socials. I suspect just about all of them would at least consider, and many would gladly take, those jobs under different wage conditions. If I'm right, your conclusions are flat wrong - non-immigrants are willing to do those jobs. I would not make such adamant comments based on supposition alone, Dwight. And, I've tried to relay to you that I am referencing true/real-life experiences--not just making casual observation. And, if you are wrong, to continue to perpetrate a myth that non-immigrants are either too lazy or too uppish to do that work is simply insulting. Welp, sorry. Then be insulted. And, how dare you again, Dwight. (snip) How dare you imply that I "don't care" about bad policies in this country. Have I once said I don't care? (snip) Lay off the false outrage, Kim. Nobody said you didn't care. I said "few seem to care," not "Kim doesn't care." If you apply those words to yourself, you do so in your own mind. If others want to apply those words to you, they'll do so after reading what you've said. Then, you lay off the analogy of my being wrong and not caring, Dwight. You'd be as affected if I responded to a post by you saying that, "seems like everyone is on the _______ bandwagon." You would--and rightly so--make the connection that I was including you as one of those "everyones." Also, it is not false outrage--once again you dismiss someone else's attitude. (snip) and I've just told you I am basing that on experience. Go to the Unemployment lines. I haven't--but I *BET* the majority of people in those lines are not looking for work on farms, at Wal-Mart, with municipalities, landscape companies, construction firms, asbestos abatement firms, chemical and biological hazard waste firms, and our ever-famous convenience stores such as 7-Eleven--all of which need people constantly. Your experiences are clearly somewhat limited. You know what, Dwight? You're right. And, you know what else? I have *told* you that I don't know how many times now. I have clearly, clearly told you from whence I am basing my opinons. DUH!!!!!!!!!! And, you what else? SO ARE YOURS. Walmart doesn't hire through state or outside employment agencies. Potential employees apply at the individual stores and there are rarely shortages of applicants. The phucking point is, Dwight, that people of whom you and I are speaking--those that say they cannot find work, are not "looking" (i.e., going to take, consider, or toy with) the idea of employment at places like Wal-Mart, etc. Municipalities tend to pay fairly well (with good benefits), hence rarely have a shortage of applicants (skilled applicants is another matter). They have high turn-around, Dwight. Why? Because the work the ask folks to do is generally considered to be far more work than many are willing to do--even including police and fire work. And, even with the high turnaround--again--the people of generally US-born heritage do not look for or even consider work in those fields. Landscape companies, to keep costs down, are perhaps the largest employers of illegal immigrants. Construction companies only have problems finding skilled applicants (laborers are plentiful). The same with most other companies seeking skilled labor. Convenience store jobs are among the lowest paying, and most dangerous, in the country. In other words, none of these tend to prove your point. You are talking in circles, and ignoring good points I might add. My point is this: REGARDLESS of the reasons you list above, the FACT still remains that people who are in a non-immigrant class and generally US-born who you say are displaced by immigrants filling the jobs, will *not* generally look for or do the jobs listed above--and more. Whether you wish to believe that or not--whatever. I've heard it expressed, I've known people who feel that way, I've listened to it being discussed in public venues, and I've watched my own Congress debate the problems associated with it. (snip) All one need do is look around them to see where our youth find important and meaningful employment: McDonald's and other fast food joints, light dining restaurants, and that's about it. (snip) You've got to be kidding, Kim. You consider employment at fast food joints, some of the lowest paying jobs in this country, to be "important and meaningful employment?" For a phucking youth?????!!!!! Yes, I do, Dwight. The jobs filled at places like that build the background it takes to be a half-way decent employee as a young and professional adult. (snip) Why did I break-out to light dining restaurants? Because I don't see teen-agers in the "finer" dining restaraunts - and my husband and I love to eat out so we have some experience. Know why *I* think they (teen-agers) aren't there? Because there, the customer service is higher scale, which demands more personality, better etiquette, and of course--greater work ethic. Or maybe the owners simply don't hire teenagers. Give a dog a bone and he buries it. Guess who we do see serving us in those restaurants? Who, Kim? You've already said teenagers (immigrant and non-immigrant) don't work in these restaurants. That leaves only adults. I suppose you're now going to say immigrant adults have more personally, better etiquette, and a greater work ethic, than non-immigrant adults in this country, which is why immigrant adults, not non-immigrant adults, work in the restaurants you go to. Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. And, just for you and Jim I'll say this: some. My husband has been at his formerly family-owned business for 27 years. His mom sold the company last year. For most of those 27 years, until about 10 years ago, they had a great crew of folks. Since then, the main focus of my husband's every day work has been to get someone in there who wants a job and will work. Know how many nieces nephews, and his own kids and my son, he has had through those years? Ten. Not one of them has ever, ever worked there. (snip) Perhaps that says more about your husband than the nieces, nephews, and kids. That's not intended as an insult. Instead, it's just to point out that few kids are willing to work for parents or immediate relatives - parents and relatives tend to be more demanding and more judgmental than the normal employer. Give a dog a bone and he buries it. OK, then, Dwight. Explain why in those years not only have the nieces/nephews and great-nieces/nephews not worked there--in a time of our country that unemployment is at the high it is, he (my husband) is begging for employees? And, it happens that he is *always* begging for employees. And, guess who generally fills that need? Not the people you say are out there willing to take the job. If the factories are closing, then what jobs are the immigrants moving in to take? (snip) I am still curious to know if factories are closing, what jobs are available for anyone to take? (snip) Didn't I pretty much answer that in the next paragraph of that message? There are obviously more jobs in town than just factory jobs, Kim. The elimination of those factory jobs simply adds to the competition for those remaining jobs. Welcome to the real world, Dwight. Well, excuse me for the honesty--you'll call it having my blinders on or not caring, maybe even because I am a "liberal"--but, if one contract put this company out of business, then perhaps the person should have gone on to some form of vocational or higher level training in business practices before they took such a jump. (snip) It happened to be about a $450k per year contract, the loss of which his company could not absorb. My point still remains. And, I've also gotta say: give a dog a bone and he buries it. (snip) if we have no control over the employment situation in this country--we don't whine about it. We knuckle under, get the menial jobs, sell the big house, get the little house, sell the SUV and get the Saturn, and we begin the task of seeing what we can do--if anything--to change the route of what we perceive as being awful. (snip) Kim, as voters and citizens, we're supposed to have control over the employment situation in this country. PAH!! Welcome to the real world, Dwight. And, "supposed to" and do is two entirely different things. We still don't sit around and whine about it. Like I said above--we do what we gotta do and then we *begin the task of seeing what we can do--if anything--to change the route of what we perceive as being awful.* Is there a part of that you did not understand? We don't simply because too many choose to "knuckle under" instead of demanding better. Of course, they probably don't have that much of a choice as long as most people are heartless enough to think the solution for those people is to sell everything, take a menial job, and live in poverty. I am one of those who have mostly knuckled under. I used to try to change things. But, without change I've done pretty well. It's a sad commentary, but I and many are too busy knuckling under to try to change a thing--welcome to the reality of what's really going on. Then, report the company to INS. REPORT THEM. If the company is getting contracts based on their employment of illegeal aliens, then I am sure the firms they are doing services for will want to know this. For goodness sake, REPORT their ass. I've already filed complaints. Sadly, it just doesn't work that way, Kim. When it comes to businesses hiring illegal immigrants, government agencies only take on a few, high profile, cases each year (such as Walmart recently). Because of that, you could complain until you're blue in the face and absolutely nothing will come of it. I truly wish it were different, but that's simply the way it is (which is exactly why so many companies are now willing to hire illegal immigrants). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Then figure out a way to be satisfied. Because you are absolutely right. The one thing you and I differ on is that I do *not* believe the immigrant/migrant/transient population in this country are displacing as many as you believe. I believe they are doing jobs that--no matter how bad it gets--"we" have been too spoiled to consider doing ourselves. Kim W5TIT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article et, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: The flag of the confederacy is NOT the battle flag being displayed as the flag of the Confederacy. When the Tennessee Battle Flag is flown in the South, by real Southerners, it is meant as a sign of respect for the fallen and a symbol of STATES RIGHTS. Dan: When you "real Southerners" fly your Tennessee Battle Flag or whatever you call it, everyone who isn't a "real Southerner" views it as waving a banner of racism under their noses. Whether it is right or not, and whether you like it or not, your flag is a problem for the rest of the country -- especially American Negroes (the proper term for black people in America -- considering the fact that none of them was born in Africa or ever lived in any African country long enough to gain citizenship there). The white "real Southern" rednecks with the "Tennessee Battle Flag" on their pickup trucks are living in the past, at the expense of modern race relations. No one advocates seccession from the Union, or starting another war. That's comforting. But....we get real tired of Northerners and blacks trying to tear the flag down, especially since the reason they want to tear it down is they believe it is a racist symbol. While I was in the military, I had the saying "perception is reality" drummed into me. The way we present ourselves to others forms their opinion of us from the very start. In most cases, that's the only opinion they ever use to judge us from that point onward. I think it's time for you and your fellow "real Southerners" to face the fact that your flag needs to be taken off your flagpoles and replaced with the real American flag -- the Stars and Stripes. No one is questioning the fact that the South is part of the United States, and it's time for the "real Southerners" to stop fighting the Civil War and living in peace with the rest of their country. If it IS a racist symbol to them. Then they have fallen for the big lie. One man's lie is another man's truth. If I were you, I'd concentrate on making sure no one mistook me for a real American. Being a "real Southerner" only leaves the impression that you don't feel as though you belong to the greater whole of our nation. Govern yourself accordingly. I do -- and I'm not the one flying any sort of state-specific "battle flag." I fly the flag of the UNITED States. One of the stars on the field of that flag belongs to Tennessee -- a beautiful state filled with free, united, and loyal Americans -- of all races, ethnic, and religious groups. They are my fellow American citizens, and I expect them to view me as one of theirs. I am living in the unified present-day reality of America -- not in the divided, suspicious, and hateful past. I invite you, my fellow American, to do likewise. 73 de Larry, K3LT There it is Larry, perception. The assholes that stole the symbol of Southern Independence from the South, its flag. Have won....eh? Not hardly my good man. No, we WILL NOT remove the stars and bars from our flagpoles. And to show how ignorant you are, and that you have fallen for Northern propaganda....AT NO PLACE DOES THE CONFEDERATE FLY IN PLACE OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES. If the Confederate flag is flown it is ALWAYS flown either away from the US Flag, or BELOW the US FLAG. As it shoud be. Again...the Confederate flag IS NOT A RACIST SYMBOL. If it is perceived as such....it is YOUR PROBLEM, not ours. Dan/W4NTI |
Oh, one more thing Larry. I fly the US Flag on my front porch . High and
mighty. And I have the Confederate Battle Flag here in my shack, in the backyard. And when I get the tower up I will fly it off the tower. Dan/W4NTI "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article et, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: The flag of the confederacy is NOT the battle flag being displayed as the flag of the Confederacy. When the Tennessee Battle Flag is flown in the South, by real Southerners, it is meant as a sign of respect for the fallen and a symbol of STATES RIGHTS. Dan: When you "real Southerners" fly your Tennessee Battle Flag or whatever you call it, everyone who isn't a "real Southerner" views it as waving a banner of racism under their noses. Whether it is right or not, and whether you like it or not, your flag is a problem for the rest of the country -- especially American Negroes (the proper term for black people in America -- considering the fact that none of them was born in Africa or ever lived in any African country long enough to gain citizenship there). The white "real Southern" rednecks with the "Tennessee Battle Flag" on their pickup trucks are living in the past, at the expense of modern race relations. No one advocates seccession from the Union, or starting another war. That's comforting. But....we get real tired of Northerners and blacks trying to tear the flag down, especially since the reason they want to tear it down is they believe it is a racist symbol. While I was in the military, I had the saying "perception is reality" drummed into me. The way we present ourselves to others forms their opinion of us from the very start. In most cases, that's the only opinion they ever use to judge us from that point onward. I think it's time for you and your fellow "real Southerners" to face the fact that your flag needs to be taken off your flagpoles and replaced with the real American flag -- the Stars and Stripes. No one is questioning the fact that the South is part of the United States, and it's time for the "real Southerners" to stop fighting the Civil War and living in peace with the rest of their country. If it IS a racist symbol to them. Then they have fallen for the big lie. One man's lie is another man's truth. If I were you, I'd concentrate on making sure no one mistook me for a real American. Being a "real Southerner" only leaves the impression that you don't feel as though you belong to the greater whole of our nation. Govern yourself accordingly. I do -- and I'm not the one flying any sort of state-specific "battle flag." I fly the flag of the UNITED States. One of the stars on the field of that flag belongs to Tennessee -- a beautiful state filled with free, united, and loyal Americans -- of all races, ethnic, and religious groups. They are my fellow American citizens, and I expect them to view me as one of theirs. I am living in the unified present-day reality of America -- not in the divided, suspicious, and hateful past. I invite you, my fellow American, to do likewise. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: (snip) I suppose you're now going to say immigrant adults have more personally, better etiquette, and a greater work ethic, than non-immigrant adults in this country, which is why immigrant adults, not non-immigrant adults, work in the restaurants you go to. Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. And, just for you and Jim I'll say this: some. Your bigotry towards American workers (non-immigrants) is noted. However, we're straying off the subject with way too many personal anecdotes, so lets get back to the core of this issue. Again, I firmly believe the ONLY reason some people won't do some jobs is because of the wages paid. There are people in this country (non-immigrants) willing to walk into the containment chamber of a nuclear reactor if the pay is good enough. There are people (non-immigrants) willing to walk 500 ft high steel girders of a building construction site if the pay is good enough. There are people (non-immigrants) willing to place their lives on the line to protect you from crime if the pay is good enough. There are people (non-immigrants) willing to lay their lives on the line to defend this country if the pay is good enough. In other words, there are people (non-immigrants) willing to do any job, no matter how bad or how dangerous, if the pay is good enough. For you to now say otherwise, and instead insist Americans just won't work because they're too lazy or too uppish (immigrants workers are needed instead), is a slap in the face of every hard working American. If some of your friends and associates are different and won't work if the pay is good (which I highly doubt), that says more about the people you hang out with than it does about the American worker. The Americans I see all around me are willing to work. However, the key issue for all of them is the wages paid. It costs a lot of money to even be poor in this country today, Kim. Average rent prices are approaching $700 per month. Average utility prices are approaching $200 per month. Average car and insurance payments, even for an older used car, are approaching $250 per month. Average food prices, even for a young couple, are approaching $250 per month. That doesn't include cloths, medical expenses, gas for the car to get to work, car repairs, hair cuts, school costs for those who want to better their lives, and so on. And that certainly doesn't include luxuries or children (mentioned because some don't think the poor should even have children). The average minimum wage worker is lucky to bring home $600 per month after taxes. With that, even a two income family will have to give up some of the basics of life (a car, a home, food, or something). Needless to say, even common sense suggests few people want to work in those low paying jobs and would rather hold out as long as possible for better paying jobs. You seem to interpret that as they're simply too lazy or too uppish to work. Bringing in immigrants to fill those jobs is not the answer. That still leaves the people described above out of work and looking for jobs. Indeed, filling those lower paying jobs with immigrants only increases the glut of workers seeking slightly better paying jobs, driving wages down for those jobs too. And the cycle repeats for the next higher paying jobs as workers already in those slightly better paying jobs seek higher paying work to escape the glut in workers seeking their jobs. The ripple effect of this practice is undermining the entire American labor force. In the end, the inevitable result of all this is a much lower standard of living for all working class Americans. And those people are not going to be happy campers, even less so as they hear some describe them as too lazy or too uppish to work. Increasing wages is the only answer. And if that drives some less efficient companies out of business, well too bad. There are no guarantees in this country (as Charles says) and, if the business is at all worthwhile, plenty of other, hopefully better managed, companies will quickly spring up to take their place. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
I'm talking of friendly chats about the topic. I am speaking of racist comments and ways of treating people. No, from what I've seen, you're speaking of your own interpretation of those comments and then judging others based on that criteria alone. Isn't that reggae? If you say so. I don't listen to that music. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Hans K0HB" wrote:
Dwight prefers 'reggie' because it sounds, you know, less ...... black. And Hans prefers to make sly comments about a spelling error instead of discussing the topic. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: (snip) I suppose you're now going to say immigrant adults have more personally, better etiquette, and a greater work ethic, than non-immigrant adults in this country, which is why immigrant adults, not non-immigrant adults, work in the restaurants you go to. Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. And, just for you and Jim I'll say this: some. Your bigotry towards American workers (non-immigrants) is noted. Uh huh...OK Lar--- I mean Dwight. However, we're straying off the subject with way too many personal anecdotes, so lets get back to the core of this issue. Again, I firmly believe the ONLY reason some people won't do some jobs is because of the wages paid. And, I believe your right, partly. I don't believe anything is that concrete, Dwight. I am pretty sure there are lots of people who are like you describe and I am pretty sure--certain in fact--that there are people like I describe. Nevertheless, I certainly *don't* believe the immigrant problem in this country is as bad as you believe. There are people in this country (non-immigrants) willing to walk into the containment chamber of a nuclear reactor if the pay is good enough. There are people (non-immigrants) willing to walk 500 ft high steel girders of a building construction site if the pay is good enough. There are people (non-immigrants) willing to place their lives on the line to protect you from crime if the pay is good enough. There are people (non-immigrants) willing to lay their lives on the line to defend this country if the pay is good enough. In other words, there are people (non-immigrants) willing to do any job, no matter how bad or how dangerous, if the pay is good enough. For you to now say otherwise, and instead insist Americans just won't work because they're too lazy or too uppish (immigrants workers are needed instead), is a slap in the face of every hard working American. Whutevah... If some of your friends and associates are different and won't work if the pay is good (which I highly doubt), that says more about the people you hang out with than it does about the American worker. And, it's OK for you to call me a bigot because of my opinion, OK Larr---I mean Dwight. The Americans I see all around me are willing to work. However, the key issue for all of them is the wages paid. It costs a lot of money to even be poor in this country today, Kim. Yes, it does, Dwight. And I am pretty sure I know more about that than you do. Just 30 years ago I was a welfare mom with two kids, no car, a deadbeat dad, was a High School Dropout, and lived in a town of less than 1K people. My kids were raised on fried rice, rice casseroles that I came up with where Cream of Mushroom Soup was a staple and meat was more a flavor--one piece *maybe* two of chicken broke up and thrown into the recipe. Peanut butter and jelly was often breakfast *and* lunch. I watched all around me as people got "comfortable" with being bitter and dismayed and beaten down about where they were. I watched them in my rear-view mirror as I made decisions I sure enough didn't want to be making about where I was going to live, what I was going to do for a living--all the while telling these two kids "everything's OK." And, I watched all around as people who'd become accustomed to being poor and sad were telling me I was being a fool to ever think it was going to be any different. They are probably still there. Average rent prices are approaching $700 per month. Average utility prices are approaching $200 per month. Average car and insurance payments, even for an older used car, are approaching $250 per month. Average food prices, even for a young couple, are approaching $250 per month. That doesn't include cloths, medical expenses, gas for the car to get to work, car repairs, hair cuts, school costs for those who want to better their lives, and so on. And that certainly doesn't include luxuries or children (mentioned because some don't think the poor should even have children). And, I empathize with each and every one of the folks who start out young today. It's hard--extremely hard. But, you know what? Housekeeping pays high dollar these days...very high dollar. And, I am not talking about getting a job with a nitwit hog of a person who has a company paying minimum wage and getting people involved in the business. I am talking about jobs like childcare, housekeeping, medical transcription and other computer jobs, pooper scooper, dog walking, house sitting, all kinds of stuff people let go right by them every day--because they are too busy being sad. There's folks like that, Dwight. Yep, you're right. There are folks who *will* do those jobs. But they are in the minority and how ironic. Because it is more the minority immigrant population that does those jobs than a lot of US citizens. The average minimum wage worker is lucky to bring home $600 per month after taxes. With that, even a two income family will have to give up some of the basics of life (a car, a home, food, or something). Needless to say, even common sense suggests few people want to work in those low paying jobs and would rather hold out as long as possible for better paying jobs. You seem to interpret that as they're simply too lazy or too uppish to work. I know all about what the cost of living is, Dwight. And I know it from a poor perspective and the perspective I am at now. Or, should I say the perspective of believing nothing will ever change to making my own way to where I am comfortable? And, if need be, I'll start over again. Hell no, I wouldn't like it--I'd hate it--but I would do what I gotta do. Bringing in immigrants to fill those jobs is not the answer. That still leaves the people described above out of work and looking for jobs. Indeed, filling those lower paying jobs with immigrants only increases the glut of workers seeking slightly better paying jobs, driving wages down for those jobs too. And the cycle repeats for the next higher paying jobs as workers already in those slightly better paying jobs seek higher paying work to escape the glut in workers seeking their jobs. The ripple effect of this practice is undermining the entire American labor force. In the end, the inevitable result of all this is a much lower standard of living for all working class Americans. And those people are not going to be happy campers, even less so as they hear some describe them as too lazy or too uppish to work. Yes, it is a vicious cycle...one more people need to jump on the bandwagon about and get ****ed off enough to change. But they won't, Dwight. It's been this way for years--this is nothing new. Hell, you buy anything from China lately? You ever said to yourself you're going to stop buying things from China? BRING IMMIGRANTS IN?????? Hell, stop buying from China. Worry about the commies coming over here? Hell, stop buying from China. Increasing wages is the only answer. And if that drives some less efficient companies out of business, well too bad. There are no guarantees in this country (as Charles says) and, if the business is at all worthwhile, plenty of other, hopefully better managed, companies will quickly spring up to take their place. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ If your answer is to simply increase wages...you're setting yourself up to be miserable. Companies are cutting back, trimming the fat, and freezing wages. And, that is going to be the trend for a few years. The more people want to deny that 9-11 "didn't affect us," the more they are putting their heads in the sand. Since 9-11, this country has been trying to recover. We'll do it...but we were and are a lot more affected than we admit--and Binnie over there knows it. Oh, and I note that it's OK--from your perspective--to say "too bad" if your solution happens to drive some less efficient companies out of business ( your remark above, "And if that drives some less efficient companies out of business, well too bad.") But you criticize and call me a bigot for my thoughts along the same lines, from my perspective. Thanks, Lar---I mean Dwight. Kim W5TIT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com