What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[overtone]

How does an article that says 90 percent of the media is controlled by 6 companies prove that 27 percent of the deluded population is controlled by wrong thinking Republicans?

?

The link was to help you in your research to support your claim that the US media is left-leaning, to make it as easy as possible to find evidence for this "left-leaning" media you claim exists.

Ok, that's disingenuous - it was to illustrate that there is no reality behind that "feeling" you got (from somewhere ) that the US media is "left-leaning".

 

 

I am not sure either why you think universities are not liberal, or left leaning.

Now we have "liberal" thrown in - let's stick with your claim: "left-leaning". They do not in general lean left. What am I supposed to think about them?

 

Maybe not Catholic universities, but although I have very little evidence, what I know of Fairleigh Dickinson University, for instance, going by a workshop on Sustainable Enterprise, that I attended, the place leans a lot further left, than it does right.

Thing is, I don't think you have any idea what a leftist ideology looks like, or how one would recognize a "left-leaning" university, as opposed to one that deals in balanced intellectual analysis and wide ranging acquisition of knowledge - or one that is, as most in that list are, favorably biased toward rightwing ideology. You have ignored a half dozen opportunities to correct this impression, here's another: Fairleigh Dickinson U leans left - how do you know?

 

Here, to illustrate the situation, are the academic offerings: http://view2.fdu.edu/academics/undergraduate-and-graduate-studies/ Now skimming through that list, we notice that graduate degrees are offered in only some subjects, and these overlap with the fraction of subjects offered on both campuses - is it fair to infer that these two-campus and grad degree subjects are the subjects this university emphasizes? Because these are almost entirely corporate capitalist business related: accounting, finance, hotel administration, etc. The few exceptions are largely vocational licensure - teaching.

 

This strikes me as an odd emphasis for a "left-leaning" university. Is it?

Edited September 30, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Ok, I think of left as liberal, right as conservative, but I thought that was the general understanding.

 

If we instead are talking about left as anti-establishment and right as establishment, then yes the universities are part of the establishment and seek to prepare their students to run the government, keep the wheels of commerce turning, cure diseases, learn about communication and technology and fly to Mars. And the "media" is there to inform the population as to what is going on in the world, and to entertain.

 

So I am confused, as to what you think the major problem in the United States is. Is everything that the U.S. does, our banking system, our entertainment complex, our military industrial complex, our universities, our hospitals, our media, our farms, our businesses, our energy complex, our transportation complex, our factories and our streets and parks, suspect in your mind? Who does all this stuff? Just Republicans, just Democrats, just Anarchists, just Communists, just Socialists...who? And if it is all of us that are doing it, want to do it and are good at doing it, and it creates a situation where everybody can rise to the level of their own competence and enrich themselves and their families while they do it and live in peace and freedom and security...then why is that a problem?

 

I don't think I have lost this argument yet. You have to describe better, who you are for, not just who you are against. I think you rail against people you rely on to have the way of life that you have.

 

Regards, TAR

I saw a "creative playground" built with special funds for special needs children, announced on the TV yesterday. That is the kind of thing I think of as left and liberal, wasteful and unworkable. There were children sitting on the sidewalk, looking like they were disappointed as that maybe they were not going to be allowed to play in the thing, as it was for "special needs" kids. I also saw that a New York "market place" for health insurance went insolvent, and this after two infusions of hundreds of millions of dollars. This I also look at as something the left and liberal democrats set up, even with knowledgeable people telling them it was not realistic and was not going to work.

 

Having these "feelings" does not mean I hate special needs children, nor that I want people to be sick, nor that I am fascist, nor that I listen only to Republican propaganda. It means I saw a playground that looked like a waste of money, that was going to cause more problems than it was going to solve, hanging like forbidden fruit in front of anxious kids, and that a confusing system, the principles of which were never fully understood and fleshed out and tested, and agreed on to be workable, ("the market place"), was failing to work.

 

The thing about the fenced in playground, was that it was the "opening" of the playground, and there were kids there, but nobody was playing. The thing was empty. All the kids were on the outside of the fence. There was nobody, no special needs kids shown enjoying the place. Just normal looking kids, sitting on the sidewalk, waiting for nothing.

Edited September 30, 2015 by tar

[John Cuthber]

And the "media" is there to inform the population as to what is going on in the world.

 

And yet they don't.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?IR=T

 

which might lead one to wonder what they are actually doing.

Well, most people here already know my opinion on that but, just for the record.

If you are rich enough to afford to pay cash to educate your children, pay for your healthcare and so on, you don't need a government to do it for you.

So, it makes sense (at least- shortsightedly) for you to vote for a government that spends less on doing this and, consequently taxes you less.

 

If, on the other hand, you don't have an income that lets you do those tings, you need help from others to do so.

And, in that case, it makes sense to vote for a government that collects tax from those who are better off and uses it to help you.

 

In every country I have heard of (and the US is one of them) those with not enough money outnumber those with lots.

So the vote should always be in favour of a government that taxes the rich to provide services for the poor.

And yet, (not just in the US) that doesn't happen. the US for example, has no real Left wing politicians (handy hint for Republicans- Obama is not a communist).

 

And there must be some reason why people are voting against what would logically be their own interests.

My hypothesis is simple; they get misinformed- deliberately.

That's why the Media which is run by, and for, the very rich, is biassed in favour of keeping the populous uninformed (as witnessed by that report about fox).

And it's also why the Republican party has deliberately tried to stifle education among the masses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

It also tallies with their claim to be Christian. Allying with the church is a good way to look like the moralists even though their behaviour is fundamentally at odds with what most Christians today would accept as the ideal of Christianity. remember when pondering the question "what would Jesus do?",one of the answers is lose his temper and throw out the bankers.

It also tallies with the idea that the Republicans are great believers in blaming the victims, and the unfortunate- for example immigrants- for the problems in the country. It's simplistic and contrafactual; but it's easy to do because you can exploit the innate xenophobia that people have.

The actual studies show that immigrants are a net benefit to the country

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

 

Now, that's my view (from outside) about "What is America's biggest problem".

It's being run by the rich for the rich and that's why the rich are getting richer and the poor are not.

The workforce are becoming more productive- but they are not getting better paid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png

 

No, of course, I might be wrong.

If I'm wrong then there must be some other explanation for these facts

• The Republicans explicitly want to reduce the effectiveness of education in fields where it might lead people to question authority.
• They run "news" media that are biassed in favour of their position, to the point of being misleading or dishonest
• They win elections even though their behaviour is counter to the needs and wants of most voters.
• They fail to address the inequality of wealth, and then blame the resulting difficulties on others.
• They are anti immigration, even though that's bad for the economy.

 

Perhaps someone could provide an alternative explanation for that list.

[overtone]

Ok, I think of left as liberal, right as conservative, but I thought that was the general understanding.

It's a fundamental confusion, and it's partly the consequence of the media in the US framing all public discussion in Rush Limbaugh's and Newt Gingrich's terms.

 

The destruction of meaning in the standard terms of Western political discourse has been in part a deliberately promoted strategy, a purposeful effort, in the media operations of the corporate rightwing authoritarians currently using the Republican Party in their seeking of power. http://janda.org/politxts/PartyPlatforms/LIberal%20as%20a%20Dirty%20Word.pdf

 

"Liberal" was originally - and by that I mean until the Reagan media guys got hold of it - close to "libertarian". It still is, among the educated and literate. Liberals traditionally favored less regulation in market exchange, more private enterprise and scope for endeavor, capitalism in general, promotion of Western Enlightenment. Free market capitalism is a liberal idea. W's brain trust of genius Iraq War planners and American Empire promulgators were "neoliberals", inheriting the name from Reagan's advisors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

 

Meanwhile, conservatives traditionally value tradition, custom, ritual, obligation, sticking with what has worked in the past; conservatives viewed the unrest and rapid change and discarding of custom brought by free market capitalism with suspicion. Nothing except slavery has dismembered the traditional family and altered or discarded family values as much as corporate capitalism in the West, for example, and conservatives rightly view it with suspicion.

 

 

 

So I am confused, as to what you think the major problem in the United States is.

The current Republican Party, its media enablers, and core (27%) electoral support. Copy and paste that on your damn desktop, because I'm done typing those words in front of your face.

 

 

You have to describe better, who you are for, not just who you are against.

Not in this thread. Off topic. Edited September 30, 2015 by overtone

[Delta1212]

Tar, as someone who is just entering the thread, could you humor me for a minute. I read the whole thing over the span of a few days, so I don't remember whether you specifically touched on this yet.

 

Could you list some policy positions that you consider to be important in differentiating the Republican Party from the Democratic Party and that you are particularly in favor of? Your reasons for favoring those positions would be nice but isn't necessary if you don't feel like elaborating.

[overtone]

I also saw that a New York "market place" for health insurance went insolvent, and this after two infusions of hundreds of millions of dollars. This I also look at as something the left and liberal democrats set up, even with knowledgeable people telling them it was not realistic and was not going to work

The market place model for providing health insurance to working class Americans is a rightwing Republican idea, promoted by (in particular) Republican Governor Mitt Romney in direct opposition to the leftwing "single payer" models that were gaining traction in Massachusetts a few years back.

 

The people who originally told everyone that these market places for health insurance would not work, that the idea of driving down the cost of US health insurance via free market competition was a sure failure, and any model set up on it would be unworkable, were the left - especially those arguing for single payer health insurance, one of the standard leftwing ideas directly opposed to corporate capitalist market place models such as New York's.

 

By the mid 1980s most of the people representing these views in public office were Democrats, and despite gaining significant popular support in the late 1980s and early 1990s their legislation never had much chance in Congress because it was opposed by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The Clintons, in particular, favored rightwing market models, partly because the Clintons are moderate rightwingers, but mostly because they were trying to field something that they thought had a chance despite the increasingly obvious nature of the current Republican Party.

 

Similar considerations led Obama, another moderate rightwinger, to remove - in advance! - even a public option or Medicare choice from his version of the Republican rightwing corporate organized market based health insurance model.

 

And this is the liberal - not the left, (that would be far more harsh, and abusive to Axelrod), the liberal - take on that:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/bernie-sanders-naive-obama-214222

 

So now we have people blaming the left for something the left has vehemently opposed and fought and tried to prevent and loudly mourned the enactment of; blaming the liberals for something the liberals only signed on to as a compromise with the "current Republican Party etc etc".

 

But that's standard - the refusal of personal accountability by the likes of Mitt Romney's Party members is not only universal but often so blatant as to be comical, and the majority of the US media is completely reliable in their willingness to cooperate in these farcical maneuverings. But there's an interesting question: How did that happen? How did the people who created these kludges and messes get into the position of being able to blame other people for their own and very public fuckups, including their actual foes and opponents and those who tried to stop them, over and over and over, and still be taken seriously - hell, legitimately run for public office?

Edited September 30, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

I have a close family friend who is a small business owner up in CT . He takes the risk, makes the sales and provides the means of production, to employ probably 30 people. The democrats feel they have the right to tell him how much to pay his employees, what benefits he should extend to them, and any number of other paperwork generating exercises. The codes he must follow are often confusing, contradictory, and arbitrary. The decision to hire someone, and how much you are going to pay them, and what perks you are going to offer them, is between you and the employee, or should I think. Little consideration is given to the employer as to the benefit he/she is already extending to society, in employing folk.

 

Yet I often hear phrases uttered by democrats, like "the U.S is rich, no child should ever be in need." The statement makes the assumption that the riches are collectively ours to spend, as we wish. This is not realistic. Anyone that has a lot of money, has either stolen it, won it in the lottery, taken risk to obtain it, worked for it, had it willed to them or otherwise obtained it, in a manner that makes it their money, not ours to spend. Constructing policies and laws aimed at the redistribution of wealth, is communist in principle and creates an unfair situation for the person with the most money. From each according to their capability, to each according to their need, is Marxist. I am just as generous as the next, and I look out for the needy and have often given a buck (that I knew was headed for wine or drugs) to a hungry looking guy on the street that asked if I could spare something, so he could eat.

 

I never took charity from anyone. I was laid off for a week during the downturn and where others applied for unemployment insurance I did not, figuring I could make it and "we" as a government had other mouths to feed. Well, when I was permanently laid off, I took unemployment, as everybody told me that is why I paid unemployment insurance for 30 years. I got a job four months later, so I have "taken charity" for 4 months, but that is it. I went to school, worked, joined the Army, worked again, managed a depot, worked for a typewriter manufacturer for a few years, and a copier manufactured for 25 years. Outside those four months of unemployment, my wife and I only put into the system, we did not take from it. Well my wife did get some social security benefits when she was young after her father died. But most generally I am for personal responsibility and taking care of yourself and am with the Republican Party in expecting that everybody else does the same, and does not bring children into the world that they are not prepared to take care of.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

Language! Please.

 

Regards, TAR

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Anyone that has a lot of money, has either stolen it, ... or otherwise obtained it, in a manner that makes it their money, not ours to spend.

 

Actually, if they got hold of it by exploiting others, it's not clear that it is theirs to spend rather than "ours".

 

And the usual meaning of ", taken risk to obtain it, " seems to be to have risked other people's money to make huge profits for themselves.

OK, there are exceptions but how often do the millionaires ever end up truly broke?

Edited September 30, 2015 by John Cuthber

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

Another aspect of the same personal responsibility platform, is the fact that I do not qualify for government assistance in any regard, because between my wife and I we always made enough to be over the threshold. It always seems unfair to me, that others got free stuff from the government, and I did not. If all citizens are entitled something, it should go to all citizens, like public education. If you on the other hand can get something if you have to many kids or too little money, it turns out it is me providing for your kids.

I had a job in Newark during my college years, repairing blinds in an apartment building. The guy that took up the newly cleaned and built ones, and brought me others in need of repair was a black man, who had four children with three different women. He was interested in "spreading his seed", and took far from full responsibility in providing for either the women or the children. The welfare system provided for the kids. The government took over the role of dad. I would rather not see this, and feel that my tax dollars are enabling such irresponsible behavior.

 

Yesterday, somewhere in the area, a newborn with ambilicle cord attached was thrown out of a 7th floor window. The mother was hiding the pregnancy from the boyfriend (who I think was the father) and it turns out the woman herself had worked in "child welfare" in a child protection role. I am thinking it would be better not to have the government take on the role of protector and provider, if such disregard for life is a unintended consequence of such policies.

 

Regards, TAR

John Cuthber,

 

There is an interesting story from up in CT where a couple disappeared. It is not known if foul play was involved, but people close to them do not know where they are, or if they are alive.

 

The couple had a nice house and grounds, and were rich by most standards. Some money the wife had, was invested in a rental house. The renter did not pay his rent. The couple tried everything, through the courts to get the renter to pay, and have the investment company take responsibility for the bad investment. The courts however would not evict the renter as they had a special needs child. The couple wound up owing a million dollars in house payments and electric bills and such. They got rich by working hard, as the guy had a garbage collection business and the woman a school librarian. They got unrich, by the court ruling.

 

Regards, TAR

John Cuthber,

 

By taking risk to obtain it, I mean this.

 

Years ago, after college, I was thinking about what it was that people paid other people for.

 

This is not proven or backed up by any body else's thinking, but I came up with something like this, in order of value.

 

1. Your presence.

2. A skill.

3 A talent

4. Taking responsibility.

5. Taking risk.

 

When you look at highly paid jobs, you usually find all these things roled up in one. A boss is usually responsible for many lives, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in plant, equipment and inventory. He takes great personal risk, open to lawsuits and dismissal upon failure, etc.

 

So when I say take risk, I mean somebody was willing to put themselves on the line, and take a chance, where I might not have the guts.

 

Regards, TAR

[John Cuthber]

You say that as if one story overturns my point.

Well, try reading what I said; I already pointed out that there were exceptions.

 

On the other hand, if you think just one case makes a difference...

http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/21/former-hedge-fund-manager-raises-price-of-aids-and-cancer-drug-from-13-50-to-750-5401926/

 

On a more important note, if you had a responsible society, the cost of the child's needs would be be picked up by the state and the home owner would not be out of pocket.

Of course, you would need to have taxes and a state, would you see that as a problem?

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

Young punk that is more taken by his own intellect than looking at the situation realistically. He is an extortionist and probably a member of the 10% "not of good will".

 

I don't want to be associated with him. I shun him. You take 'm.

 

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/martin-shkreli.asp?cycle=06

 

Regards, TAR

John Cuthber,

 

One of the things politics is about is who is responsible for who.

 

I am always wondering, when we send money to another country to feed the children, where the parents are, and what are they doing to meet their children's needs.

 

Somebody still has to grow the food, and find a clean water supply. Food and money do not appear by magic. In drought stricken areas, or when hurricanes hit, everybody needs help. In this country, at least, there is usually a low skill job available, and an opportunity to acquire a skill. I have to retract part of my "no government assistance" mantra earlier. I took an IT Project Management course this summer, at NJIT, paid for by an upSKILL grant. I forgot about that.

 

Regards, TAR

I am not used to "being taken care off". I always, with my wife, took care of myself.

thank you, by the way, for paying for that course for me

John Cuthber,

 

Well then, just add that story to whatever exceptions, you were already allowing. "You said geese are white. Well there are exceptions." I was just pointing out one Canadian goose.

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

Tar, in a utopian world everyone would have equal opportunity and effort would be directly related to success. Unfortunately, we don't start from the same place. Studies have shown that having a black sounding name decreases your chance of getting a job, even with a college degree to lower than that of a white felon. Ask Tamir Rice about how his effort will pay off in the future. Oh wait, it won't. He's dead. Not a race issue? The oath keepers point guns at the government repeatedly and don't get shot. What if your parents had serious substance abuse issues, were chronically unemployed, and never taught you the skill to go to school on time every day? Some succeed anyway? Well, most don't. Not your problem? Take a guess how much prison and a lack of contribution to the economy costs. You will pay, but much more than helping the child out.

 

The conservative principles sound like they are all for personal responsibility, but they really are about creating in groups and out groups. poor people are just lazy. They aren't as good as you. That's the message.

[tar]

Willie71,

 

I have the same desires to remove institutional racism from the equation, as you do. I spoke about this stuff often with a black roommate and close friend I had in the Army in Germany. I spoke about this stuff often with a black coworker I had (up until February.)

 

Just as I am responsible to NOT live up to KKK stereotypes, blacks are responsible to NOT live up to black stereotypes, to not be slaves, and kept humans. To NOT "get over on whitie", to NOT try and "get over on the man".

 

My daughter went to Temple, which is in the middle of a highly black area in Philadelphia. The apartment she rented with two other girls was just off campus, a half block from the little security hut. Her paved backyard had a 12 ft. high chainlink fence around it with coils of razor wire on top. I was appalled, and always concerned about her safety. Cars were stolen, there was a murder in the subway station two blocks away. The campus was ALWAYS bathed in bright lights. Just a little thing bothered me the most though. There was garbage in the alleys and on the street infront and behind peoples houses. And in opposition to your point, how does institutional racism prevent a person from picking up the trash around their home?

 

My friend at work and I talked every day about Ferguson, and what was going on. We agreed on what probably happened and on who probably lied, and who did what to who, and saw what and said what. One thing I could not figure out, is why the community did not find fault with the young man that was shot, for strongarming the shop keeper and stealing the cigars, and for disrespecting the police officer and for punching the police officer and for fighting for his gun. All these things are a no no.

Yes of course there is still racism in this country. Yes of course there is still sexism in this country. Yes of course there is income inequality in this country. But it is not your and my role as "masters" to treat the slaves better, and provide for them so they don't riot. It is the responsibility of every black man and woman to get an education, stay away from the drugs and the gangs, treat each other and their neighborhoods, with respect, follow the laws, be of value to somebody else, earn a living, raise a family, pick up the garbage and make their neighborhoods appealing to business and visitors, and to each other.

 

Institutional racism does not absolve someone from shunning a family member for bad behavior. Back to the intervention we were talking about before. If we think of each other as brothers, and sisters, or at least cousins, and give each other the benefit of the doubt, and try to step in when the other is in trouble with drugs, or is beating their wife, or is foundling their nephew, or otherwise misbehaving, then things would be better. It is not helpful to blame the other guy, for your own failings.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 30, 2015 by tar

[Willie71]

Willie71,

 

I have the same desires to remove institutional racism from the equation, as you do. I spoke about this stuff often with a black roommate and close friend I had in the Army in Germany. I spoke about this stuff often with a black coworker I had (up until February.)

 

Just as I am responsible to NOT live up to KKK stereotypes, blacks are responsible to NOT live up to black stereotypes, to not be slaves, and kept humans. To NOT "get over on whitie", to NOT try and "get over on the man".

 

My daughter went to Temple, which is in the middle of a highly black area in Philadelphia. The apartment she rented with two other girls was just off campus, a half block from the little security hut. Her paved backyard had a 12 ft. high chainlink fence around it with coils of razor wire on top. I was appalled, and always concerned about her safety. Cars were stolen, there was a murder in the subway station two blocks away. The campus was ALWAYS bathed in bright lights. Just a little thing bothered me the most though. There was garbage in the alleys and on the street infront and behind peoples houses. And in opposition to your point, how does institutional racism prevent a person from picking up the trash around their home?

 

My friend at work and I talked every day about Ferguson, and what was going on. We agreed on what probably happened and on who probably lied, and who did what to who, and saw what and said what. One thing I could not figure out, is why the community did not find fault with the young man that was shot, for strongarming the shop keeper and stealing the cigars, and for disrespecting the police officer and for punching the police officer and for fighting for his gun. All these things are a no no.

Yes of course there is still racism in this country. Yes of course there is still sexism in this country. Yes of course there is income inequality in this country. But it is not your and my role as "masters" to treat the slaves better, and provide for them so they don't riot. It is the responsibility of every black man and woman to get an education, stay away from the drugs and the gangs, treat each other and their neighborhoods, with respect, follow the laws, be of value to somebody else, earn a living, raise a family, pick up the garbage and make their neighborhoods appealing to business and visitors, and to each other.

 

Institutional racism does not absolve someone from shunning a family member for bad behavior. Back to the intervention we were talking about before. If we think of each other as brothers, and sisters, or at least cousins, and give each other the benefit of the doubt, and try to step in when the other is in trouble with drugs, or is beating their wife, or is foundling their nephew, or otherwise misbehaving, then things would be better. It is not helpful to blame the other guy, for your own failings.

 

Regards, TAR

You raise relevant points. I would like to explain I have worked with disenfranchised people my whole career. What seems like common sense is really foreign to people in a different environment. I have had to teach 15 year olds how to brush their teeth, explain basic hygiene like how to properly shower. It isn't a choice to be like that, a form of rejection of regular society, but it's all they know, their norm.

 

When I took histories, I realized that many of these kids had families where no one was employed, no one graduated high school, and most people were serving correctional sentences. We can't expect spontaneous skill development without teaching the skills.

 

When I looked at the curriculum for the skills training group back in the early 90's, I thought it was patronizing, but after the first set of pre tests, I realized not a single one of these kids understood the basics of body language or basic social norms. None even knew how to say "thank you" in a reasonable way. It was quite the shock to me. No way could these teens be successful in a job interview, and if a buddy got them a job, the first time the boss gave them shit, they didn't know how to accept the feedback and walked off the job.

 

No basic life skills. They couldn't budget, had no idea about basic health, and were woefully under or misinformed about sexual health.

 

I realized that living that way wasn't a choice, but their normal. I had as much chance of becoming the next bill gates as they had taking out a student loan and getting a trade. Completely foreign world.

[overtone]

Just as I am responsible to NOT live up to KKK stereotypes, blacks are responsible to NOT live up to black stereotypes,

Uh, no, dude, really - you want to reread that and maybe walk it back a little?

 

We all post stuff we haven't quite thought through, from time to time, and the edit function stops working too soon, but you probably don't want that to stand without qualification.

 

One thing I could not figure out, is why the community did not find fault with the young man that was shot, for strongarming the shop keeper and stealing the cigars, and for disrespecting the police officer and for punching the police officer and for fighting for his gun. All these things are a no no.

So now all the nearby black people are a community, an all of them must go out of their way to find fault with the behavior of any black person who does bad things within a half a mile of their current location?

 

That's racist. You said you were open to the notion, remember?

 

It's also wrong. In fact they did - the stuff that the kid actually did for sure, anyway. The "community", meaning various black people who live nearby, were unanimous in agreeing that Brown behaved very badly, inexcusably, and richly deserved to be accosted and arrested by the police.

 

Only: none of the stuff that was established fact even marginally justified shooting the kid and leaving his body lie in the street for hours, and none of the stuff that even marginally justified pulling a gun and shooting anyone is established fact, or even a reasonable interpretation of the evidence - it's just the word of the cop, who was not a reliable witness and whose version was poorly supported by the physical evidence, and whose incompetence was the major factor in the tragedy.

 

But it is not your and my role as "masters" to treat the slaves better, and provide for them so they don't riot.

It is in fact your role to clean up your foul presumptions and corrupt institutions, rein in your thug police and careless judges and perverse laws and predatory moneylenders and habit of casual slander, and establish justice in your society and your community for the heirs of slavery's effects who live in your society and in your community.

 

And if unable, as it would be no easy task, at least abandon your horrible pretense of accountability and responsibility, your empty claims to diligence and self-reliance next to stories whose implications are all too obvious and all too obviously intended. Because shit like this:

 

 

Institutional racism does not absolve someone from shunning a family member for bad behavior.

is pretty ugly to read. "Family values", eh?

 

 

It is the responsibility of every black man and woman to get an education, stay away from the drugs and the gangs, treat each other and their neighborhoods, with respect, follow the laws, be of value to somebody else, earn a living, raise a family, pick up the garbage and make their neighborhoods appealing to business and visitors, and to each other.

At what age does this responsibility kick in? Fourteen would be too late, of course, in a neighborhood whose adult men are frequently jailed and infrequently employed, but that stuff seems pretty heavy for an eight year old.

Edited October 1, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber,

 

Young punk that is more taken by his own intellect than looking at the situation realistically. He is an extortionist and probably a member of the 10% "not of good will".

 

I don't want to be associated with him. I shun him. You take 'm.

 

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/martin-shkreli.asp?cycle=06

 

 

I am not used to "being taken care off". I always, with my wife, took care of myself.

 

Well then, just add that story to whatever exceptions, you were already allowing. "You said geese are white. Well there are exceptions." I was just pointing out one Canadian goose.

 

Regards, TAR

The Campaign money sugests he's not even sure to whom to donate- or he's backing both sides hoping that whoever wins, he can say "I helped you; you help me"

 

From the age of 0 to let's say 16, you didn't take care of yourself. Once you retire you will be relying on some sort of pension to take care of you. That's a reasonable chunk of your life where you didn't "take care of yourself".

But it misses the point, the kid with special needs is probably never going to take care of themselves- is that the parents' fault?

Not all people are able to "take care of themselves" and you can judge a society by how it looks after those people.

 

re. the "All geese are white" assertion.

No, that's a strawman; it's not what I said.

I said "And the usual meaning of..." but you are seeking to discredit me by pretending that I said "The invariable meaning of"

 

Incidentally, though the point wasn't addressed to me.

Re.

" And in opposition to your point, how does institutional racism prevent a person from picking up the trash around their home?".

One way would be if it stopped you seeing litter in white neighbourhoods

Another would be if it paid for the local government to clean up litter in "rich" neighbourhoods.

and

Re "Just as I am responsible to NOT live up to KKK stereotypes, blacks are responsible to NOT live up to black stereotypes, to not be slaves, and kept humans. To NOT "get over on whitie", to NOT try and "get over on the man". "

If, (and it's a mighty big "if") black and white people are acting those ways, to whom does it fall to start the process?

The ones with money and power, or the ones who can't get a job?

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

I have a corner property. People throw stuff out of their car, as they pass. Cigarette butts, drink containers, wrappers. I pick it up and put it in a trash can which I set out on the curb. Sometimes garbage cans get blown over and the trash blows around the neighborhood. If I am across the street with the wheelbarrow, I pick up the stuff along the road, so that it is not an eyesore. I put it in the trash and set it out on the curb on garbage pickup day. My point was that I feel responsible for keeping the place looking nice. The town is tasked with picking up the "grit", (the rock left over from the rock and salt mixture put down against ice and snow,) But they don't take it off your lawn (even if you lawn is in the town right of way). I clean up the grit off the corner and my road frontage in the weeks after winter and put it in a pile across the way, where a company that are stewards of that property, push it into a clean level fill area they are maintaining. Point is, that government has their role but it is important for people to police themselves and take care of each other, and take care of the place, on their own. What government does is part of the team effort, and like you said, there are many things a person can not do safely and efficiently by themselves and it is better to have everybody, together (through the government) obtain the equipment and expertise and manpower to get the job done. To see trash, and broken windows, and filth in an area, tells me that the inhabitants don't care to keep it nice. I picked up a lot of trash in the alley behind my daughters apartment, when we were moving her in. There was more trash to pick up when we moved her out, but not as much.

 

Yes I was taken care off when I was young, but I was taken care of by my parents and extended family. Yes I will be taken care of by pension money and social security and medicare, and my 401 monies and my wife's 401 monies, but many of those things I earned. I paid into. Was part of my employment compensation, and so on. Even still, I will be paying taxes "into" the system on the money from my pension and my 401 as I withdraw it. I am being taken care of now, by my wife and our mutual savings, as I don't have a job. But it is up to me to find a job, and take care of myself and pay my property taxes and such if I want to continue to live in a house that pays property tax so the local schools can be supported and the county services (here and in Paterson) can be maintained. And to that, I am in a similar situation to every other citizen. I have no special in to be an insider. I don't belong to any secret organizations, or alumni groups. I don't have a ticket to employment. My one up is that I am a veteran and that gives me a second look, and qualifies me for programs like upSKILL. I don't collect unemployment because I am disqualified because I quit my last job. I can't go back to my old company, they don't want me. I never joined a country club or Elks club or anythings, so I do not have a hook into the local "power structure" and my college went out of business years ago. So I have my skills and talents, my education, my work ethic, my moral code, my character and my smile. Same things that everybody else, black or white has available to them.

 

Regards, TAR

Perhaps it is a rental thing. That people do not feel responsible for maintaining a property that does not belong to them. That it is the landlords job, or the city's job or something. Still it is your place.

 

I lived in East Orange years ago and rented a house from the school (the school I graduated from). There was no litter on my property.

The place was not cluttered. The grass was cut, the windows cleaned, the porch painted, the sidewalk swept, the broken wood repaired. By my wife and I. Because it was our house.

The U.S. is "our" house.

[John Cuthber]

A very common reason for renting is simply not having much money.

So, if they are paying the landlord and it's his job to fix things- yet he doesn't- and they don't have the spare cash to pay for a new window, whose fault is that?

Re.

"To see trash, and broken windows, and filth in an area, tells me that the inhabitants don't care to keep it nice. "

It tells me that perhaps they don't care, perhaps they tried, but have given up because they receive no help. perhaps they can't afford the time. It tells me lots of things, but it sure doesn't tell me what colour they are.

[tar]

John,

 

I see the same thing in rural W.Virginia with boarded up meth houses and junk cars and refrigerators dumped in the creek. Mostly white folk there. I was suggesting that people have some personal power, to make the place around them the kind of place they want to live in. Blacks in Philadelphia are equal citizens of the United States of America, as a white man in the semi-rural suburbs is. One of us is not the master and the other slave. One of us is not responsible for the other, as in it is my fault, because I am white, that a black man is poor. There are drugs in the poor areas, white and black. The meth in W.Virginia, the heroin in Paterson. Hispanic, or black or white, there are gangs. There is a different "feel" I got driving though the streets of Newark on the way to NJIT, than there was on campus, where a Job fair had hundreds of young, smart technical students of all colors and nationalities in their suits, looking to take their places in companies needing technical and project planning skills. A line of such fine individuals, wrapped around over 50 yds, long, waiting to get into the gym and tennis center, where the employers were. It was an impressive sight. Our future.

 

Does not mean I am racist, if I blame the inhabitants of a poor area for their conduct, and if I expect them to hold up their end of the bargain in making the U.S. the best place in the world, to live.

 

I do not know who provides the drugs, in the bad areas. I do not know who are the dealers and pimps. But I would imagine that gang leaders are amongst the 10% of the most capable and trustworthy and intelligent, on the block. Where they guide their followers, how they choose to make a living is however my business, in that my neighbor's kids are driving down into Paterson, to buy their heroin. I do not want to see my fellow Americans kill each other over drug deals and territory in Paterson, any more than I want to see a divorce in W. Virgina because the wife has traded sex for meth, or any more than I want to see a KKK member drag a black man through the streets. Shunning a bad actor does not mean I do not consider the actor a fellow American. It just means I do not associate myself with that person, and they need to stop the bad actions, before I accept them back into my "we" camp.

 

Regards, TAR

And by the way, my "we" camp has Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, black and hispanic, young and old, male and female, in it. I do not discriminate based on sex, religion, race, national origin, intelligence or wealth. We are all Americans. Does not however mean I cannot get clues to who is among the 90% of good will and who is among the 10% not of good will.

 

My argument in this thread, is that party affiliation is NOT one of the clues from which one can discriminate between the good actors and the bad.

 

And to your thought that rich people probably got rich on someone else's back...maybe so, but that does not mean they are automatically in the 10% of people not of good will. They may very well be important people, people in the top ten percent of intelligence, capability and trustworthiness, that have helped others and their community and their nation, get to where it is. In fact, the odds have it that rich and powerful people HAVE to be involved in the good stuff. Because poor people, evidently, can't get it done.

 

Regards, TAR

You can't produce, without a means of production.

Edited October 1, 2015 by tar

[John Cuthber]

I wish I could find a reference to it.

There's a psychology experiment where the lecturer hand out a few blank bits of paper to each class member.

Then he puts a waste paper basket at th efront and asks the students to scrunch the paper into balls and throw it into the basket. If they do,they "win" the chance to move forward to a bench near the front.

Of course, after a short while, those who were near the front, or lucky, get right to the front. Those who were unlucky or started out at the back don't do so well.

 

the odd thing is that, if you ask the people why they ended up where they did, their replies depend strongly on where they end up.

Those at the back point out that the set up wasn't fair and that the system was clearly set against them- they started out with a more difficult job, because they were near the back.

 

Those who end up near the front say they got there through hard work and skill.

 

Which group is objectively correct?

do you understand why I'm reminded of that when I see you write things like this

"Does not mean I am racist, if I blame the inhabitants of a poor area for their conduct, and if I expect them to hold up their end of the bargain in making the U.S. the best place in the world, to live."

 

No, it doesn't mean you are racist- but it does strongly suggest that you have fallen victim to a well documented cognitive bias.

 

By at least one measure the US is the second worst country to live in (if you start off poor) because you have the least chance of achieveing the so called "American dream" - and it's more a dream than a reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Comparisons_with_other_countries

 

You might take some small comfort from the fact that my country is the one that does worst.

 

Of course, this factor doesn't help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

and it brings us back to your question about institutional racism.

If 9(as seems plausible) a black kid caught smoking dope gets into more trouble with the law than a white one, then that clearly affects his likelihood of being in jail and thus unable to pick up litter or fix windows.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

So, the problem is drugs, and crime and drug laws that put people in prison during their formative years, when they should be getting an education, and too long sentences that take fathers and mothers permanently away from the family.

 

That is not Republican leadership that is the biggest problem. That is too many laws (like three strikes) that take sentencing judgement out of the hands of the judges, and impose mandatory sentencing. The need for putting repeat offenders away though, is a societal need to remove people that have declared war on the system, from the system.

 

So there is some value in not committing the crime.

Perhaps poor people should not be put in jail for stealing a loaf of bread, or for smoking weed, or taking a shot of heroin. But they certainly should be punished for throwing rocks off overpasses onto cars or for destroying property or looting, or rape, or violent muggings and car jacking and such.

 

When I worked in Newark a young man took off with my radio that I kept in the break room. I saw him running at the other side of the parking lot, and took off after him. I was actually a pretty fast runner, and he was slowed down by the radio so I was catching up to him...but then I looked at the situation, me a white boy, running after a black boy in a heavily black area. What was I going to do if I caught him? What might happen to me, running through his neighborhood, after him. I let the radio go. But subsequent discussions with that "spread my seed" guy, informed me of the fact that a majority of the young black men in the neighborhood wind up serving some prison time. It is like a right of passage. It is not avoided and feared, like in the neighborhood I grew up in. I would not commit a crime because I would not ever want to be in jail. In Newark, however, it was an expectation that drugs were a way of life, stealing from whitie was the way to get the money for the drugs, and eventually you were liable to get caught and sent to jail. Some, I was told, even found jail a safer and more reliable source of food and shelter and medical care, than living on the streets. If I am partially responsible for the institutional racism in this country. I am partially responsible for taking this country from the native Americans, I am partially responsible for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and killing Osama Bin Laden, but I am also partially responsible for freeing the slaves, being the land of opportunity, and all and any good things, that have come from America.

 

There is a way of life, that is lived by many people in this country, that is not based on a cycle of violence, crime, drugs, welfare babies, lack of education, and expectations of prison.

There is a way of life, that is lived by many people where work ethic, education, stable marriages, and respect for the law and the system are not the guiding principles.

 

Its a free country, people can live the way they want to live. The question here, to me, is not whether to call into question the workability of having a baby at 15, without a father to share in the keeping of the house and the raising of the children, my question is whether it is actually a cure, a solving of the problem, a being a more responsible government, to enable such inadvisable behavior.

 

Regards, TAR

[John Cuthber]

"Some, I was told, even found jail a safer and more reliable source of food and shelter and medical care, than living on the streets. "

Well, that's as big a condemnation of society as any.

 

Here's an interesting take on the "having a baby at 15, without a father to share in the keeping of the house and the raising of the children" issue.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect#Donohue_and_Levitt_study

[Bill Angel]

I would assert that a big problem that is solvable is bringing the costs of prescription drugs in the USA down to where they are affordable.

A month's supply of Humira, a drug to treat psoriatic arthritis which is heavily promoted on TV, costs about $2,400. As a veteran the VA supplies it to me for a copay of only 8 dollars. And while those with private health insurance can also get the drug for a similar low copayment, the heath insurance premiums for all those in their insurance pool have to reflect the costs of providing such medications as Humira to those who need them. I suspect that this is one reason that a lot of people (especially Republicans) hate Obamacare, because healthy people now have to underwrite the costs of providing these very expensive drugs to those who need them.

[tar]

Bill Angel,

 

I have to admit that you have a good point. Bringing down the cost of prescription drugs is much more liable to be helpful than enabling companies to charge excessive amounts.

 

However I would suggest that forcing insurance companies to cover excessively expensive drugs is not good free market behavior. If for instance the cost of something is really excessive, a normal family might find another way to deal with the situation, or take something less effective, but much cheaper. Forcing insurance companies to cover excessively expensive procedures and drugs, does indeed increase the cost of coverage for everyone. And more importantly, a lot of the medical coverage "options" that we have under the new medical insurance system, have large deductibles and the rules for what is covered and not is somewhat arbitrary and subject to conditions and such, where you wind up often paying the large rates OKed under the system, before the insurance company even pays a dollar.

 

In the end result, we pay for the coverage, and we pay the deductable or the copay. The actuaries at the insurance companies have to raise the rates, and set the deductables, according to the cost of the drugs and procedures. The higher the costs, the more we will pay. Nobody is getting a free lunch. We pay if our employers contribute, since they don't have that money for our salaries, we pay as the cost of our chosen programs rises, we pay to subsidize the insurance payments of low income folk. So bottom line, it is the cost of the procedure, and the cost of the prescriptions that is the most important thing to get down. This is harder to do when there are so many rules and set prices and mandatory things, and no free market setting of the price.

 

The only choices permitted by the plan, is whether you are buying Gold, Silver or Bronze levels of protection. Everybody is supposed to be protected against bankrupting costs, after the deductible is paid, but even then there are limits and things that are not covered. There is not the ability to pick a doctor you like, who charges a chicken for his services, or to buy an unapproved drug. The cost of malpractice and injury insurance on the doctors and the drug makers, increases the cost even further. The system is rather complicated and people wind up one way or the other paying not only for their own care, but for everybody elses.

 

If for instance a multi-million dollar procedure, would save my life, but bankrupt my family for generations, I might chose not to have it.

 

If it was covered by my society, I might have it, and it would wind up bankrupting my society for generations.

 

Obama started out saying he was after bringing down the cost of health care, and establishing informational sharing and automated ways that would allow doctors and healthcare providers to make good informed decisions about your care. When people balked at providing universal health care, paid for by the government, the thing morphed into what we have today. It is neither universal healthcare (where the government pays for services and procedures, and drug,) nor has the cost of health care been lowered, in fact the insurance burden has just been spread to the younger worker, who doesn't need so much coverage. Nor have the promised world class informational sharing and record systems come to pass.

 

So yes, I would agree that Republicans don't like the idea of being forced to pay for other people's procedures, but I don't see that as an evil feeling to have. If we had universal health care, then we would all be paying for each other's needs, but we might not be able to afford giving everybody that needed one, a new heart. The decision on who should get expensive procedures, should not be in the hands of a government clerk. And the complicated rules for establishing what should or shouldn't be allowed in any particular situation, should be up to the doctor and the patient.

 

How can we, as a responsible society, choose for everybody, what is best for them, in terms of healthcare?

 

It is not fair to charge a person for city water, when they have a well. And its not fair to charge Telsa prices to people that, by choice, drive an old Ford.

 

So, yes, we should find ways to lower the cost, not ways to spread higher costs around.

 

Regards, TAR

I was setting up a yearly visit to my doctor and told the appointment maker that I would like my doctor to take a look at my ankle that has been giving me some trouble. She said he couldn't do that because it was going to be a well care visit, and he wouldn't have the time, and I would have to be charged differently. ??????????????

John Cuthber,

 

That is an interesting study. I had not seen that one. But correlation and cause are sometimes hard to separate, and making abortion legal might cut down on unwanted children, and an unwanted child, or a child born into a bad situation where there is not the proper cultivating atmosphere, might be more liable to commit a crime...but that is almost like saying it would be better to kill children that don't have good parents, then to allow them to mature to the age where they are going to commit a crime. In the end, I think the study is sort of flakey, and the correlation might not be a good argument for abortion, but a good argument for encouraging couples to only engage in unprotected sex if they are willing and able to take care of a potential child.

 

I was thinking the other day, when we were talking about abortion in the case of rape, that the child had nothing to do with the rape, and an abortion at that point is a punishment of the rapist, as his seed is not spread, and a blessing for the raped, as that she absolutely does not want the devil seed in her body, but the fetus. He/she is innocent.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

I wish I could find a reference to it.

There's a psychology experiment where the lecturer hand out a few blank bits of paper to each class member.

Then he puts a waste paper basket at th efront and asks the students to scrunch the paper into balls and throw it into the basket. If they do,they "win" the chance to move forward to a bench near the front.

Of course, after a short while, those who were near the front, or lucky, get right to the front. Those who were unlucky or started out at the back don't do so well.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nathanwpyle/this-teacher-taught-his-class-a-powerful-lesson-about-privil#.yxzzgO5nK