How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Race is on...get used to it!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Race(ism) is on...get used to it!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


1 posted 01-17-2012 01:48 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I'm not sure what your point is Mike, could you elaborate?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 01-17-2012 02:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sure...Obama is in a spot. He can't run on his record, he's lost believability, he has to do some dodging and weaving. Attacks of racism will fill that bill. Undoubtably, his supporters like Sharpeton, Jackson and MSNBC will be pushing the race button whenever they can. Can I prove they are doing it under the instructions of Obama? No, but I doubt he will mind at all. As they tried to play the race card against the Clintons during the nomination, the same will happen here. As my links show, it has begun...and it's only the beginning.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


3 posted 01-17-2012 02:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
his supporters like Sharpeton, Jackson and MSNBC will be pushing the race button whenever they can.


Maybe they will Mike but as far as I can tell the clips you linked to aren't evidence that they've started. Apart from the fact that whoever uploaded them has included the word 'Racist' or 'Racism' in the title none of the clips themselves contained any racism or claims of racism.

The first is Cenk Uyger from the Young Turks who did a stint at MSNBC last year talking about Gingrich's attempt to get minorities to vote Republican with input from guest Al Sharpton.

The second is a critique of Maddow's suggestion that Ron Paul would have voted, and still would vote, against the Civil Rights Act for libertarian rather than racist reasons.

The third is Ron Paul giving an anti-racist, anti-war, anti-war on drugs answer to questions during debates.

The fourth is a video explaining how to spot the 8 signs of terrorist activity.

Where's the racism or claims of racism?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 01-17-2012 04:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm sure I can go through MSNBC's comment and find several cases...leaving for work, now, though. COmments by Sharpeton and Jackson are a matter of record.

In the meantime, you can check out the exchange between Juan Williams (of FOX) and Gingrich on last night's debate and William's insinuations of racism against Newt. It didn't go too well for him.

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (01-17-2012 11:00 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


5 posted 01-18-2012 05:03 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

I'm sure I can go through MSNBC's comment and find several cases...leaving for work, now, though. COmments by Sharpeton and Jackson are a matter of record.

In the meantime, you can check out the exchange between Juan Williams (of FOX) and Gingrich on last night's debate and William's insinuations of racism against Newt. It didn't go too well for him.



     I listened.

     I think you'd better be explicit.  I don't understand why it should take courage for a Republican to talk to blacks.  I've heard you report conversations with blacks about one thing or another, and there was never any question of a requirement for extra special courage required, and you're certainly Republican enough.

     The comments about the Republican positions being against the economic interests of many black voters, were to the point when Al Sharpton raised them.  Why should people vote against their own economic interests and their own political interests when they see their own interests as being in line with the national economic interests as well?  You expect it from the wealthy; why shouldn't you expect it from the poor?

     The comments by Mr. Gingrich sounded fairly racist to me, as though White folks had something to fear from Black folks for some reason that was simply too mysterious to understand.  Try to take away people's voting rights and see how welcome you are to hold congenial dialogue with them about why that's such a great idea.  Imagine how that'd feel if there'd been a history of slavery involved.  Maybe you're one of those folks who  wouldn't have any thought of that highly charged history pass through his or her mind, and if you are, bless you.  You're a far better person than I am.  As a Jew, I still remember history of being a slave in Egypt and am grateful for such freedoms as I have every year, and am unhappy about every slight against them, no matter how small.  And that's being a non-observant Jew, at that.

     I'm not only sensitive to anti-semitism, but to racism directed against anybody I can think of, and yes, that includes blacks.

     Sorry, Mr. Gingrich is skating far too close to the edge for far too many people.
    
     The brouhaha on Rachel Maddow was about Rand Paul and not Ron Paul, and it was created by Rand Paul's refusal to say that he was against government's right to desegregate lunch counters, and it was a merry and lengthy debate which I watched in its entirety.  Rand Paul thought the government did not have the right to regulate business and to say what business could or couldn't do, or that was his direction.

     Apparently he felt that equal protections for people under the law was less important than protecting business against the rights of people, but he wouldn't get into that.  It was the sort of answer, in my opinion, that distinguished Governor Romney's most recent exchange about drug policy.  Stubborn, cruel, pedantic, at least racist in appearance and not very thoughtful.

     To blame Dr. Maddow for that answer when she tried to give him every chance to wiggle out of it — if you watched the entire interview, as I did, it's possible you might come to consider that she tried to allow him an out or ten as well — is somewhat unfair.

     You might have a look at the interview in its entirety and see for yourself.  You may still disagree with me, you may not.  I'm trying to be fair about this stuff, and I hope I'm doing a decent job here.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 01-18-2012 06:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The comments by Mr. Gingrich sounded fairly racist to me, as though White folks had something to fear from Black folks

Thank you, Bob, for proving my point. Their tactics will work well on liberals, which really doesn't matter since they would have that support anyway, but I believe it will hurt them with the independents. I believe that people are getting pretty tired of hearing RACISM! whenever anyone speaks out against something a black may do or say and I don't think the tactic will work for them. I didn't say I didn't want them to take that route.....I just said that they will and it's coming. They are too dumb to know it may hurt rather than help.

Maddow? Somehow I missed her referr1ng to Strom Thurmond or Al Gore's dad with respect to their civil rights records.....maybe because she hasn't. Just another instance of media's selectivity.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


7 posted 01-18-2012 10:39 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

The comments by Mr. Gingrich sounded fairly racist to me, as though White folks had something to fear from Black folks

Thank you, Bob, for proving my point. Their tactics will work well on liberals, which really doesn't matter since they would have that support anyway, but I believe it will hurt them with the independents. I believe that people are getting pretty tired of hearing RACISM! whenever anyone speaks out against something a black may do or say and I don't think the tactic will work for them. I didn't say I didn't want them to take that route.....I just said that they will and it's coming. They are too dumb to know it may hurt rather than help.

Maddow? Somehow I missed her referr1ng to Strom Thurmond or Al Gore's dad with respect to their civil rights records.....maybe because she hasn't. Just another instance of media's selectivity.



     I don't know whether on not Ms. Maddow has commented on Senator Gore Senior's record in this case or on Senator Thurmond's record in this case.  Both have records of racism as Democrats, and Sewnator Thurmond had one as a Republican as well.  I expect that Ms. Maddow's comments will become louder and more pointed in both cases, certainly, as both men become more popular in this current Republican Primary.  [Edited - Ron]

     As for myself, for the reasons I mentioned above, I think that discussion of actual racism, especially when it's happening in the present tense, takes a particular importance that shouldn't be toyed with, and that shifting the subject to the racism of the dead is something that I'm absolutely willing to do in another thread.  I didn't like it then, either, and we can talk about that all you'd like if you have an interest in discussing it.  Even the racism of Democrats such as FDR, should you be so moved.

[This message has been edited by Ron (01-18-2012 11:44 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


8 posted 01-18-2012 11:24 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, you needn't waste castigations on me. It would be a waste of your time. My point is valid. Maddow has no problem bringing up whatever racism charges she can throw at Rand Paul but ignored in the past similar charges against democrats. Yes, they are now dead and Rand Paul is not running for president...same difference.

As far as bringing them up, yes, we have before in the alley. I'm certainly not going to waste time going through past threads to find them but we discussed both Gore's father and Strom Thurmond here before. That must have slipped your memory.

What kind of republican am I? One that believes in fair play. Thank you for asking.

I think that discussion of actual racism, especially when it's happening in the present tense, takes a particular importance that shouldn't be toyed with

Please show the actual racism that is happening in the present....outside of democratic imaginations, I mean.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


9 posted 01-19-2012 01:11 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I'd start out with Dr. Gingrich's comments about the courage it takes to talk to blacks, which I mentioned above.  I would also suggest that attempting to cut large numbers of people of color off the voting rolls would also qualify, and has some historical precedence.  We've discussed this before in relation to law suits and judgements against the Republican party for attempting to disqualify legal voters of color in Ohio, Florida and other states as well.  Exactly how these attempts to get voters to produce special voter identification cards that are especially difficult for voters of color and Democratic voters to acquire would be different from those previous Republican illegalities needs to be demonstrated to me, Mike.

     I would call this sort of thing racism because it is directed specifically at racial blocks of voters, usually black and hispanic.  The Justice Department seems to be disallowing the Republican laws directed at this sort of thing in South Carolina now.  I am not clear what the status of these sorts of laws happen to be in other states.

     That should be a start for you.

     This follows successful suites in several states against the Republicans along similar lines in 2000, 2004 and 2008.  These are documented in "The Finest Democracy Money Can Buy," which I've cited before when the discussion has come up before.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


10 posted 01-19-2012 01:54 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Apparently you saw the criticism and didn't read it, Mike.  I thought it was funny.

     Your comments about Senator Gore, Sr. and Strom Thurmond were accurate.  They were both somewhat on the racist side, I thought, though you did forget that Strom was a die hard Republican from the Voting Rights act on, and that he found a warm welcome for his views in that party for the rest of his life there.  The time had come for Dixiecrats to change or move on with that landmark piece of legislation.   The change should have been more complete, but it was pretty solid.  The racists tended to go republican in the south at that point, and many of them are still there.  That's the reason why many of the Blacks ended up as Democrats when for a very long time they'd been solid Republicans and proud of it.

     Any disagreement you have on the matter, I'd be happy to hear about; and if you have any fine points you can offer me new information on, I'd be happy to learn from you.  But I think I've got my basics right.  If yoiu'd like me to say that I didn't like the racial politics of Senator Gore, Senior, for the most part, I really didn't; and I certainly didn't like Strom Thurmond's either, either as a Democrat or as a Republican.  I would bet that Ms. Maddow would agree with me on those points.

     Would you?

     As to whether you believe that any of these things are to the point right now, I'd guess you'd be the one to know that.  I know I don't approve of the racial politics of those folks, but then I think that I'm more interested in the racism of people who are running, democratic or republican, and of people who are alive, democratic or republican on the whole unless there's something that really connects them in a vital way to the subject  at hand.  The Republican Primary, the Democratic Primary, the way the two parties are acting toward each other.

     I think the Republicans are talking about racism because it's one of the important Republican issues — finding ways to split the Democratic base and getting Democrats quarreling against their common interests.  That's a good way for a smaller party to win an election.  I'm not surprised to see the form of the hread, I simply don't like the nature of it.

     [Aggressive attribution of negative qualities] > [this is what we expect from you] :  [Let's have a discussion of your basic evil nature] > [any defense you offer is evidence of the correctness of our original assumptions about your negative qualities.]

     The sad part of this particular chain of reasoning is that any number can play from any side.  It is invulnerable to any actual logical investigation and it is basically a description of the circular nature of paranoid mind-sets for either the left or the right.  From this particular point of view, person A is always right, person B is always wrong and there is no way that  these conclusions can be disproven.
  
     The thing about actual reality is that discussions must always be conducted in such a way as to allow for either party to allow for the possibility of being wrong, and few people have enough self esteem to allow themselves to be exposed to the possibility of that outcome.  We are simply too competitive, most of us, to allow for that.

     My own theory is that it may have something to do with successful reproduction strategies, and that being right and being alpha are very highly valued, and that biologically nature hasn't managed to figure out that you can make everybody follow your strategy and be a real winner aqnd then get your whole tribe wiped out because it's the wrong strategy.  

     Just a side thought about capitalism and global warming.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 01-19-2012 07:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


  I would bet that Ms. Maddow would agree with me on those points. That's the point, Bob. Ms. Maddow wouldn't even discuss them.

  I think the Republicans are talking about racism because it's one of the important Republican issues — finding ways to split the Democratic base and getting Democrats quarreling against their common interests

That's the point, Bob. It's not the republicans talking about racism....it's the democrats, liberals, and mainstream media.

Exactly how these attempts to get voters to produce special voter identification cards that are especially difficult for voters of color and Democratic voters to acquire would be different from those previous Republican illegalities needs to be demonstrated to me, Mike.

Sorry, Bob, but I find that entire thing laughable.  I cannot, for the life of me, see where that should even be an issue....expecting people to have to produce I.D. to vote. You want to hear something funnier? Unions claim it is also biased and yet in union issues, voters must show I.D. to vote! Is requiring drivers licenses to operate a vehicle prejudiced against blacks and minorities? How about showing I.D. to open a bank account or get a credit card? DO people have to show I.D. to get food stamps or government assistance? I'm thinking they do....but mention a requirement of I.D. producing to be able to vote, and democrats go berzerk with screams of racism.

Blacks have bought the goods that the Democratic party is THEIR party, without ever sitting down and asking themselves what the democrats have done for them. I'll wager that if you were to compose a list of what democrats have done for minorities and I compose the same for what republicans have done in the same regard, My list would be a lot longer. Maybe we can do that one day, if you are willing.

I have a feeling that blacks and minorities may have a change of heart this time. Always before, there's been a white guy promising blacks a better life under him and, when it didn't work out, oh well. This time, however, there was a black guy telling them the same thing and perhaps they had more faith it would be so. It seems to me he hasn't fulfilled their expectations and their votes may not be as automatic, although if they have gone through their lives without ever getting an I.D. card, I'm not sure how educated they would be on current events anyway. Should be interesting if he carrries their 98% this time.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


12 posted 01-20-2012 02:48 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

[Edited - Ron]

[This message has been edited by Ron (01-20-2012 10:38 AM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


13 posted 01-20-2012 01:31 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
In the meantime, you can check out the exchange between Juan Williams (of FOX) and Gingrich on last night's debate and William's insinuations of racism against Newt.


I watched the debate Mike, I thought Gingrich's plan to get poor kids becoming janitors was elitist rather than racist. He didn't after all propose that all kids become janitors and forego the time they should be constructively using to get a good education, he insisted that it should be poor kids that took on the task of unblocking toilets, cleaning floors etc.  If that isn't the opening salvo of class warfare I don't know what is.

Gingrich's idea would be slightly more reasonable if it encompassed all kids but even then it would still be an extremely dumb idea. Would little Tom, Dick or Harriet be better off in the Science lab learning about the periodic table or outside in the corridor cleaning up puke for less than minimum wage?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 01-20-2012 08:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I will have to look at a transcript, grinch. I don't recall him specifying that only poor kids find jobs, although it would make sense if that's what he meant, since poorer families would be the ones better served by participation in part-time jobs. The opening salvo of class warfare? ROFL!! WHere have you been the past three years? That "opening salvo" is so old it has whiskers - Obama whiskers.

Would little Tom, Dick or Harriet be better off in the Science lab learning about the periodic table or outside in the corridor cleaning up puke for less than minimum wage?

I don't understand that comment at all and, frankly, have a hard time believing you said it. You are against students taking part-time jobs then? I can assure you millions have - and I was one of them. Would these students then be better off in a closed science lab, assuming there are not science classes at night? Your comment makes no sense. One could even say that a student could actually learn more, learing about the responsibilities that go along with working for a living than he could by studying those periodic tables, which I have never used in my life. I would also go so far as to say that, in my opinion, the one working would have a greater respect for the education he is working for than those who have it handed to them and I would go further to say that, in my opinion and based on no facts whatsoever, that those working  wind up getting more out of school and  turn out to be more successful.

Schools teach a lot...and DON'T teach a lot of what youngsters really need to know to live and succeed in this crazy world. There are no classes on relationships, they don't learn about money management or investments, or many areas of life more important than the angles of an icocylese triangle. There is more realism to cleaning up puke than there is to learning about how to love the six different sets of quarks.

I have to believe your comments are more politically motivated than anything else and you you could make an even more convincing case in favor of taking part-time jobs than in not taking them. Instead you prefer to paint the picture you have. Ok...

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


15 posted 01-20-2012 09:44 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Mike,

Newt has made it clear in several speeches that he was talking about poor kids, here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7byJV0jVY&feature=related

Do I have a problem with kids having part time jobs? That'd be slightly hypocritical Mike considering I had two myself when I was in school - one before classes started and one at the weekends -  but that's not what Gingrich is suggesting. His suggestion is that poor kids work in reception, in the library and as janitors during the school day.

Are my comments politically motivated?

Perhaps. I guess my opinion that kids mopping floors and cleaning toilets instead of attending classes may be coloured by my conservative leanings but I'd like to believe that even those on the left could see the stupidity in Newt's suggestion.

A dumb idea is a dumb idea Mike, whether it comes from the right, the left or the centre.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 01-20-2012 10:19 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I guess my opinion that kids mopping floors and cleaning toilets instead of attending classes

That's not valid and you know it. It's not an either/or. He is referring to part-time jobs off school time, which of course, you know. Trying to portray it as one or the other is very weak. Were you unable to attend classes when you worked your jobs? I doubt it. Neither did I.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


17 posted 01-20-2012 10:36 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



[
quote:

I will have to look at a transcript, grinch. I don't recall him specifying that only poor kids find jobs, although it would make sense if that's what he meant, since poorer families would be the ones better served by participation in part-time jobs.



     I was a middle class kid who worked part-time in my father's wholesale business for $.25 an hour at a time when the full time guys got $1.00 an hour for the same work.  It's not like my dad every really paid me, and the other guys I was working with were really thrilled to have a ten year old competing with them and slowing them down.

     One of the original reasons why child labor laws were passed was to prevent industrial accidents.  If my father had been a little bit more concerned with following the child labor laws and a little less concerned about passing on the virtues Mike and Speaker Gingrich are talking about, I would still have full use of my left arm, which got caught in a conveyor belt one afternoon in August in 1960, when I was 12.

     I was one of many kids who was well served by participation in formal and informal full and part-time jobs programs such as the Republicans are advocating now, and which their precursors felt were good for the backbone of the nation before unions got the child labor laws passed.  This is the same fight to turn back the clock and the same candy coating is being put one the same poisonous content in the hope that enough idiots will be willing to take a bite to get legislation passed.

     I have almost full function back on the arm now, by the way, though it's almost taken fifty years to get it back.

     Having worked on locked inpatient units for many years, I know exactly what it's like to mop up bodily waste, and I have absolutely no romantic attachment to it the way Mr. Gingrich seems to have.

     If there are those who believe that knowing the basics of geometry are a waste of time, I would agree with them.  Just as knowing the Periodic table in itself is a waste of time.

     They miss the point, however, when they say so, since the rules of Euclidian geometry or of basic chemistry are generally not taught by competent educators as simple objects of memorization, though this seems to be the position many such as Mike would seem to hold.  Were this the case, one would do as well to memorize another slug of numbers in the sequence of pi.

     This might be useful, at least, as practice in mastery of an actual system of memorization, such as the classic "Memory Palace," taught by the Jesuits in the 17th Century and still taught by some folks today.  Once mastered — I haven't, but many actors in Shakespeare's day did, and there are people who still make money teaching it today — it makes life very much earlier indeed, and it's practical as air or bricks.  An interesting little book on the matter, The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci.

     No, the usefulness of Geometry is that it's the first real contact kids today have with logic and formal proofs, and how to connect fact and inference into the most straightforward way of proving something is true or not true.  For any formal thinking task, this is a set of tools as useful as a hammer, a plane, a level and a screwdriver for a carpenter.  Without learning these basics, a set of comments a person might make on any subject will have a much more difficult time being square and in true, and the connection one set of comments they make with any other set of comments they make on the same subject is not something they will be able to evaluate using adult thinking processes such as inference and deduction.  They will only have access to the way they feel.

     Feeling is to esteemed for many things, but it doesn't do policy well, and it isn't good for long term evaluation of planning of detailed operations.
quote:

Schools teach a lot...and DON'T teach a lot of what youngsters really need to know to live and succeed in this crazy world. There are no classes on relationships, they don't learn about money management or investments, or many areas of life more important than the angles of an icocylese [sic] triangle. There is more realism to cleaning up puke than there is to learning about how to love the six different sets of quarks.



     I am unclear about what your point is here.

     Did somebody say that school is supposed to teach everything?  It's supposed to teach the curriculum, which is a matter of legal record.  That means it is supposed to supply a body of common experience that the citizens believe is necessary for the people in a particular area to function as a citizen in a democracy.  That's what the concept of public education is about.  Logic and reasoning  are two of those skills, and these skills have traditionally been taught by studying Geometry and Latin.  I don't happen to agree that Latin is a subject necessary to study to learn these skills, but I do agree about Geometry, for reasons I've mentioned above.

quote:


I have to believe your comments are more politically motivated than anything else and you could make an even more convincing case in favor of taking part-time jobs than in not taking them. Instead you prefer to paint the picture you have. Ok...



     Well, there may a politically motivated problem here.  Speaker Gingrich is advocating breaking the child labor laws.  He is not advocating the child labor laws for all children, mind you; but only poor children.

     If his purpose is actually to teach work responsibility, then, of course, he would be suspending child labor laws for all children, and would insist that all children work in jobs with potential hazards to them.  Please, show me where he insists that all children be taught that responsibility, so his political aims might not be suspect.  Please show me where these children would be paid a competitive wage, so it would be clear that they would not be trying to undermine people who are trying to support families.  

     It is entirely possible for people to take part-time jobs under current law.  Indeed, many high school students when I was a kid could hardly wait to do so, and that seems still to be the case.  Why  does breaking the law and putting children as risk seem so appealing?  Indeed, you accuse Grinch of politically motivated distortions, when it is Mr. Gingrich that is advocating breaking the law and where part-time work is already quite legal for students in many states, so long as they do not violate child labor laws.

     It seems perfectly clear that Dr. Gingrich suggestions are an attempt to strip children of the hard won protections of their childhood and of their safety reformers fought for so many years.  Young children are supposed to be children.  They are supposed to be protected and educated.  They are not supposed to be exploited or used as an act in a media circus by the likes of Dr. Gingrich with this put-’em-to work suggestion.

     I may agree with Dr. Gingrich about the unworkability of the current foster-care system.  That does not mean I support his suggestion that we should start up a mass system of orphanages, as he suggested; and it does not mean that I agree that we should attack the children of the poor by putting them to work at age ten to make Dr. Gingrich and his Republican friends happy.  I think taking a 10 year old’s childhood away is sadistic, and is clearly against the welfare of these kids.

     The law allows part-time-work for kids when they’re a bit older.  Dr. Gingrich should learn to contain the greed of his backers until then, and perhaps his own as well.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


18 posted 01-21-2012 07:42 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

How can one argue with such points so brilliantly laid out? Thank you for your input, Bob.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


19 posted 01-21-2012 08:57 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
That's not valid and you know it.


Your psychic abilities are failing you Mike - If I knew it wasn't valid I wouldn't have written it.

Gingrich is suggesting that poor kids work as receptionists, librarians and assistant janitors paid for by getting rid of the overpaid unionised workers that normally do those jobs during the day. If Gingrich's plan includes replacing those day workers with cheaper nocturnal poor kids it's even dumber than I thought it was.

Which brings me back to my original point - Gingrich only wants this to apply to poor kids. If it's such a good idea (which it isn't) why not all kids?

quote:
That does not mean I support his suggestion that we should start up a mass system of orphanages, as he suggested;


Mike's right, this is a particularly good point. Twenty years ago Gingrich thought it would be a good idea to stop paying poor folk to look after their kids, his grand scheme was to forcefully separate the poor kids from their families and stick them in orphanages. Presumably those orphanages would be privately owned in line with the trend of privatising prisons so instead of paying parents to hold families together big government would be paying big corporations to rip them apart.

So much for family values.

Mind you it'd make Gingrich's latest child forced labour plan easier it implement, he could close the loop and put the government created orphans to work. I'd suggest changing the name though, orphanages have such a negative connotation - how about Workhouses or Forced Labour Camps?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


20 posted 01-21-2012 10:46 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That sidestep won't work, grinch. My comment was directed at your referring to kids either working or attending classes. That's not a valid statement since no one suggested they do either one or the other.  If you feel he did, please point out where.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


21 posted 01-21-2012 11:11 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I already did Mike.

Unless the poor kids are going to be working as receptionists, librarians and janitors when the school is closed it's going to be during school time.

Is that the idea Mike? After school, while the rich kids are at football practice, piano lessons or chilling out at the mall the poor kids are slaving away up to their elbows in blocked toilets and HVAC maintenance?

By the way, who's going to supervise all those spanner wielding poor kids once the unionised folk that used to do that job are claiming unemployment?

While you're on the subject of sidestepping issues Mike can you explain why it's only poor kids that are being targeted by Gingrich?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


22 posted 01-21-2012 12:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No, you already did not. I see nowhere where he suggested going to work instead of going to class. There are plenty of jobs outside of school hours. Instead of answering questions with questions, how about an actual answer?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


23 posted 01-21-2012 02:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch



Gingrich said:

"You pay them part-time in the afternoon to sit at the clerical office and greet people when they came in."

Belleview High School in Marion County Florida opens at 09:30 and closes at 15:35 - unless he's planning to extend the school day Gingrich is going  to force the poor kids to work at some point between 12:00 and 15:35. If Belleview is the same as other schools there's one or two lessons held during that period that the poorer kids should be attending.

That's a bit of a dilemma, should poor kids be in lessons during the afternoon with the rich kids or should they be 'greeting' visitors, cleaning up puke and fixing the heating system?

quote:
That's not valid and you know it. It's not an either/or. He is referring to part-time jobs off school time


Not according to his above statement Mike.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


24 posted 01-21-2012 05:02 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Yes, my comments were in fact fairly to the point.  

     You should address them, since  Speaker Gingrich is advocating that we break laws that are an attempt to protect not only children but childhood itself, and since it is legal for children above a certain age to work part time now.

     Speaker Gingrich makes not even the slightest attempt to protect Children here, only to exploit them as little workers.  While he speaks about the advantages of making good workers of children for the advantage of the system, he does nothing about talking about making sure that our children are protected against work accidents or exploited in potentially high pressure situations physically, emotionally or sexually.

     Rather than avoiding dealing with these points, it would be useful for somebody who is suggesting that any form of child labor other than the forms now considered legal should actually address them.

       I was a child worker starting at age eight.  I was injured on the job seriously at age 12 and the supervisor  at that time was my father.  He actually did a fair job of supervision, by the way.  It's simply not safe to have child workers running around many job sites.

     You, Mike, are generally a decent guy, but Mr. Gingrich has made some seriously odd proposals, including the proposal about orphanages I mentioned above.  

     While some of them may not be as sadistic as they originally sound, it seems to me that some of them really are, and this appears to be one of them.  

     Why?

     Well, for one thing, it has to do with matters of brain development and cognitive development  which make child workers very undependable and which require a lot of supervisory time which older workers do not require.  

     The most glaring illustration has to do with something called conservation of size, and shows up in younger children than those we're concentrating upon here, but you will be able to find other examples of cognitive development issues in children between eight and fifteen or so that will make them difficult to supervise as well, though the issues will be somewhat different.  I use this one simply because it's easy to describe and large.

     If you want to research other developmental issues, you might start with the work of Piaget, The Swiss developmental Psychologist who did so much of the basic work in the field and graze about on your own.

     If you ask a younger child which is worth more, a nickel or a dime, you will always get the same answer.  That is, the nickel.  The child isn't stupid or irresponsible; it simply  hasn't acquired the ability to make a distinction between "bigger" and "more valuable."  In fact, you will see vestiges of this in some people throughout life, even though they may intellectually know better, they may still believe a taller person is a better person for exactly that reason; there are areas of the brain that may still be functioning according to that old, incorrect programming.

     Using a younger mind to do a job that requires an older mind can be a very expensive proposition.

      Your comment to me earlier didn't engage the points made.  The points were valid then, they remain so now.  You may not like them; I wouldn't blame you for being unhappy with them, but to make a valid argument on the Part of Doctor Gingrich, you will have to deal with them because they are among the main problems that he is trying to dodge.

     If you want to deal with the issues that The Speaker brings up rather than simply play politics on this, there they are.  The proposals are damaging to children and to the country for the reasons that I mentioned.

     If you want to tell me that they are not damaging to children for any of the reasons I've brought up, I';d be happy to deal with the facts of the matter.  If you believe I'm simply trying to play politics on the matter and that I don't have the welfare of the children primarily in mind, tell me how, where and why.  IU will be pleased to deal with you on an examination of the facts of the matter as best I am able.

     Have a good weekend, get in a round of golf, be well.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Race is on...get used to it!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors