Lord help me
suds macheath
pTooner
"suds macheath" <sudsm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WD2qk.13428$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> I'm starting to enjoy the reruns of early Lawrence welk shows on pbs.....
Well, for anyone who is really bored feel free to read and comment on my
recent political blog. http://sep-11-2001.blogspot.com/
That's the direct link, the name of the blog is "The Way I See It" and I'd
welcome comments from some of you guys who disagree with my position on most
everything. (Not that you do, Suds) I'll publish anything that's not
overly emotional or abusive. I don't care what you think, just that you
state it clearly.
Gerry
slam...@hotmail.com
> I'm starting to enjoy the reruns of early Lawrence welk shows on pbs.....
Have you no self-respect ????
js
synced arrangements that involve more than three chords has gotten to you.
It's a symbol of how far the level of musical discourse has fallen, IMO.
Can't say I blame you. I read my arranging books and shake my head over
techniques that will rarely if ever be used again - never mind actually
finding a situation to use them in.
Now I know how monks in the Dark Ages musty have felt while studying the
ancient Roman scrolls...
"suds macheath" <sudsm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WD2qk.13428$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
suds macheath
----*sob* At the gig Friday, I told the guys it might sound better if we
turned down some......Can it be true? Am I getting.....old?
Noooooooooo
slam...@hotmail.com
It depends what you consider " old " .
TS
> << Am I getting.....old? Noooooooooo >>
>
> It depends what you consider " old " .
Reminder to all.
You can play anything well if you are good enough. And, after awhile,
you get to where you need to make a living.
TS
Toos Vandermill
"suds macheath" <sudsm...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:WD2qk.13428$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Toos Vandermill
"Toos Vandermill" <to...@thuis.nl> schreef in bericht
news:48a98f3a$0$50264$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Benj
> I'm starting to enjoy the reruns of early Lawrence welk shows on pbs.....
As my 100 year old neighbor lady used to say, "Is that band leader
[She always called Welk "that band leader" because she could never
remember his name"] EVER going to die!? [The concept of videotape was
WAY outside her fence.]
I'd say you still have a ways to go...
Benj
Benj
> "suds macheath" <sudsmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Doesn't go far enough. We need to change the rule that says if you are
born here you are automatically a citizen. Should be if you are born
here AND have parents who are US citizens or are immigrants or other
visitors here legally. People who are citizens of other countries who
come here pregnant and have the need to be sent back to their own
country WITH the kid. And while we are at it, instead of a nice plane
trip home, a few years in a nice Mexican-style hell-hole prison where
you have to scrounge a bunch of money to BRIBE your way out of, like
YOU'D get if you walked over the border into Mexico might be a help as
well.
Of course this whole political ploy is about the destruction of the
country to make it easier to rule. It isn't about LEGAL immigrants or
low paying jobs or all the rest. If we need workers you just hand them
a card at the border. Make em pay taxes and everything just like the
rest of us. People believe the lying media that evil only comes from
al Qaeda or the rest, but unfortunately there is more evil than we'd
expect coming right now out of people we elected to office.
Benj
Why not? Some people pooh-pooh Welk because while he always demanded
that his musicians be "good" the performances were typically never
"great". So in many ways Welk was just another dude just like us.
Going out an playing TV instead of the bars, playing good music that
is entertaining, but not being "great" nor being another "Beatles" or
something that is going to set the tone for a whole generation. As I
see Welk, the key to what he did was two things: The first was to
demand good if not great musicianship, and the second was summed up in
the words "The Great American Song Book"! THAT is where Welk comes
through. He just dug through all that old shit and played it all. He
didn't care. Stuff dredged up that you hadn't heard for years (even
back then!). But stuff that makes you go, Yeah, that old stuff really
had something to it. It definitely wasn't crap. Yeah, we heard it
before, but still like "happy birthday to you" you can still get a
kick out of hearing it again every now and then! I think the American
Song Book is the key. You don't see old folks gathered 'round the TV
watching reruns of "Your Hit Parade" even though a few of those "hits"
of the 50s actually made it into the Song Book (and onto Welk).
SheaNC
> born here you are automatically a citizen. Should be if you are born
> here AND have parents who are US citizens or are immigrants or other
> visitors here legally.
I know some Apache and Navajo people who would probably agree, if you
could make it retroactive. When did your ancesters arrive? Did they
all have their valid documentation? Are you sure?
> People who are citizens of other countries who
> come here pregnant and have the need to be sent back to their own
> country WITH the kid. And while we are at it, instead of a nice plane
> trip home, a few years in a nice Mexican-style hell-hole prison...
So, if a middle-class, employed, pregnant white woman from Canada
arrives in the US without going through the formalities, you would
lock her up in a "Mexican-style hell-hole prison"? Maybe we could
place a little replica of the Statue of Liberty in every cell. That
would be nice.
As for the Mexicans who dare cross the mojave desert to clean your
hotel rooms and mow your lawns: If you found yourself in their shoes,
you might also do whatever it takes to survive, too.
pTooner
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:15d9c322-22cb-493d...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 8:28 pm, "pTooner" <some...@onthe.net> wrote:
> "suds macheath" <sudsmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:WD2qk.13428$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> > I'm starting to enjoy the reruns of early Lawrence welk shows on
> > pbs.....
>
> Well, for anyone who is really bored feel free to read and comment on my
> recent political blog. http://sep-11-2001.blogspot.com/
> That's the direct link, the name of the blog is "The Way I See It" and I'd
> welcome comments from some of you guys who disagree with my position on
> most
> everything. (Not that you do, Suds) I'll publish anything that's not
> overly emotional or abusive. I don't care what you think, just that you
> state it clearly.
Doesn't go far enough. We need to change the rule that says if you are
born here you are automatically a citizen. Should be if you are born
here AND have parents who are US citizens or are immigrants or other
visitors here legally. People who are citizens of other countries who
come here pregnant and have the need to be sent back to their own
country WITH the kid.
Actually, I made that very suggestion.
Gerry
pTooner
Yep, he was a cover band. I recall he had a few pretty fair musicians over
the years. A clarinet player, I seem to recall was pretty fair. ;-) He
also had this fat broad that was a hell of a rag time piano player.
Gerry,
PS, if anyone is too young to remember, Pete Fountain played clarinet with
LW in the first few years he was on tv.
Jim Carr
>> Doesn't go far enough. We need to change the rule that says if you are
>> born here you are automatically a citizen. Should be if you are born
>> here AND have parents who are US citizens or are immigrants or other
>> visitors here legally.
>
> I know some Apache and Navajo people who would probably agree, if you
> could make it retroactive. When did your ancesters arrive? Did they
> all have their valid documentation? Are you sure?
They lost their land in one of countless battles over land throughout
the ages just as Americans might lose it one day. Such is life.
> As for the Mexicans who dare cross the mojave desert to clean your
> hotel rooms and mow your lawns: If you found yourself in their shoes,
> you might also do whatever it takes to survive, too.
Being in the thick of it here in Phoenix, let me say that painting
*that* picture is no more valid than painting the picture of the drunk
thief. Both are stereotypes.
Here's the thing. The areas in the country inundated with this cheap
labor weren't sitting around saying, "You know what we need? We need a
bunch of uneducated, unskilled laborers to work for less than a living
wage." I mean, if that's what they wanted, why not just stop funding
schools?
Nearly 25 years ago as a teenager I was working as a general laborer
mowing lawns, raking leaves and later doing general construction. People
are being paid nearly the same wage today when according to inflation
calculators they should be making about twice that ($7 per hour then
versus $14 per hour today).
There's also another factor that is often overlooked. People make the
assumption that these laborers are "immigrants" which implies they are
here to stay. The reality is that many of them come here for higher
wages and send the money out of the country. They work for a while, then
leave.
Cities spend *big* bucks to promote tourism. Why? Because it puts money
into the local economy without putting a high demand on the
infrastructure (hospitals, education, police). What cities do *not* want
is money being pumped *out* of the economy while people live here and
place demands on the infrastructure.
Many of these people rent apartments and cram in more people than the
law allows. They hang up sheets and turn living and dining rooms into
bedrooms with mattresses on the floor.
What does this do? First, it drive down the price of rentals. Instead of
needing 50 one-bedroom units for 100 people, you need only 15. This has
all sorts of repercussions since it not only affects income from rentals
but the price of the real estate. There's also less money to pay for
managers and maintenance people.
Second, this increases wear and tear on the units. When you've 2X or 3X
the people living in a unit, things wear out faster. Carpets are not
meant to have mattresses on them 24/7. They don't take good care of the
units. And as often as not they leave without giving notice, so good
luck trying to recover damages beyond the deposit.
If the complex is centrally metered for water (meaning it's included in
the rent), that increases the expense for the owner. I've seen complexes
with on-site laundry going unused because these people instead wash
their clothes in the bath tub.
Now, you may feel sorry for people having to live that way, but don't.
They don't "have* to live that way. As I said they are usually sending
money back "home" wherever that may be. If you look in the parking lots
you'll see vehicles with $1,200 rims and $500 stereos.
I'm not ashamed to say that I'm selfish. I'm part of a country that has
built up a standard of living. I don't want an influx of people to lower
that standard. If as a policy my government wants to help another
government build up *their* standard of living, that's fine. But don't
do it by coming *here* and dragging down the low-end down even further.
Yeh, I hear the arguments about how this benefits the economy, but I
don't buy it. I don't see how uneducated, unskilled labor willing to
work and live at levels we as a country surpassed years ago helps things.
Then, of course, there's the issue of fair treatment. I'm married to a
Hungarian citizen. Many of my friends are from Europe. It's a pain in
the ass for *them* to even visit while people from Mexico can waltz in
and out at their leisure.
Around here the government posts things in English and Spanish. That's
not fair to people who speak other languages. Our laws are written in
English, so that's the common denominator. Everyone has to know English
to be informed. It's not fair to *only* help Spanish speakers - and it's
a waste of money.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
RichL
> SheaNC wrote:
>>> Doesn't go far enough. We need to change the rule that says if you
>>> are born here you are automatically a citizen. Should be if you are
>>> born here AND have parents who are US citizens or are immigrants or
>>> other visitors here legally.
>>
>> I know some Apache and Navajo people who would probably agree, if you
>> could make it retroactive. When did your ancesters arrive? Did they
>> all have their valid documentation? Are you sure?
>
> They lost their land in one of countless battles over land throughout
> the ages just as Americans might lose it one day. Such is life.
>
>> As for the Mexicans who dare cross the mojave desert to clean your
>> hotel rooms and mow your lawns: If you found yourself in their shoes,
>> you might also do whatever it takes to survive, too.
>
> Being in the thick of it here in Phoenix, let me say that painting
> *that* picture is no more valid than painting the picture of the drunk
> thief. Both are stereotypes.
>
> Here's the thing. The areas in the country inundated with this cheap
> labor weren't sitting around saying, "You know what we need? We need a
> bunch of uneducated, unskilled laborers to work for less than a living
> wage." I mean, if that's what they wanted, why not just stop funding
> schools?
That's a bit oversimplified, don't you think?
There are businesses who *want* the cheaper labor. Free market and all
that. Don't you think that if they had sufficient applications from US
citizens that they'd preferentially hire them since that would eliminate
the possibility of them getting in trouble?
As for the school thing, you've got to be kidding, right? People want
the best for their kids and don't want them in dead-end, low-paying
jobs. They'd rather look the other way and let businesses hire illegals
so they can get their yards landscaped, homes cleaned, etc., *cheap*!
> Nearly 25 years ago as a teenager I was working as a general laborer
> mowing lawns, raking leaves and later doing general construction.
> People are being paid nearly the same wage today when according to
> inflation calculators they should be making about twice that ($7 per
> hour then versus $14 per hour today).
Right. So increase the minimum wage more. Enforce it. That would tilt
the scales more toward a larger portion of US citizens competing for
those jobs.
> There's also another factor that is often overlooked. People make the
> assumption that these laborers are "immigrants" which implies they are
> here to stay. The reality is that many of them come here for higher
> wages and send the money out of the country. They work for a while,
> then leave.
>
> Cities spend *big* bucks to promote tourism. Why? Because it puts
> money into the local economy without putting a high demand on the
> infrastructure (hospitals, education, police). What cities do *not*
> want is money being pumped *out* of the economy while people live
> here and place demands on the infrastructure.
Once again look at the market. People may not like this, but if the
choice is paying considerably higher for what are now cheap services,
where will they come down?
> Many of these people rent apartments and cram in more people than the
> law allows. They hang up sheets and turn living and dining rooms into
> bedrooms with mattresses on the floor.
>
> What does this do? First, it drive down the price of rentals. Instead
> of needing 50 one-bedroom units for 100 people, you need only 15.
> This has all sorts of repercussions since it not only affects income
> from rentals but the price of the real estate. There's also less
> money to pay for managers and maintenance people.
>
> Second, this increases wear and tear on the units. When you've 2X or
> 3X the people living in a unit, things wear out faster. Carpets are
> not meant to have mattresses on them 24/7. They don't take good care
> of the units. And as often as not they leave without giving notice,
> so good luck trying to recover damages beyond the deposit.
>
> If the complex is centrally metered for water (meaning it's included
> in the rent), that increases the expense for the owner. I've seen
> complexes with on-site laundry going unused because these people
> instead wash their clothes in the bath tub.
Jim, you'll find those sorts of things going on in most poverty-stricken
areas. Being here *illegally* has little to do with it.
> Now, you may feel sorry for people having to live that way, but don't.
> They don't "have* to live that way. As I said they are usually sending
> money back "home" wherever that may be. If you look in the parking
> lots you'll see vehicles with $1,200 rims and $500 stereos.
>
> I'm not ashamed to say that I'm selfish. I'm part of a country that
> has built up a standard of living. I don't want an influx of people
> to lower that standard. If as a policy my government wants to help
> another government build up *their* standard of living, that's fine.
> But don't do it by coming *here* and dragging down the low-end down
> even further.
The thing is, it's going to happen anyway, with "free" trade etc. Other
countries are raising their standards of living, and in the end it's at
the expense of us and all the other "first-rate" economies. We've
shipped a lot of our manufacturing overseas because companies save bucks
that way. Ultimately, if the model stays the same, the other countries
ultimately improve their own living conditions, and in the end the
pressure to migrate here decreases. When it comes down to it, it
doesn't really matter which way it happens. It's a consequence of
freedom, in a sense.
>
> Yeh, I hear the arguments about how this benefits the economy, but I
> don't buy it. I don't see how uneducated, unskilled labor willing to
> work and live at levels we as a country surpassed years ago helps
> things.
It saves us money. Consequently, we have more disposable income to
spend elsewhere.
> Then, of course, there's the issue of fair treatment. I'm married to a
> Hungarian citizen. Many of my friends are from Europe. It's a pain in
> the ass for *them* to even visit while people from Mexico can waltz in
> and out at their leisure.
>
> Around here the government posts things in English and Spanish. That's
> not fair to people who speak other languages. Our laws are written in
> English, so that's the common denominator. Everyone has to know
> English to be informed. It's not fair to *only* help Spanish speakers
> - and it's a waste of money.
It's fair to help individuals who form a significant minority in a given
area, regardless of who they are. These things benefit US citizens who
are learning English too.
Do you know that a lot of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have
"government posting things" in English and French? It's funny though,
people up there for the most part don't whine about it. It's been going
on for so long it's part of the culture.
Jim Carr
>> Here's the thing. The areas in the country inundated with this cheap
>> labor weren't sitting around saying, "You know what we need? We need a
>> bunch of uneducated, unskilled laborers to work for less than a living
>> wage." I mean, if that's what they wanted, why not just stop funding
>> schools?
>
> That's a bit oversimplified, don't you think?
Actually, I don't think it's over simplified. If you want to improve
your economy so that everyone benefits in the long term, do you think an
influx of uneducated and unskilled labor is the solution? I don't.
> There are businesses who *want* the cheaper labor. Free market and all
> that. Don't you think that if they had sufficient applications from US
> citizens that they'd preferentially hire them since that would eliminate
> the possibility of them getting in trouble?
You've totally missed the point. For a while there if you worked
full-time busting your ass mowing lawns, raking leaves or digging
ditches, you could live at an acceptable standard (decent used car,
reasonably safe apartment, a little disposable income to save up or
waste as you saw fit).
Now you got people coming in and saying, "Hey, we'll work for less money
and live at lower standard because it's better than the shit hole we
just left. We'll rent your apartments and trash them because you must be
rich."
And somehow I'm supposed to *admire* these people and cast shame upon
people who don't want to live like that?
It's part of this culture to try to make things better and raise our
standards. I made $7.50 per hour raking leaves 20+ years ago. I'm not
going to look down on a 19 year old today who thinks that's a
ridiculously low wage for full-time hard word.
> Once again look at the market. People may not like this, but if the
> choice is paying considerably higher for what are now cheap services,
> where will they come down?
They used to do it, Rich. The economy adjusted to the cheap labor. It
can adjust again. And though I don't have the numbers to prove it, I'm
betting that consumers are not seeing all of the savings passed through.
> Jim, you'll find those sorts of things going on in most poverty-stricken
> areas. Being here *illegally* has little to do with it.
Yes, it does. I'm speaking from first-hand experience. And it's not just
"poverty" stricken areas either. I'd say among my friends and clients
they collectively own a few *thousand* rental units scattered around the
area. Rents vary widely. I've been in the trenches and seen it first-hand.
I've only ever seen young Mexican men or young Mexican families living
like I described. After a while you get a pretty good feel for the
illegals, trust me. They'll pull this "jam the apartment full" thing
even in nice apartments.
What's your personal experience in this regard in Virginia?
Last August there was a *huge* exodus of illegals due to an
anti-immigration law taking effect January 1. Because of the limited job
market back "home" people started leaving early to snatch up those jobs.
Once a few started leaving, they seemed to vanish overnight.
I had clients who had occupancy rates plummet from 95% to 70% in just a
month or two. They ended up lowering rents back to levels they were a
couple of years ago. It's still a struggle a year later.
> It saves us money. Consequently, we have more disposable income to
> spend elsewhere.
LOL! Right. It's so much more complex than that. Paying $25 to get your
lawn mowed instead of $30 isn't doing jack shit for your disposable
income. But as one example, an extra $100 per week for the laborer means
he can pay a higher rent. That increases the value of the property. That
increases the value of *your* home. That means you can take a line of
credit and build that addition. And the general contractor pays his guys
and so on and so forth.
Meanwhile, if you *save* $5 per mowing, the reverse happens.
> It's fair to help individuals who form a significant minority in a given
> area, regardless of who they are. These things benefit US citizens who
> are learning English too.
I disagree. What's "fair" about it? It's inherently unfair. It may be
more cost effective, but that's not fair.
> Do you know that a lot of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have
> "government posting things" in English and French? It's funny though,
> people up there for the most part don't whine about it. It's been going
> on for so long it's part of the culture.
They have to post everything up there since nobody can understand what
they're saying with those mush-mouth accents.
blind dog smith
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
we're *all* too young to remember that, grandpa...;-)
bds
pTooner
lawyers! ;-) Absolutely true, and in Florence, SC. Neither of them are
practicing, of course. I guess they just rather cut grass. That's too
easy, so I'll just leave it there Bryan. ;-) What I really wanted to say,
though is that here in the South, and particularly in Florida there is a
huge and thriving lawn/landscaping industry and I've never seen anyone who I
thought might be illegal involved. So it is possible to pay Americans to do
it. The joke in my neck of the woods is that only Mexicans can put on
roofs. The crew that replaced mine a few months back were all Americans,
but I have to admit it took them twice as long as the legal (I Hope)
mexicans who put one on across the street a few months prior. The only
point to all that is we don't need illegal labor. We don't need nonsense
about raising minimum wage either. All that does is raise the cost of
living for everyone and put lower paid workers out of work.
We are really far afield here. I invite anyone who wants to comment on
the subject to visit my blog. I'll post anything relevant and reasonably
brief. http://sep-11-2001.blogspot.com/
Gerry
pTooner
> PS, if anyone is too young to remember, Pete Fountain played clarinet with
> LW in the first few years he was on tv.
we're *all* too young to remember that, grandpa...;-)
bds
Oh, Sorry. Pete Fountain was a founder and is the most prominent member of
The Half Fast Walking Club, one of the best known marching Krewes that
parades in New Orleans on Mardi Gras Day. He also plays a bit of jazz and
now plays two nights a week at Bay St. Louis.
Gerry
RichL
But you can't make a decent living any more doing these things even in
areas that have few illegals. The illegals may exacerbate the problem,
but it's there to begin with.
Shit, fifty years ago most families could live well above the poverty
level on a single income. It hasn't been that way for a while. We
could debate *why*, but it would set off another round of political
sniping.
> And somehow I'm supposed to *admire* these people and cast shame upon
> people who don't want to live like that?
C'mon now, has anyone in this thread said anything whatsoever along
those lines? Talk about your straw men...
> It's part of this culture to try to make things better and raise our
> standards. I made $7.50 per hour raking leaves 20+ years ago. I'm not
> going to look down on a 19 year old today who thinks that's a
> ridiculously low wage for full-time hard word.
Right, so the 19-year-olds don't want to do the work. Who does?
>> Once again look at the market. People may not like this, but if the
>> choice is paying considerably higher for what are now cheap services,
>> where will they come down?
>
> They used to do it, Rich. The economy adjusted to the cheap labor. It
> can adjust again. And though I don't have the numbers to prove it, I'm
> betting that consumers are not seeing all of the savings passed
> through.
But this is kind of a chicken-and-egg thing, right? Did the pay get
less because there was a sufficient pool of illegals available who would
work for that, or did businesses and corporations start gradually
lowering their pay rates because Joe Average couldn't do a damned thing
about it and therefore attract the pool of illegals?
All I know is that if the opportunities aren't here, the people won't
come. Period.
>> Jim, you'll find those sorts of things going on in most
>> poverty-stricken areas. Being here *illegally* has little to do
>> with it.
>
> Yes, it does. I'm speaking from first-hand experience. And it's not
> just "poverty" stricken areas either. I'd say among my friends and
> clients they collectively own a few *thousand* rental units scattered
> around the area. Rents vary widely. I've been in the trenches and
> seen it first-hand.
>
> I've only ever seen young Mexican men or young Mexican families living
> like I described. After a while you get a pretty good feel for the
> illegals, trust me. They'll pull this "jam the apartment full" thing
> even in nice apartments.
Right. But in your area, don't Mexicans form the majority of those
living in poverty?
> What's your personal experience in this regard in Virginia?
I'm in Maryland, as you know. Prince William County in VA (where my son
lives) is going through a bunch of crap now because the know-nothings
have power on the county board and have instituted a series of truly
draconian measures, with some unforeseen (by them) consequences. Here's
one example:
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0808/541742.html
Then there's this:
http://www.nclr.org/files/49130_file_Too_Costly_for_My_Town_FINAL.pdf
>> It's fair to help individuals who form a significant minority in a
>> given area, regardless of who they are. These things benefit US
>> citizens who are learning English too.
>
> I disagree. What's "fair" about it? It's inherently unfair. It may be
> more cost effective, but that's not fair.
Simply asserting that it's unfair doesn't prove it.
Hey, we accommodate disabled students in the schools, right? Isn't that
unfair to the majority who aren't disabled because it takes resources
away from mainstream programs?
>> Do you know that a lot of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have
>> "government posting things" in English and French? It's funny
>> though, people up there for the most part don't whine about it.
>> It's been going on for so long it's part of the culture.
>
> They have to post everything up there since nobody can understand what
> they're saying with those mush-mouth accents.
Oh, piss off :-)
Jim Carr
>> And somehow I'm supposed to *admire* these people and cast shame upon
>> people who don't want to live like that?
>
> C'mon now, has anyone in this thread said anything whatsoever along
> those lines? Talk about your straw men...
Yes. There was the comment about the poor struggling Mexican "daring" to
across the border to clean my hotel room.
>> It's part of this culture to try to make things better and raise our
>> standards. I made $7.50 per hour raking leaves 20+ years ago. I'm not
>> going to look down on a 19 year old today who thinks that's a
>> ridiculously low wage for full-time hard word.
>
> Right, so the 19-year-olds don't want to do the work. Who does?
Who said they didn't want to do the work? Plenty of 'em do it. Look at
this map showing the Hispanic population around the USA:
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_hispanicpop.html
Just who do you think does all those jobs in the 70% of the country
where the Hispanic population density is negligible?
What you're not getting is that illegals undercut wages.
> But this is kind of a chicken-and-egg thing, right? Did the pay get
> less because there was a sufficient pool of illegals available who would
> work for that, or did businesses and corporations start gradually
> lowering their pay rates because Joe Average couldn't do a damned thing
> about it and therefore attract the pool of illegals?
Obviously the former. Why would a poor illegal be willing to work for $7
per hour but not $12? It makes no sense that they would only come if
there were lower wages.
No offense, Rich, but I think as a white collar, white male with a
doctorate you've missed what's happened down in the trenches. I'll give
these illegals credit in that they hustle for the work. I've seen them
nag business owners to hire them saying they would work for less (or
cash - no payroll taxes) even when there was no hiring. You can see it
today with day laborers, though it's more implicit. Why go through a
legit labor service when some knucklehead without a name in front of a
7-11 will work for less?
I mean, *think* about it. What's more likely? That poor people with
little opportunity would come to a rich country and try to hustle work?
Or did businesses lower wages, so American workers stopped working. Thus
we had a bunch of unemployed people and a bunch of understaffed
businesses sitting around. After months or ever years of this, the
illegals saw a wonderful opportunity and came to this country, filled
out applications, and started new jobs.
Gimme a break. Go start a business that requires unskilled labor. Watch
what happens.
> All I know is that if the opportunities aren't here, the people won't
> come. Period.
Remove the opportunities, eh? So we should become like Mexico? Yeh, that
makes sense.
If you think there was a huge pool of unfilled jobs at low wages just
waiting for uneducated and unskilled people to work a sub-living wages,
you're nuts. Of course, if you can prove it, then I'm nuts.
> Right. But in your area, don't Mexicans form the majority of those
> living in poverty?
Who knows? They are "undocumented" not illegal, remember? If they are
not documented, then we have no idea what their income level is.
Rich, I'm telling you first-hand what I've seen. I'm talking actual
people with faces that I've talked to. Please don't try to tell me what
I see is a poverty issue when I know it's not.
>> What's your personal experience in this regard in Virginia?
>
> I'm in Maryland, as you know. Prince William County in VA (where my son
> lives) is going through a bunch of crap now because the know-nothings
> have power on the county board and have instituted a series of truly
> draconian measures, with some unforeseen (by them) consequences. Here's
> one example:
Which means you have no first hand experience actually dealing with
illegals or seeing the direct result of their presence.
The main problem with the "draconian" measures is simply that you cannot
undo in a year what was 20 years in the making. Well, you can, but it
will hurt for a while as the economy adjusts again.
>>> It's fair to help individuals who form a significant minority in a
>>> given area, regardless of who they are. These things benefit US
>>> citizens who are learning English too.
>> I disagree. What's "fair" about it? It's inherently unfair. It may be
>> more cost effective, but that's not fair.
>
> Simply asserting that it's unfair doesn't prove it.
I already proved it. The government does not grant rights to groups. It
grants rights to individuals. In this case we have individuals being
treated differently because of their native language, which is directly
related to their nationality.
Just because providing a translated document is a "good" thing doesn't
mean prejudice is not involved. The government is discriminating against
people who don't speak Spanish.
> Hey, we accommodate disabled students in the schools, right? Isn't that
> unfair to the majority who aren't disabled because it takes resources
> away from mainstream programs?
We help *all* disabled students, not just the ones who speak Spanish. We
don't tell disabled kids, "Look, if you can find 20 others just like
you, then we can justify helping you out. Otherwise, you're on your own."
RichL
>> But this is kind of a chicken-and-egg thing, right? Did the pay get
>> less because there was a sufficient pool of illegals available who
>> would work for that, or did businesses and corporations start
>> gradually lowering their pay rates because Joe Average couldn't do a
>> damned thing about it and therefore attract the pool of illegals?
>
> Obviously the former. Why would a poor illegal be willing to work for
> $7 per hour but not $12? It makes no sense that they would only come
> if there were lower wages.
But they wouldn't come if there were no demand. If the wages were
higher, the jobs would be more likely to be filled by citizens, thus no
demand.
> No offense, Rich, but I think as a white collar, white male with a
> doctorate you've missed what's happened down in the trenches.
My brother and three sisters are very much blue collar and in the
trenches.
> I'll give these illegals credit in that they hustle for the work. I've
> seen them nag business owners to hire them saying they would work for
> less (or cash - no payroll taxes) even when there was no hiring. You
> can see it today with day laborers, though it's more implicit. Why go
> through a legit labor service when some knucklehead without a name in
> front of a 7-11 will work for less?
Why not tag these businesses with much greater fines and more? They're
the ones who are creating the demand!
> I mean, *think* about it. What's more likely? That poor people with
> little opportunity would come to a rich country and try to hustle
> work?
>
> Or did businesses lower wages, so American workers stopped working.
> Thus we had a bunch of unemployed people and a bunch of understaffed
> businesses sitting around. After months or ever years of this, the
> illegals saw a wonderful opportunity and came to this country, filled
> out applications, and started new jobs.
> Gimme a break. Go start a business that requires unskilled labor.
> Watch what happens.
OK, so why is it that 40 years ago we didn't have this problem anywhere
near the magnitude of what it is today? What changed?
>
>> All I know is that if the opportunities aren't here, the people won't
>> come. Period.
>
> Remove the opportunities, eh? So we should become like Mexico? Yeh,
> that makes sense.
The opportunities *for illegals* exist because businesses know they can
get away with cheating. They'd rather run the miniscule risk of being
caught than pay more in labor costs.
>> Simply asserting that it's unfair doesn't prove it.
>
> I already proved it. The government does not grant rights to groups.
> It grants rights to individuals. In this case we have individuals
> being treated differently because of their native language, which is
> directly related to their nationality.
>
> Just because providing a translated document is a "good" thing doesn't
> mean prejudice is not involved. The government is discriminating
> against people who don't speak Spanish.
Who, exactly? Not the English speakers!
>> Hey, we accommodate disabled students in the schools, right? Isn't
>> that unfair to the majority who aren't disabled because it takes
>> resources away from mainstream programs?
>
> We help *all* disabled students, not just the ones who speak Spanish.
> We don't tell disabled kids, "Look, if you can find 20 others just
> like you, then we can justify helping you out. Otherwise, you're on
> your own."
Actually, that's what's done in many cases. If a single student has a
sufficiently rare disability and the school has no staff with expertise
in the area, it's often tough luck.
pTooner
> Just because providing a translated document is a "good" thing doesn't
> mean prejudice is not involved. The government is discriminating against
> people who don't speak Spanish.
>
Yeah, and so is Home Depot. It aggravates the hell out of me when I try to
read the instructions on a box and find that I have to search on the back or
bottom to find something written in English. I guess I should be happy it's
not written in Chinese since it's made there.
gerry
pTooner
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GMydnfcnaNBV1DfV...@supernews.com...
> Jim Carr <newsg...@azwebpages.com> wrote:
>
>>> But this is kind of a chicken-and-egg thing, right? Did the pay get
>>> less because there was a sufficient pool of illegals available who
>>> would work for that, or did businesses and corporations start
>>> gradually lowering their pay rates because Joe Average couldn't do a
>>> damned thing about it and therefore attract the pool of illegals?
>>
>> Obviously the former. Why would a poor illegal be willing to work for
>> $7 per hour but not $12? It makes no sense that they would only come
>> if there were lower wages.
>
> But they wouldn't come if there were no demand. If the wages were
> higher, the jobs would be more likely to be filled by citizens, thus no
> demand.
>
Whoa there. That doesn't make any sense. In reality there are very few
people in this country who want to work and who are not working. Raising
the wages on the lowest paid jobs would have extremely little effect except
to increase the cost of living. Nearly every restaurant in Florida has a
sign out saying help wanted and contrary to popular belief wait staff makes
pretty good pay. At least it's well above minimum wage. Still the openings
are vacant.
>> No offense, Rich, but I think as a white collar, white male with a
>> doctorate you've missed what's happened down in the trenches.
>
> My brother and three sisters are very much blue collar and in the
> trenches.
>
>> I'll give these illegals credit in that they hustle for the work. I've
>> seen them nag business owners to hire them saying they would work for
>> less (or cash - no payroll taxes) even when there was no hiring. You
>> can see it today with day laborers, though it's more implicit. Why go
>> through a legit labor service when some knucklehead without a name in
>> front of a 7-11 will work for less?
>
> Why not tag these businesses with much greater fines and more? They're
> the ones who are creating the demand!\
Now there's a sentiment I whole heartedly agree with.
As to the discussion about languages, I have lived in several foreign
countries and I always assumed it was incumbent upon me to learn the
language that was prevalent. And, I've lived in some countries where the
prevalent language was quite difficult to learn. My point is simply if you
want to live here LEARN THE DAMNED LANGUAGE!! I speak several other
languages, but I don't feel I should have to in my own country.
Gerry
Jim Carr
> But they wouldn't come if there were no demand. If the wages were
> higher, the jobs would be more likely to be filled by citizens, thus no
> demand.
Have you ever started your own business, Rich? If you waited until there
was room in the market for you, you'd never get off the ground. You go
out there and take business from others. The same thing happened with
the job market.
The per capita income in Mexico is about 1/4 of that in the USA. It's
about 1/9 for El Salvador. Yet the unemployment rate in Mexico is less
than that of the USA, though the underemployment rate is estimated at 25%.
It doesn't take a doctorate to figure out that when you don't have much
going for you where you are, you can cross the border and double your
income by working for half the going rate.
Where is the proof of this pool of jobs no Americans were willing to
take? Were cars going unwashed? Lawns not mowed? Ditches not dug? Beds
not made? Dishes not washed? I must have slept through that.
What you had was a bunch of very poor people who were taking a step *up*
by working cheaper than the cheapest labor in this country.
Look at the outsourcing of CSR jobs to India. Was there a huge pool of
unfilled CSR jobs? No. Of course, there is the constant demand in
*every* industry for cheaper labor, but had their not been a pool of
cheap labor, we wouldn't be struggling to understand what Ankur/Michael
is trying to tell us over the phone.
With illegals they needed to physically be here. They arrived, and
businesses switched. Keep them out and the wages would have increased
accordingly.
>> I'll give these illegals credit in that they hustle for the work. I've
>> seen them nag business owners to hire them saying they would work for
>> less (or cash - no payroll taxes) even when there was no hiring. You
>> can see it today with day laborers, though it's more implicit. Why go
>> through a legit labor service when some knucklehead without a name in
>> front of a 7-11 will work for less?
>
> Why not tag these businesses with much greater fines and more? They're
> the ones who are creating the demand!
They are reacting (illegally in some cases) to the supply. Without
illegals, you have no illegal labor.
As for your solution, that's already happening in Arizona. That's what
caused the mass exodus of illegals, which just happened to hit at the
same time the real estate bubble was bursting. The commercial real
estate market is screwed. Owners of multi-family housing are hurting big
time because they just can't get their rent rolls in place.
It's going to be a very painful process.
> OK, so why is it that 40 years ago we didn't have this problem anywhere
> near the magnitude of what it is today? What changed?
A lot of things happened. Why are there more illegals? It's like a
snowball rolling downhill. Who wants to be the only Spanish-only family
on the block? Who has the balls to take the risk? At first it's a trickle.
But once people succeed, others take the risk. It starts to be more
acceptable in this country, so there's less resentment and more hiring.
Once businesses start seeing the competition doing it, they have to cut
wages as well to compete. Thus more jobs open up.
From a cultural standpoint it's much easier to adapt when others have
gone before you. If you don't speak English, don't worry about. There
will be somebody to help you find a job and fill out paperwork.
I don't blame them nor do I dislike them for what they're doing. I just
believe that the country is better off without them.
> The opportunities *for illegals* exist because businesses know they can
> get away with cheating. They'd rather run the miniscule risk of being
> caught than pay more in labor costs.
It's already happening in Arizona, and the cure is painful.
http://tinyurl.com/6lwhqg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposition_200_(2004)
> Who, exactly? Not the English speakers!
Actually, yes, they are. I can't watch over what my government is doing
without having to learn Spanish as well. In my mind all government
business should be conducted in one language. Period. It makes the
government transparent and puts everyone on equal footing.
> Actually, that's what's done in many cases. If a single student has a
> sufficiently rare disability and the school has no staff with expertise
> in the area, it's often tough luck.
Now you're grasping at straws. Shame on you.
Benj
> I know some Apache and Navajo people who would probably agree, if you
> could make it retroactive. When did your ancesters arrive? Did they
> all have their valid documentation? Are you sure?
Some of my ancestors arrived here long before yours, white man! And
interestingly enough I don't have "official" native American
documentation. It seems that only the Indians the government killed on
the Trail of Tears are considered "official". Those who married a
White man as mine so as to not be sent West, aren't considered "real"
Indians by the Government. And the other relatives were German and
Slovak and yes I AM sure they all had valid documentation! You think
that promoting scoffing at the law is going to make America a better
place for you or me?
> > People who are citizens of other countries who
> > come here pregnant and have the need to be sent back to their own
> > country WITH the kid. And while we are at it, instead of a nice plane
> > trip home, a few years in a nice Mexican-style hell-hole prison...
>
> So, if a middle-class, employed, pregnant white woman from Canada
> arrives in the US without going through the formalities, you would
> lock her up in a "Mexican-style hell-hole prison"? Maybe we could
> place a little replica of the Statue of Liberty in every cell. That
> would be nice.
What does Middle-class or employed or pregnant have to do with crime?
Lessee. If we feel sorry enough for some gang-banger because he's
black and, well, his ancestors were worked as slaves, if he sells
drugs to neighborhood kids or shoots babies in his gang wars it's OK
because it's society's fault not his, right? Yeah, guys like you are
REALLY going to make this a swell place to live.
> As for the Mexicans who dare cross the mojave desert to clean your
> hotel rooms and mow your lawns: If you found yourself in their shoes,
> you might also do whatever it takes to survive, too.
This is TOTAL bullshit. The "poor worker" thing is a total red
herring. The issue is not us needing workers or them needing work.
That is easily solved with a card handed out at the border. The issue
is VAST numbers of Third Worlders invading our country, stealing money
and services from out own poor, bringing in tons of Mexican drugs and
crime, because they'd rather steal what others HAVE rather than to
build up something of value in their own place.
IF you are such a bleeding heart, why not just do it RIGHT and throw
open our country to all the people in Gaza and the West Bank? Take 'em
all! No documentation or selection process needed! Let 'em bring their
guns too... I mean we have a Second Amendment don't we? And then turn
that land over to Israel to be turned into a Garden of Eden by Israeli
"settlers"? Or better yet, go ALL the way and just throw open our
doors to the billions of poor in China? Hey, us awful nasty Americans
slammed the door in their faces once before, so they DESERVE to come
here now! Just let 'em all in. You want to come to America hop a boat
and walk right in! Sure, that'll work great. And we'll all feel so
GOOD about it considering how badly we treated them before by
restricting immigration.
I hope you understand that the problem is not with YOU being totally
stupid, but with your stupidity pulling the rest of us down with you!
The Bishop
How about keeping them the hell out, which would automatically give a
25% raise to every hourly worker in the country, once the employer
class finds out they're dealing with people who can COMPLAIN when
abused?
The Bishop
What I would do is forma thrird party in Mexican politics. Eleven
million workers can't lose.
And they don't cross the border to clean anything of mine, so speak
for yourself.
And they cross to make money, not to make Americans feel better.
And yes, Americans would do those jobs if they paid enough to live on.
The Bishop
> That's a bit oversimplified, don't you think?
>
> There are businesses who *want* the cheaper labor. Free market and all
> that. Don't you think that if they had sufficient applications from US
> citizens that they'd preferentially hire them since that would eliminate
> the possibility of them getting in trouble?
You're kidding, right? Right? Holy cow, no WONDER we're in this mess,
if THAT'S the level of understanding we have.
Ever hear of smoky back rooms, where politicians lower the fines for
using illegal labor to the point where the fine is easily paid as a
cost of doing business?
Do you KNOW how much less an illegal makes than a citizen? It's less
than half.
>
> As for the school thing, you've got to be kidding, right? People want
> the best for their kids and don't want them in dead-end, low-paying
> jobs. They'd rather look the other way and let businesses hire illegals
> so they can get their yards landscaped, homes cleaned, etc., *cheap*!
So they're bastards. No-good, rotten bastards who may as well spit on
the flag as do what they do. What's your point?
>
> Right. So increase the minimum wage more. Enforce it. That would tilt
> the scales more toward a larger portion of US citizens competing for
> those jobs.
So...you AGREE with me. Are you sure you even know what you think?
> Once again look at the market. People may not like this, but if the
> choice is paying considerably higher for what are now cheap services,
> where will they come down?
If it comes down to going to jail for hiring illegals, where will they
come down?
>
> Jim, you'll find those sorts of things going on in most poverty-stricken
> areas. Being here *illegally* has little to do with it.
AAAAGGGHH!!! Stupidity causes me PAIN!!!
WHY are they poor, man? WHY? Because they have no status, so they have
to take whatever is offered.
See how you've completely missed the point?
> The thing is, it's going to happen anyway, with "free" trade etc.
Not if we legislate long prison terms for violators.
> Other
> countries are raising their standards of living, and in the end it's at
> the expense of us and all the other "first-rate" economies. We've
> shipped a lot of our manufacturing overseas because companies save bucks
> that way. Ultimately, if the model stays the same, the other countries
> ultimately improve their own living conditions, and in the end the
> pressure to migrate here decreases. When it comes down to it, it
> doesn't really matter which way it happens. It's a consequence of
> freedom, in a sense.
It's a consequence of corruption. Is your last name Bush, Cheney or
Rove?
> It saves us money. Consequently, we have more disposable income to
> spend elsewhere.
And bankrupts the government, which is doling out fire protection,
road maintenance, emergency room medical care, and other outlays while
collecting no income tax.
So as long as you're an "I've got mine, screw the rest of you AND our
children" kinda guy, everything is fine.
> It's fair to help individuals who form a significant minority in a given
> area, regardless of who they are. These things benefit US citizens who
> are learning English too.
>
> Do you know that a lot of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have
> "government posting things" in English and French? It's funny though,
> people up there for the most part don't whine about it. It's been going
> on for so long it's part of the culture.- Hide quoted text -
And after drooling out all your Republican talking points, you finish
up with the GOP Special: calling anyone who disagrees with you
"whiny."
Unless your financial situation is the same as your first name, you
are advocating against your own best interests.
The Bishop
The American crew took the time it takes to do it right and safely.
The Mexican crew was threatened with replacement if a breakneck pace
was not maintained, and safety be damned. The first time I drove
through LA, and saw crews of illegals crawling like spiders over a
roof--no harness, no net, no hardhat, no lifeline, no supervision--I
nearly puked. And any injuries they sustained were paid for by the
city of LA. REAL easy to make a profit when you don't have to pay for
insurance.
People who don't see the problem this represents are probably hiring
illegals themselves. And how seriously should we take THEIR opinion?
The Bishop
> But you can't make a decent living any more doing these things even in
> areas that have few illegals. The illegals may exacerbate the problem,
> but it's there to begin with.
That's because supply chains are nationalized now. Anything that
affects labor costs in the Northwest this month will affect the rest
if the country NEXT month, as local vendors hear about great deals and
want a great deal too.
>
> Shit, fifty years ago most families could live well above the poverty
> level on a single income. It hasn't been that way for a while. We
> could debate *why*, but it would set off another round of political
> sniping.
You mean we would arrive at the truth, and it wouldn't make you look
very smart.
> Right, so the 19-year-olds don't want to do the work. Who does?
You see why people think there's no talking to you illegal-mongers?
>
> But this is kind of a chicken-and-egg thing, right? Did the pay get
> less because there was a sufficient pool of illegals available who would
> work for that, or did businesses and corporations start gradually
> lowering their pay rates because Joe Average couldn't do a damned thing
> about it and therefore attract the pool of illegals?
It was the influx of illegals that allowed Reagan to beging his war on
unions, which led directly to the lowering of wages.
Chicken and egg, my ass. Where'd you get that, Limbaugh?
>
> Right. But in your area, don't Mexicans form the majority of those
> living in poverty?
What's your point? Do you HAVE one?
> Simply asserting that it's unfair doesn't prove it.
But asserting it's ILLEGAL proves plenty. The prima facie case here is
of law-breaking.
> Hey, we accommodate disabled students in the schools, right? Isn't that
> unfair to the majority who aren't disabled because it takes resources
> away from mainstream programs?
AMERICAN children. Get it now?
Jim Carr
> WHY are they poor, man? WHY? Because they have no status, so they have
> to take whatever is offered.
> See how you've completely missed the point?
It's not just what they are "offered" is what they offer themselves. I'm
not saying it's every one of them, but there's a large contingent that
offers to work for cash at a much lower rate.
The Bishop
> > Obviously the former. Why would a poor illegal be willing to work for
> > $7 per hour but not $12? It makes no sense that they would only come
> > if there were lower wages.
>
> But they wouldn't come if there were no demand. If the wages were
> higher, the jobs would be more likely to be filled by citizens, thus no
> demand.
Talking about market forces obscures the issue. It's not legal for
them to be here. They're causing trouble, and they shouldn't even be
here. Obviously, the solution is to get rid of them. Everything you're
saying is just justifying injustice.
> My brother and three sisters are very much blue collar and in the
> trenches.
Go talk to them. Ask if their supervisor has mentioned how much
cheaper a Mexican would be lately. It's become a common refrain.
>
> > I mean, *think* about it. What's more likely? That poor people with
> > little opportunity would come to a rich country and try to hustle
> > work?
It's a matter of historical fact what happened. Your "c'mon, it
couldn't possibly be right-wing fat cats doing this" line is about as
original as a John McCain campaign ad. And it's just as persuasive.
> > Or did businesses lower wages, so American workers stopped working.
How did they GET AWAY with lowering wages? Where were the unions?
Oh, yeah....that sneaky rest of the picture getting in the way of your
theorizing.
> > Thus we had a bunch of unemployed people and a bunch of understaffed
> > businesses sitting around. After months or ever years of this, the
> > illegals saw a wonderful opportunity and came to this country, filled
> > out applications, and started new jobs.
> > Gimme a break. Go start a business that requires unskilled labor.
> > Watch what happens.
Again, half the picture. Am I checking IDs at this job fair? If I am,
guaranteed no illegals show up.
Am I paying decent? If I am, I'll have plenty of American citizens
applying, offering me the advantages of fluent English and familiarity
with American workplace rules.
>
> OK, so why is it that 40 years ago we didn't have this problem anywhere
> near the magnitude of what it is today? What changed?
Google PATCO. Google "Reagan's war on labor." Wow, you're either
REALLY ignorant, or a GOP pusher.
> > Remove the opportunities, eh? So we should become like Mexico? Yeh,
> > that makes sense.
Why would that be the result? OH, RIGHT, because you want the illegals
to stay, and you'll say anything to justify it.
> Actually, that's what's done in many cases. If a single student has a
> sufficiently rare disability and the school has no staff with expertise
> in the area, it's often tough luck.
What on Earth does that have to do with illegal immigration? Once
again, the people excusing the illegals hasn't got a single cogent
point to make. He doesn't even know recent labor history, or pretends
not to. Good thing you have FUX NEWS spreading your BS for you,
because without a major propaganda machine, BS like that would go the
way of perpetual motion machines and alchemy.
The Bishop
> Whoa there. That doesn't make any sense. In reality there are very few
> people in this country who want to work and who are not working.
In reality, there are millions. Where on EARTH do you get your
numbers?
You know that after your benefits run out, W no longer considers you
unemployed, right?
You know that if you go from CEO to burger boy, W considers you "back
to work," right?
You know W counts seasonal farm jobs as "created jobs," right?
You know GOP congresmen want burger jobs categorized as "burger
manufacturing," don't you?
> Raising
> the wages on the lowest paid jobs would have extremely little effect except
> to increase the cost of living. Nearly every restaurant in Florida has a
> sign out saying help wanted and contrary to popular belief wait staff makes
> pretty good pay. At least it's well above minimum wage. Still the openings
> are vacant.
And you think Mexicans are hired as WAIT STAFF?
They can't speak English. How the hell are they going to take orders?
They hire the illegals as BUS BOYS and DISHWASHERS. You know (or do
you?), the jobs that get the lowest pay and little to no share of
tips.
And by the way, wait staff are the MOST flighty, ephemeral work force
there is. Fewer than 5% of NYC wait staff are career waitresses. The
rest are in show business. The reason for the turnover is that the
nature and portability of the job attracts a bohemian work force.
Which is why it's a really lousy example to use.
Construction is better. At the bottom of the ever-more-frequent piles
of rubble in this town, you find illegals. Attached to their bodies
are no harness, no lifeline, nothing. This is the cost of illegal
immigration--dead anonymous Mexican boys. Why weren't they trained, or
provided safety equipment? After all, they're so cheap to hire, the
boss could well afford it, right?
Jim Carr
>>> Thus we had a bunch of unemployed people and a bunch of understaffed
>>> businesses sitting around. After months or ever years of this, the
>>> illegals saw a wonderful opportunity and came to this country, filled
>>> out applications, and started new jobs.
>>> Gimme a break. Go start a business that requires unskilled labor.
>>> Watch what happens.
>
> Again, half the picture. Am I checking IDs at this job fair? If I am,
> guaranteed no illegals show up.
LOL! Come to Phoenix, and you'll get illegals applying with fake IDs.
> Am I paying decent? If I am, I'll have plenty of American citizens
> applying, offering me the advantages of fluent English and familiarity
> with American workplace rules.
Yes, you'll get Americans applying. But you'll also get offers from
illegals. Or your legal workers will say, "I've got a friend who's
willing do that for a lot less. He doesn't have papers, but he's reliable."
Interestingly, I was just recently involved in just such a conversation.
Turns out that the "legal" person, who had been working for the company
for over two years, was using a stolen SSN. She's gone now.
>>> Remove the opportunities, eh? So we should become like Mexico? Yeh,
>>> that makes sense.
>
> Why would that be the result? OH, RIGHT, because you want the illegals
> to stay, and you'll say anything to justify it.
Bishop, you need to SLOW DOWN. You're not even sure who you're replying
to or what point was being made.
In this example Rich said if you want to keep out the illegals,
eliminate opportunities. My point is that as long as there is a decent
economy, there is opportunity.
You don't see people crossing the border to Mexico because there are no
opportunities. Thus the only way *not* to attract them is to *not* have
something they went. Thus my sarcastic comment that eliminating
opportunity would mean bringing us down the economic level of Mexico.
Hopefully, we'll always have something others want. The trick is to make
the cost too high to get it illegally.
>> Actually, that's what's done in many cases. If a single student has a
>> sufficiently rare disability and the school has no staff with expertise
>> in the area, it's often tough luck.
>
> What on Earth does that have to do with illegal immigration?
It was in response to my complaint that Hispanics receive favorable
treatment by the government in the form of Spanish language services.
Other mostly law-abiding people from other countries get no such benefit.
Rich was trying to make a comparison to public assistance for children.
It was a stretch, but a reasonable analogy to at least attempt.
> again, the people excusing the illegals hasn't got a single cogent
> point to make. He doesn't even know recent labor history, or pretends
> not to. Good thing you have FUX NEWS spreading your BS for you,
> because without a major propaganda machine, BS like that would go the
> way of perpetual motion machines and alchemy.
No need to get personal and start drawing lines in the political sand.
The Bishop
Not just Mexicans either. As I've related bfore, I was watching one
morning as my friend negotiated a day's work with a local contractor.
An illegal immigrant from Ireland (my ancestral homeland) walked right
between the two of them, got right up in the contractor's face, and
said, "He'll do it for a hundred? I'll do it for 75."
The contractor just rolled his eyes (knowing the local natives knew
how to call Immigration), and said, "Great. I just need your green
card."
The man just stared at him for a second, then walked away.
No opportunity? No illegal labor.
pTooner
And after drooling out all your Republican talking points, you finish
up with the GOP Special: calling anyone who disagrees with you
"whiny."
You are truly a piece of work, but I've got to ask "How do you explain the 8
years Slick Willy was in the White House or the past few years when the Dems
have been in control of Congress?"
Gerry
pTooner
On Aug 18, 3:52 pm, SheaNC <she...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know some Apache and Navajo people who would probably agree, if you
> could make it retroactive. When did your ancesters arrive? Did they
> all have their valid documentation? Are you sure?
Some of my ancestors arrived here long before yours, white man! And
interestingly enough I don't have "official" native American
documentation. It seems that only the Indians the government killed on
the Trail of Tears are considered "official". Those who married a
White man as mine so as to not be sent West, aren't considered "real"
Indians by the Government.
I'll be damned! My status is exactly the same. Except that my caucasian
relatives came from England, Scotland and Ireland in the mid 1700s. I do
have a photo of my direct Cherokee relative, but no real geanealogical info.
Gerry
RichL
> On Aug 18, 9:37 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> But you can't make a decent living any more doing these things even
>> in areas that have few illegals. The illegals may exacerbate the
>> problem, but it's there to begin with.
>
> That's because supply chains are nationalized now. Anything that
> affects labor costs in the Northwest this month will affect the rest
> if the country NEXT month, as local vendors hear about great deals and
> want a great deal too.
It happened long before the chains took over. Google "Reaganomics".
>> Shit, fifty years ago most families could live well above the poverty
>> level on a single income. It hasn't been that way for a while. We
>> could debate *why*, but it would set off another round of political
>> sniping.
>
> You mean we would arrive at the truth, and it wouldn't make you look
> very smart.
Hah! This from the guy who couldn't keep Carr's and my comments
straight?
Which version of the truth are you pushing today?
>> Right, so the 19-year-olds don't want to do the work. Who does?
> You see why people think there's no talking to you illegal-mongers?
What's an illegal-monger? A fishmonger sells fish. I don't sell
illegals.
>> But this is kind of a chicken-and-egg thing, right? Did the pay get
>> less because there was a sufficient pool of illegals available who
>> would work for that, or did businesses and corporations start
>> gradually lowering their pay rates because Joe Average couldn't do a
>> damned thing about it and therefore attract the pool of illegals?
>
> It was the influx of illegals that allowed Reagan to beging his war on
> unions, which led directly to the lowering of wages.
Huh? Reagan's war on unions began with the air traffic controllers
strike. There weren't any illegals involved in that as far as I know.
You've got it backwards. Reagan weakened the unions, which led to the
flourishing of lower-paying jobs...
> Chicken and egg, my ass. Where'd you get that, Limbaugh?
Boy, you got that wrong. I'm the lefty, Jim's the righty (at least in
this discussion).
>> Right. But in your area, don't Mexicans form the majority of those
>> living in poverty?
>
> What's your point? Do you HAVE one?
It might help if you participated in this discussion from the beginning.
Or at least followed it.
>> Simply asserting that it's unfair doesn't prove it.
>
> But asserting it's ILLEGAL proves plenty. The prima facie case here is
> of law-breaking.
So the illegals break the law and get shipped home, and the corporations
break the same law and get a little slap on the wrist. That makes
sense, yup.
RichL
> On Aug 18, 6:15 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> That's a bit oversimplified, don't you think?
>>
>> There are businesses who *want* the cheaper labor. Free market and
>> all that. Don't you think that if they had sufficient applications
>> from US citizens that they'd preferentially hire them since that
>> would eliminate the possibility of them getting in trouble?
>
> You're kidding, right? Right? Holy cow, no WONDER we're in this mess,
> if THAT'S the level of understanding we have.
>
> Ever hear of smoky back rooms, where politicians lower the fines for
> using illegal labor to the point where the fine is easily paid as a
> cost of doing business?
No kidding. You're making my points but you think you're disagreeing.
Whew!
> Do you KNOW how much less an illegal makes than a citizen? It's less
> than half.
No kidding. Do you even know what side I'm advocating in this?
>> As for the school thing, you've got to be kidding, right? People want
>> the best for their kids and don't want them in dead-end, low-paying
>> jobs. They'd rather look the other way and let businesses hire
>> illegals so they can get their yards landscaped, homes cleaned,
>> etc., *cheap*!
>
> So they're bastards. No-good, rotten bastards who may as well spit on
> the flag as do what they do. What's your point?
>
>>
>> Right. So increase the minimum wage more. Enforce it. That would tilt
>> the scales more toward a larger portion of US citizens competing for
>> those jobs.
>
> So...you AGREE with me. Are you sure you even know what you think?
That should have been obvious if you read the whole discussion.
Is yours Roseannadanna?
> And after drooling out all your Republican talking points, you finish
> up with the GOP Special: calling anyone who disagrees with you
> "whiny."
Damn, you're pretty stubborn about this.
OK, let me spell it out. You know when the last time was that I voted
for a Republican presidential candidate? Ummm......
wait for it.....
Never. Since 1972.
If you want, I can write up a program. You can't keep the posters
straight without a program.
RichL
> Not just Mexicans either. As I've related bfore, I was watching one
> morning as my friend negotiated a day's work with a local contractor.
> An illegal immigrant from Ireland (my ancestral homeland) walked right
> between the two of them, got right up in the contractor's face, and
> said, "He'll do it for a hundred? I'll do it for 75."
>
> The contractor just rolled his eyes (knowing the local natives knew
> how to call Immigration), and said, "Great. I just need your green
> card."
>
> The man just stared at him for a second, then walked away.
>
> No opportunity? No illegal labor.
So you waded through five or more of my posts disagreeing with me all
the way and then reached the conclusion that I stated long ago.
Brilliant. That's what I've been trying to get at, fool.
SheaNC
Are you in some sort of competition? And why do you choose to base your
response on assumptions?
>You think that promoting scoffing at the law is going to make America a
>better place for you or me?
Nope. But that's not what I was doing.
> > People who are citizens of other countries who
> > come here pregnant and have the need to be sent back to their own
> > country WITH the kid. And while we are at it, instead of a nice plane
> > trip home, a few years in a nice Mexican-style hell-hole prison...
>
> So, if a middle-class, employed, pregnant white woman from Canada
> arrives in the US without going through the formalities, you would
> lock her up in a "Mexican-style hell-hole prison"? Maybe we could
> place a little replica of the Statue of Liberty in every cell. That
> would be nice.
>What does Middle-class or employed or pregnant have to do with crime?
>Lessee. If we feel sorry enough for some gang-banger because he's
>black and, well, his ancestors were worked as slaves, if he sells
>drugs to neighborhood kids or shoots babies in his gang wars it's OK
>because it's society's fault not his, right?
Read what you wrote: you only mentioned pregnancy, not all that other stuff.
Apparently you expect everyone else to make assumptions loike you do. I
responded to what you wrote, not to what you were imagining,
>The "poor worker" thing is a total red herring.
No, it is quite real, and I have more direct personal experience with it
than you know.
>The issue is not us needing workers or them needing work.
Yes it is, that is why the vast majority of them come here.
>The issue is VAST numbers of Third Worlders invading our country, stealing
>money
>and services from out own poor, bringing in tons of Mexican drugs and
>crime...
LOL! Stealing from our own poor? That line is classic. As for "bringing in
tons of Mexican drugs and crime," are you upset because you prefer American
drugs and crime? Who's buying those Mexican drugs anyway? Why would Mexicans
come here, with their drugs, to sell them to each other?
>because they'd rather steal what others HAVE rather than to build up
>something of value in their own place.
Gosh, what was it like back when there was no crime in the US?
>IF you are such a bleeding heart...
What I am is someone who has spent a lifetime in the southwest with people
from Mexico and other countries, and for every one that fits the bigoted
racist stereotypes propagated by folks like you and Mr. Carr, there are
dozens more who are successful, law abiding, english speaking, tax paying,
hardworking members of society, some of whom work to improve the lives of
Americans and others. You probably don't notice them, because they don't fit
the cartoonish stereotypes you portray.
>I hope you understand that the problem is not with YOU being totally
>stupid, but with your stupidity pulling the rest of us down with you!
And I hope you realize that the bigotry and hatred you embrace are the
poison that has turned so much of this world into a blood-soaked smoldering
ash heap of carnage. While you and others choose to cower behind border
fences clutching your precious lifestyle stuff, I hope to live in world
where people who want to improve their lives can freely travel wherever they
wish and pursue their dreams peacefully, where violent criminals are
arrested and jailed instead of celebrated as heroes, and people who want to
work and strive to fulfill their potential can do so without being harrassed
or impeded by others' prejudices.
Jim Carr
> What I am is someone who has spent a lifetime in the southwest with people
> from Mexico and other countries, and for every one that fits the bigoted
> racist stereotypes propagated by folks like you and Mr. Carr, there are
> dozens more who are successful, law abiding, english speaking, tax paying,
> hardworking members of society, some of whom work to improve the lives of
> Americans and others. You probably don't notice them, because they don't fit
> the cartoonish stereotypes you portray.
Hold on a sec there, Shea. You're way out of line calling me a bigot. I
wrote about people who do certain things. I never suggested that
everyone from Mexico or El Salvador does those things.
I have specific issues about certain conduct because of its adverse
effect on the economy. A significant number of people engage in that
conduct. It is utterly irrelevant whether those people make up 1% or 99%
of the brown people (a common term in Phoenix newspapers) in this
country. I never once stated or implied any such percentage.
If I say I don't want uneducated people coming into this country
illegally to perform unskilled labor for subsistence wages, a proper
response is not "well, not everyone who comes here does that." Duh! I
know that. The other people you call bigots know that. The *fact* is it
happens in significant numbers, and I don't think it's good for the economy.
If you want to get racial about it, most of the illegals are brown. Why?
It's not because they are bad people. It's because of the unsecured
border. If Canada's economy goes in the tank and they lose socialized
health care, I'd expect to see a lot of Canadians lining up outside Home
Depot.
And believe me, if the rest of the world could fly here for $50 and
waltz through an airport with impunity, illegals would have a very
different racial make-up. And I'd still hold the same opinions. I don't
give a shit if they are brown or not.
To break it down in simple terms, saying the most illegals are brown is
*not* the same as saying that most browns are illegal. Unfortunately,
folks like you cast the issue that way and prevent real debate.
SheaNC
Specifically, I was refrencing your description of "Many of these
people...". Your implication is clear, and it is not unusual. My point is
that your statement implies that most Mexicans who come here fit that
description. Now you follow up by stating that "It is utterly irrelevant
whether those people make up 1% or 99% of the brown people." Jim, those
percentages are relevant, because defining an entire group by the negative
actions of 1% of them is bigotry.
suds macheath
---I believe "Slick" only enjoyed a Dem congress for the first two of
his eight years.
Dems *are* in charge of the House, but Repubs enjoy an advantage in the
Senate, with Lieberman a DINO and Darth Cheney casting the tie breaking
vote....
SheaNC
That's what I said, so we agree on that point. Thanks.
> And yes, Americans would do those jobs if they paid enough to live on.- Hide quoted text -
Of course. But Mexicans are not the villains for taking jobs that are
offered to them; at least they're not solely to blame. Are you
familiar with systems theory? It's already been pointed out that the
employers of illegal labor share responsibility for the situation (in
my opinion, they're more to blame than the foreign workers). But also,
a lot of people share in this who might not realize it. For example,
you claim "And they don't cross the border to clean anything of mine,"
but if you consume any product that results from American agriculture,
and that can include more than just fruits and veggies, then you are
contributing to the "problem". Who does the landscaping in your city?
Does a local business that you patronize pay Mexicans to do theirs?
What about beef? Leather goods? Dine in restaurants? My point when I
referred to motel maids was that undocumented workers have become such
an instrinsic part of the American workforce, that the true-blue
American lifestyle is dependent on it. When the border fences go up,
so will the cost of many goods and services.
Jim Carr
> Of course. But Mexicans are not the villains for taking jobs that are
> offered to them;
First off, quit saying "Mexicans" because that's racist. We're talking
*specifically* about illegal aliens (not "undocumented workers").
Second, who said they are villains? Their presence and actions are a
large part of the problem. Collectively they cause problems in the
economy, but individually they are just looking for work.
> a lot of people share in this who might not realize it. For example,
> you claim "And they don't cross the border to clean anything of mine,"
> but if you consume any product that results from American agriculture,
> and that can include more than just fruits and veggies, then you are
> contributing to the "problem".
Really? I thought we had laws making temporary migrant workers legal.
> Who does the landscaping in your city?
> Does a local business that you patronize pay Mexicans to do theirs?
> What about beef? Leather goods? Dine in restaurants?
Again with the Mexicans. Please stop being a bigot.
Do we have alternatives? As consumers we presume our businesses are
operating legally. We have no way of knowing if they are not.
Furthermore, many illegals use fake documentation.
I, for one, won't do business with people I know to hire illegals (had
to switch plumbers because of this policy).
> My point when I
> referred to motel maids was that undocumented workers have become such
> an instrinsic part of the American workforce, that the true-blue
> American lifestyle is dependent on it. When the border fences go up,
> so will the cost of many goods and services.
That's true. And that's a good thing. Wages will be taxed properly.
Emergency rooms won't do as much "free clinic" work. Schools won't be as
burdened with non English speaking students. Money that should be spent
in the local economy won't be wired out of the area.
If it turns out to be a bad thing, there's an easy solution: Cut school
funding. We can generate our own pool of uneducated unskilled labor
without relying on another country.
You see, Shea, this is what the debate should be about: the relative
merits of the low-end of our labor force taking a step backwards and the
economic realities of illegal workers.
Race is irrelevant. Whether the motives of these people are "good" or
"bad" is irrelevant. Whether they "need" the work is irrelevant. All
this emotional stuff you throw it is irrelevant.
pTooner
"suds macheath" <sudsm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j%Wqk.12989$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> pTooner wrote:
>> And after drooling out all your Republican talking points, you finish
>> up with the GOP Special: calling anyone who disagrees with you
>> "whiny."
>>
>> You are truly a piece of work, but I've got to ask "How do you explain
>> the 8 years Slick Willy was in the White House or the past few years when
>> the Dems have been in control of Congress?"
>
> ---I believe "Slick" only enjoyed a Dem congress for the first two of his
> eight years.
I don't suppose you wondered why?
> Dems *are* in charge of the House, but Repubs enjoy an advantage in the
> Senate, with Lieberman a DINO and Darth Cheney casting the tie breaking
> vote....
I wish I could claim control when I had 49 votes and the opposition had 50 +
a man who served for the past 20 years as a democrat. Technically, he was a
democrat for the first 18 years and for the past two years calls himself an
"Independent Democrat". As for as Cheney is concerned, he only gets a vote
if the Senate splits 50-50. Why don't you check out how many times that
split has fallen on strict party lines?
You really do have a "convenient" outlook don't you?
Gerry
>
pTooner
"SheaNC" <scome...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8c6dne6Ekpu4uTHV...@comcast.com...
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities
differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of
mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is
obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or
proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
Dictionary.com
big·ot·ry
-noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed,
belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Merriam-Webster on line
Pronunciation:
\'bi-g?-tre\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural big·ot·ries
Date:
circa 1674
1 : the state of mind of a bigot 2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a
bigot
Bigot
Main Entry:
big·ot
Pronunciation:
\'bi-g?t\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members
of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Lots of words, but it doesn't really say very much does it? I find that
it's impossible in most settings to have any kind of discussion like this,
especially if there is any racial connection at all is someone will
immediately start screaming BIGOT!!! Or the other form, RACIST! Please
note the main definition is :"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
to his or her own opinions and prejudices" and you will see that it might
apply to people on either side of a given argument. Personally, I don't
bother to argue with anyone who thinks he can win any argument by resorting
to emotional terms like the above.
Oh, and specifically you say: "Jim, what I said was you are propagating
bigoted rascist stereotypes.
> Specifically, I was refrencing your description of "Many of these
> people...". Your implication is clear, and it is not unusual." Well, it
> may not be unusual but I didn't see any implication at all so it isn't so
> clear after all.
Gerry
Jim Carr
Sorry, Shea, but you need to work on your reading skills. You mentioned
"Mexicans who dare cross the mojave desert to clean your hotel rooms and
mow your lawns" and I replied with, "Being in the thick of it here in
Phoenix, let me say that painting *that* picture is no more valid than
painting the picture of the drunk thief. Both are stereotypes."
I tried to get the discussion away from stereotypes right off the bat.
You keep pulling it back. On a side note, where's this 1% number coming
from? Are you saying that it's okay to stereotype once it hits a certain
percentage?
In the next paragraph I defined cheap labor as uneducated and unskilled
people working for less than a living wage. I did not mention country of
origin, skin color, or language. That's all in your head or a deliberate
misdirection in the debate.
You haven't addressed any of the issues. Instead you have attacked me
personally and tried to turn it into a race issue. It's not a race
issue. It's an economic issue. Period.
Now, if you want to call me selfish, that's fine. I don't want illegal,
unskilled, uneducated laborers working for subsistence wages. Period. I
don't care if the guy is a 45 year old drunk or a 30 year old Christian
father of four just trying to feed his family. I don't care what their
story is (nor is it practical to evaluate each and every one).
It's not in the best interest of this country to import unskilled and
uneducated labor. Despite our best efforts, we still have plenty of our own.
Charlie S. at dot
wrote:
>Shit, fifty years ago most families could live well above the poverty
>level on a single income.
What kind of drugs are you on? I was around fifty years ago, and let
me tell you: it couldn't be done then any better than today. My old
man was a cop and my mother, a secretary, and, while we did have some
disposable income, it wasn't THAT much! And we could NOT have done it
w/o both incomes.
pTooner
"SheaNC" <she...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:23a3c6ba-db28-45d7...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> And they cross to make money, not to make Americans feel better.
>
> That's what I said, so we agree on that point. Thanks.
>
>> And yes, Americans would do those jobs if they paid enough to live on.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>
> Of course. But Mexicans are not the villains for taking jobs that are
> offered to them; at least they're not solely to blame. Are you
> familiar with systems theory? It's already been pointed out that the
> employers of illegal labor share responsibility for the situation (in
> my opinion, they're more to blame than the foreign workers).
See, every now and then we are in total agreement. ;-)
But also,
> a lot of people share in this who might not realize it. For example,
> you claim "And they don't cross the border to clean anything of mine,"
> but if you consume any product that results from American agriculture,
> and that can include more than just fruits and veggies, then you are
> contributing to the "problem".
Now that's a ridiculous statement. You are suggesting we should eat only
imported foods to avoid contributing to the illegal alien problem??
Who does the landscaping in your city?
It's a large and flourishing industry here in North Florida. Most of the
companies are small family businesses are sometimes even one man businesses.
I am pretty familiar with them because I'm on the Board of Governors for the
subdivision and I contract with them as well as over-seeing some of their
work. None of them show any signs of being illegal aliens.
> Does a local business that you patronize pay Mexicans to do theirs?
I doubt it.
> What about beef? Leather goods?
Florida is the second largest producer of beef cattle and we really don't
have many illegal aliens here.
Dine in restaurants?
Possibly Mexican restaurants. It's pretty hard to tell there. Are you
suggesting I should boycott Mexican restaurants because they might be
employing illegals?
My point when I
> referred to motel maids was that undocumented workers have become such
> an instrinsic part of the American workforce, that the true-blue
> American lifestyle is dependent on it. When the border fences go up,
> so will the cost of many goods and services.
I Desperately hope we never see the ridiculous border fence, but if it
should happen I don't think it will have any effect on the cost of goods and
services and damned little effect on the number of illegal aliens.
Gerry
Charlie S. at dot
wrote:
>
>OK, so why is it that 40 years ago we didn't have this problem anywhere
>near the magnitude of what it is today? What changed?
>
Politics/law enforcement changed. Because it's no longer PC, the cops
don't even pick up an illegal here in Texas. They're not even allowed
to ASK the person they're dealing with if they're here legally! THAT
is what has changed!
>
>> Just because providing a translated document is a "good" thing doesn't
>> mean prejudice is not involved. The government is discriminating
>> against people who don't speak Spanish.
>
>Who, exactly? Not the English speakers!
Actually, yes. They're spending money on translations instead of on
the programs to benefit the LEGAL residents.
SheaNC
about identifying a specific nationality in this discussion because it
is painfully obvious that is who people in this thread are discussing.
Get real. You know as well as I do that's the topic, and your little
rhetorical dance equivalent of "I'm rubber you're glue" is tiresome
and innacurate. I identify a specific national point of origin when it
is relevant to do so. It's no more rascist than if I said "Americans
do this or that all the time." There is a difference between
nationality and race.
Besides, you mentioned Mexico in a previous comment; so did Benj, so
did The Bishop, maybe others, too, if you spend enough time searching
for it throughout the thread. You, Jim, and they all made it clear who
the main subject of discussion is. That's one reason why I identified
them in my comments.
On the other hand, it is racist of you to read the word "Mexican" as a
derogatory term. If you attach a negative stereotype to a simple
description of national origin, then you are the one who has a problem
in that area.
Jim Carr
> On the other hand, it is racist of you to read the word "Mexican" as a
> derogatory term. If you attach a negative stereotype to a simple
> description of national origin, then you are the one who has a problem
> in that area.
LOL! You've managed once again to both ignore the issues at hand and
make this about prejudice.
For the record, I am NOT talking about Mexicans. I am talking about
illegal, uneducated unskilled laborers willing to work for subsistence
wages. The only relevance of their country of origin is in the form of
an explanation: Mexicans have a financial incentive to come here, and
it's very easy an inexpensive for them to cross the border. Thus we see
them in large numbers. Because of border issues in South America, we see
people from other countries as well.
If the USA offered $25 flights from Ethiopia to airports that didn't
check passports, you'd be saying I was prejudiced against Africans
because they would be the cheap labor. You'd be wrong about that, too.
I never *once* used Mexican as a derogatory term. I called you on *your*
use of the term to describe the people I'm talking about because it's
WRONG. There are over 100 million people living in Mexico. Those people
are Mexicans.
I'm talking about illegal, uneducated, unskilled labor willing to work
for subsistence wages. If you refer to those people as Mexicans, that's
your problem, not mine. I don't give a shit where they come from except
in terms a practical way of keeping them out.
I refer to them as illegals for lack of a better term. I refuse to deal
in euphemisms like "undocumented immigrants" because that is not an
accurate description.
pTooner
"Charlie S." <w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net> wrote in message
news:hfroa49qucmp6ksse...@4ax.com...
Let's see. Fifty years ago would be 1958, right? Very few people I knew
had working mothers in those days. (I was in high school) I was married in
1966 and my wife was a "homemaker" until my daughter was in high school in
the eighties. I don't suppose we were wealthy, but we never thought of
ourselves as poor either. We managed two cars, usually one of them new and
to own a pretty decent home (with a pool) on the few dollars I managed to
bring home. We have much more now after my wife worked for 20 years or so,
but we did okay back then. When my daughter got married in 1989, she
elected to live on a similar income level as her parents who had taken over
20 years to get there. So she has worked the whole time but she and her
husband are on a VERY high income level because of it. They could live very
comfortably on either of their salaries if they elected to do so. So, if it
wasn't that way where you were 50 years ago, it WAS where I was. For that
matter, it still is for those who want to do it.
Gerry
pTooner
"Jim Carr" <newsg...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:sCZqk.1308$Fr1...@newsfe03.iad...
> SheaNC wrote:
>
>> Of course. But Mexicans are not the villains for taking jobs that are
>> offered to them;
>
> First off, quit saying "Mexicans" because that's racist.
I guess I'm not an expert, but I don't think there is any such thing as a
Mexican race. In truth, there are so few "pure" strains around that any
talk of race is almost without meaning.
Gerry
Jim Carr
Let's not get into the definition of "race" because that's a can of
worms. My point is there are not 100,000,000 people (population of
Mexico) causing these economic problems. If you allow the term
"Mexicans" or "Hispanics" or whatever to become a substitute for the
correct term (illegal aliens), then people like Shea accuse you of
prejudice. It happens here in Phoenix all the time.
It's certainly appropriate to discuss the country of origin if a large
number of illegal aliens come from there, but only in a practical
context (border policies and geography). If Mexico and Hungary switched
places geographically, the debate would continue. It's not about being
Mexican, so we should keep that out of the debate unless absolutely
relevant.
Around here it goes like this:
"I have a problem with all these illegals."
"What have you got against Mexicans? Lots of them are hard-working
people here legally."
"I'm talking about the illegals who work for cash under the table and
pump money out of our economy and back to Mexico."
"See? You've got a problem with Mexicans. Some of them have been here
for generations."
"Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!"
SheaNC
nationality for two reasons: 1) it is obvious that Mexican immigration
is the dominant theme of current discussions about illegal
immigration, including this one; and 2) Mexico and Mexicans have been
mentioned elsewhere in the thread by you, Benj, the Bishop, and Rich,
so the message was there before I entered the thread. My sharing the
"Mexican" theme with the rest of you is no less relevant than any of
you doing it.
Maybe you've been in AZ so long that you have fallen prey to the
unfortunate habit of regarding the word "Mexican" as a derogatory term
(as you may recall, I'm from Arizona too, so I know how the word is
often used). But when I refer to Mexicans, I am talking about people
who are from Mexico - usually we're forced to use the term "Mexican
Nationals" to qualify our statements as non-derogatory - but I am
referring to national origin, that is all. There is nothing rascist
about referring to someone's nationality. Are you offended by someone
referring to Americans as Americans? That's the context I'm using.
If you read the word "Mexican" as a derogatory term, then you're the
one who is attaching negative qualities to the word. It is a
desription of national origin, not an insult. If you read the word
"Mexican" as racist, then you are not only misdefining the word
"rascist", but you are doing a disservice to Mexicans and Mexico.
Also, your use of the "I'm-rubber-you're-glue" rhetorical debate
tactic is not only ineffective (and untrue in this case, I say) but it
tends to backfire on the user :)
RichL
part time when I was in high school (1962-1966) but not before that.
And at least in my area, she was representative of the married women in
that respect.
RichL
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:37:29 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Shit, fifty years ago most families could live well above the poverty
>> level on a single income.
>
> What kind of drugs are you on?
Nice to meet you! Good way to start a conversation.
> I was around fifty years ago
As was I (almost 60 years ago in fact)
> and let me tell you: it couldn't be done then any better than
> today. My old
> man was a cop and my mother, a secretary, and, while we did have some
> disposable income, it wasn't THAT much! And we could NOT have done it
> w/o both incomes.
That's your experience. Maybe your area wasn't as economically
depressed as mine and there were enough jobs available. My mom didn't
work until I was in high school and even then she had to scrounge around
to find a part-time job that would help the family get by. And my dad
didn't earn much either. My first job out of college paid more than he
earned at the time.
RichL
Did you happen to notice that Shea was responding to Benj and not to
you? (just wondering...)
Jim Carr
> Jim, Mexico is a country, not a racial type. I identified a specific
> nationality for two reasons: 1) it is obvious that Mexican immigration
> is the dominant theme of current discussions about illegal
> immigration,
No, Shea, it's not the dominant "theme" at all. Being Mexican is a
characteristic. Most of them have dark hair and are Catholic, but that's
not a "theme" either.
If you want to debate the economic impact of illegal aliens, let's do
it. Other than that I refuse to defend myself against your unfounded
attacks regarding what you believe to be my prejudices.
Let's suppose that I was some closet racist/nationalist/whatever and
that you think Mexicans are God's chosen people to be revered and admired.
Would that change the impact of ILLEGAL ALIENS on the economy? No.
So, if you want to address the economic issues, let's go for it.
Otherwise, shut up with your opinions about my feelings towards Mexicans.
RichL
It's not a problem for you because you don't draw erroneous conclusions
from the fact that in your area most of the "illegals" are, in fact,
Mexicans. However, there are an awful lot of people who aren't that
sophisticated who don't make the distinction. The topic seems to be a
natural one to draw the racists out of their shells.
You asked several posts ago about my experience with illegals. I
mentioned the Prince William County situation in VA, but overall in the
DC area there *is* a large problem with illegals, specifically involving
El Salvadorians. My guess is that half the employees of landscaping
companies in this area are illegals. But I digress....
Here's what's happening in Prince William on a regular basis, and
elsewhere in the region sporadically. The crackdown has gotten the
bigots out of the woodwork, and people who are here *legally* from El
Salvador and elsewhere are being discriminated against, swept up in
raids, and physically attacked by people who would normally keep their
true feelings in the closet but who are apparently emboldened by the
crackdown.
I've seen it first hand, Jim.
I guess all I'm saying really is that while I respect your position, be
aware of potentially unintended consequences, and tread carefully!
Jim Carr
> I've got to concur with you there, Gerry. I can remember my mom working
> part time when I was in high school (1962-1966) but not before that.
> And at least in my area, she was representative of the married women in
> that respect.
The economy transitioned from single-income to dual-income over a period
of many years after WWII. It's a wildly complex thing to examine since
it affected everything in the economy from the price of toilet paper to
commercial airliners. Hell, just looking at daycare, preschools and
parochial schools over the last 60 years would be a thesis in itself.
Jim Carr
> Did you happen to notice that Shea was responding to Benj and not to
> you? (just wondering...)
He wrote, "...and for every one that fits the bigoted racist stereotypes
propagated by folks like you and Mr. Carr..."
Jim Carr
> It's not a problem for you because you don't draw erroneous conclusions
> from the fact that in your area most of the "illegals" are, in fact,
> Mexicans. However, there are an awful lot of people who aren't that
> sophisticated who don't make the distinction. The topic seems to be a
> natural one to draw the racists out of their shells.
It's a matter of perspective. Around here the politics make this into a
racist (for lack of a better term) issue no matter what you say. But it
kind of begs the question. Do the illegals cause problems and therefore
people project their racism to all Mexicans? Or was the prejudice
already there, and thus the problems only exist in the minds of racists?
I think it's more the former than the latter. The problems are real and
need to be addressed. There's no need to force people to admit and drop
their prejudice before addressing the problems.
> Here's what's happening in Prince William on a regular basis, and
> elsewhere in the region sporadically. The crackdown has gotten the
> bigots out of the woodwork, and people who are here *legally* from El
> Salvador and elsewhere are being discriminated against, swept up in
> raids, and physically attacked by people who would normally keep their
> true feelings in the closet but who are apparently emboldened by the
> crackdown.
>
> I've seen it first hand, Jim.
>
> I guess all I'm saying really is that while I respect your position, be
> aware of potentially unintended consequences, and tread carefully!
To me the biggest problem is getting people to acknowledge that there
even is one. It's like some people can't accept that hard-working,
family-oriented people people in *aggregate* can create economic
problems by coming here illegally and working for subsistence wages. The
road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And to be honest, Hispanics (legal and otherwise) do themselves a
disservice by not learning the language. I don't care where you go, the
majority will resent at least to *some* degree people who don't learn
the language. And when their tax dollars are spent accommodating those
people, the resentment grows.
And this, of course, leads to more outward expressions of racism.
RichL
Missed that...sorry..
Charlie S. at dot
wrote:
>
>Let's see. Fifty years ago would be 1958, right? Very few people I knew
>had working mothers in those days. (I was in high school) I was married in
>1966 and my wife was a "homemaker" until my daughter was in high school in
>the eighties. I don't suppose we were wealthy, but we never thought of
>ourselves as poor either. We managed two cars, usually one of them new and
>to own a pretty decent home (with a pool) on the few dollars I managed to
>bring home. We have much more now after my wife worked for 20 years or so,
>but we did okay back then. When my daughter got married in 1989, she
>elected to live on a similar income level as her parents who had taken over
>20 years to get there. So she has worked the whole time but she and her
>husband are on a VERY high income level because of it. They could live very
>comfortably on either of their salaries if they elected to do so. So, if it
>wasn't that way where you were 50 years ago, it WAS where I was. For that
>matter, it still is for those who want to do it.
>
>Gerry
>
I'm happy for you (then and now), but it wasn't that way in my part of
Texas back then ('58 was the year I started 2nd grade). Maybe it was
just that the old man was a cop (they might not have made much money
at that time), but we had to have my mother's income, too, to pay the
bills. Oh, and no pool, although we did have a nice three bedroom
home for the five of us (had two brothers). The two cars were
required (no luxury), what with Mother having to get to work and no
bus service within a mile or so of the house. We never wondered where
the next meal was coming from, but I never had a new bicycle until I
was an adult and could buy it myself.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not crying about this, and I don't begrude you
your fortunate circumstances. My situation gave me a good background
for the rest of my life. Just couldn't let you think that everyone
was as fortunate as you.
RichL
> And to be honest, Hispanics (legal and otherwise) do themselves a
> disservice by not learning the language. I don't care where you go,
> the majority will resent at least to *some* degree people who don't
> learn the language. And when their tax dollars are spent
> accommodating those people, the resentment grows.
>
> And this, of course, leads to more outward expressions of racism.
But there have always been a certain fraction of immigrants who are
resistant in this respect, and the smart ones realize that they're only
doing themselves a disservice by acting this way.
The middle-sized city that I grew up next to in Massachusetts had
massive numbers of immigrants from a bunch of different countries, and
they clustered in communities in which the native language was spoken.
My maternal grandparents, who emigrated from Quebec, initially lived in
one of these communities (which is still today called "Little Canada"),
but soon after they married they realized that they were holding
themselves back. So they got out and bought a house in the nearby town
where I grew up. That neighborhood was a hodgepodge of bluebloods and
immigrants, and by the time I was aware of my surroundings my
grandparents spoke perfect English with nary a trace of an accent (other
than the New England one). This was true for most (but not all) of
their neighbors as well.
The point is they didn't need any prodding to do so. And by the way
French is still the primary language in Little Canada, and they still
have Catholic churches and schools in which French is the spoken
language. And even by the time I was growing up, there were frequent
gang wars among the French Canadians, Italians, Puerto Ricans, etc. I'm
not sure of the degree to which that stuff still goes on.
Intelligent people will usually act in their own self-interest, and I
think that learning to speaking English is the intelligent choice for
immigrants (legal or otherwise). But in any group of individuals there
will be those who don't get it, and I don't think you can really force
them to get it either.
SheaNC
> this about prejudice.
> For the record, I am NOT talking about Mexicans.
Okay, so you're a hypocrite with a short memory who lives by double
standards. Let's start with a quote from your first response in this thread:
Jim Carr says: "Many of my friends are from Europe. It's a pain in the ass
for *them* to even visit while people from Mexico can waltz in and out at
their leisure."
People from where was that, Jim? Mexico? But you're not talking about
Mexico, are you? Who could it be that is from Mexico, waltzing in and out at
their leisure as you say, but are not Mexicans? Are there some Irish down
there you're concerned about, or something?
> I never *once* used Mexican as a derogatory term. I called you on *your*
> use of the term to describe the people I'm talking about because it's
> WRONG. There are over 100 million people living in Mexico. Those people
> are Mexicans.
You didn't call me on anything, Jim, so get over yourself. You screwed up.
YOU said the word "Mexican" is rascist. I was not using it as a derogatory
term, but YOU think "Mexican" is a rascist term. You're the one who
immediately registered the word in a negative way. The negativity came from
you, not me.
And, your not reading what I wrote. I said you read the word as a derogatory
term. I never said you used it that way. I did correctly point out that you
and others have been using the word, but I only criticized your definition
of it as racist, which it is not.
> I'm talking about illegal, uneducated, unskilled labor willing to work for
> subsistence wages. If you refer to those people as Mexicans, that's your
> problem, not mine. I don't give a shit where they come from except in
> terms a practical way of keeping them out.
Again, you're not listening. I referred to people coming here from Mexico as
Mexicans, which is completely accurate and not at all racist. You are the
one who is misinterpreting what I said, projecting your own meaning onto my
words. I am not calling all illegal immigrans Mexicans, and the very fact
that you see the word "Mexican" and register is as a euphamism for all
illegal aliens is blatant evidence of your own internalized bigotry. Sorry,
the truth might hurt, but the more you try to cast stones the more obvious
it is what you did.
> I refer to them as illegals for lack of a better term. I refuse to deal in
> euphemisms like "undocumented immigrants" because that is not an accurate
> description.
Whatever. I refer to people who are Mexican citizens as Mexican, and so do
they.
Jim Carr
>> LOL! You've managed once again to both ignore the issues at hand and make
> Okay, so you're a hypocrite with a short memory who lives by double
> standards. Let's start with a quote from your first response in this thread:
>
> Jim Carr says: "Many of my friends are from Europe. It's a pain in the ass
> for *them* to even visit while people from Mexico can waltz in and out at
> their leisure."
That is a statement of fact that is critical of the US border policy.
Did I in any way blame Mexico or fault Mexicans for making a go of it?
No. What I did was explain *why* so many illegals are Mexican. They are
not bad people, just opportunists. I'd be doing the same thing in their
shoes.
> You didn't call me on anything, Jim, so get over yourself. You screwed up.
> YOU said the word "Mexican" is rascist. I was not using it as a derogatory
> term, but YOU think "Mexican" is a rascist term. You're the one who
> immediately registered the word in a negative way. The negativity came from
> you, not me.
We can quibble about whether racist (or nationalistic) is the right
term, but *neither* requires either of us to be derogatory.
You're being racist/nationalistic by painting pictures of the poor
Mexican woman cleaning my sheets or talking about the hard working
Mexicans making wonderful contributions to their community. That's just
as racist as calling them drunks and thieves.
I'm not interested in debating which stereotype is more accurate. I am
criticizing you for using stereotypes in the first place and for using
imprecise labels.
For the last fucking time, I am talking about illegal aliens working at
unskilled jobs for less than subsistence pay. I call them illegals. It's
not a stereotype because the only people I'm referring to are (say it
with me) illegal aliens working unskilled jobs for less than subsistence
pay.
> Again, you're not listening. I referred to people coming here from Mexico as
> Mexicans, which is completely accurate and not at all racist.
Bullshit. You wrote, "Mexicans are not the villains for taking jobs that
are offered to them."
You should have said, "Illegals are not..." because *that* is a precise
term. What you did was take the debate about illegals and try to force
me into using the term Mexicans. I refuse to let you do that. I have no
issues with Mexicans here legally and working legally. I have problems
with illegals from any nation.
Repeat after me: It's about illegals.
Are a lot of them Mexican? Sure, because of our border policies and the
ease at which those policies can be circumvented. It would be foolish to
ignore that.
But remember this key point: It's about illegals.
So, answer this simple question: Do you believe that the large number of
illegal, uneducated, unskilled people working for less than subsistence
wages is good for the economy?
SheaNC
> illegal, uneducated, unskilled people working for less than subsistence
> wages is good for the economy?
It may be a simple question, but the only way to answer it accurately is to
address some of the variables it involves. You already know how complicated
the economy is - there are a lot of layers. An answer that is just an
oversimplification would be no better than no answer at all, so please bear
with me.
In general, "llegal, uneducated, unskilled people working for less than
subsistence wages" is bad for all workers, but apparently good for
employers, or it wouldn't be happening. Others benefit from the practice,
too, and those who do, unfortunately, are a powerful lot: Consumers,
business owners (illegal employers, we might call them), and the local
businesses where those workers spend what little they receive.
If you ask the question of a business owner who frequently employs the
workers you describe, their answer would probably be "hell, yeah." Of
course, replacing "illegal, uneducated, unskilled people working for less
than subsistence wage" with legal ones is hardly an improvement. Some
payroll taxes are paid, but then tax burdens are increased when the workers
turn to public assistance to fill their needs in the areas of nutrition or
health care. We have things like Walmart telling employees to apply for
public assistance to offset their low wages, and that's just as damaging to
the economy as an illegal worforce, in my opinion.
I advocate a living wage for all workers, so any employment at less than
that is harmful to society as a whole. If that includes "the economy" then
so be it.
Now, I would like very much to address your statement: "Repeat after me:
It's about illegals"
I entered this thread to respond to another commenter's statement: "People
who are citizens of other countries who come here pregnant...instead of a
nice plane trip home, a few years in a nice Mexican-style hell-hole
prison... might be a help as well."
Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Putting pregnant women in a
hell-hole prison for a few years, simply because she's from the other side
of the fence?
People are not "illegal". They are people. Their lives have value. They are
human beings, most of whom are motivated by the same desires that drive us
all. They want to improve their lot and their loved ones, too, if they can.
They deserve the same compassion and consideration as anyone else. It's not
as easy to become a citizen as many seem to think, and just imagine if you,
by an accident of birth, were one of those who wanted to come to America to
live and work and thrive, but you could not find a sponsor or the money or
whatever it takes. If your life in your own country was bad enough, if your
children were hungry enough, don't you think you might, just might, consider
taking the enormous risk of entering this country illegally to try
something, anything, to make things better? That's what makes us human.
I've seen a lot of hatred directed towards the "illegals". Most of it would
be better directed toward their employers, in my opinion. It saddens me to
know that my fellow musicians would embrace such a contemptuous attitude.
Anyway, all I am saying is that we should consider even illegal aliens with
compassion, not with the sort of attitude evidenced by the desire to throw
pregnant women into a hell-hole.
Jim Carr
> I advocate a living wage for all workers, so any employment at less than
> that is harmful to society as a whole. If that includes "the economy" then
> so be it.
Fine. We're on similar pages. The interesting thing about this is that
the benefit of hiring illegals was really only temporary. The first
businesses in any given market reaped the advantages. Now we're at the
point where they are really not making any more than they did before.
Only they can't stop doing it because they will be undersold.
That's simplifying things, but essentially that's the current predicament.
> Now, I would like very much to address your statement: "Repeat after me:
> It's about illegals"
>
> I entered this thread to respond to another commenter's statement: "People
> who are citizens of other countries who come here pregnant...instead of a
> nice plane trip home, a few years in a nice Mexican-style hell-hole
> prison... might be a help as well."
>
> Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Putting pregnant women in a
> hell-hole prison for a few years, simply because she's from the other side
> of the fence?
A bus ride home is sufficient.
> People are not "illegal". They are people. Their lives have value. They are
> human beings, most of whom are motivated by the same desires that drive us
> all. They want to improve their lot and their loved ones, too, if they can.
> They deserve the same compassion and consideration as anyone else.
Charity starts at home. Family comes first. Then friends. We then work
our way out in concentric circles. Illegal aliens are pretty far out
there in my book.
You can criticize me for this position, but I know I'm not alone in this
belief. The consideration and compassion I give my wife and children is
greater than that I give to my brothers and sisters. Nephews and nieces
get less. Close friends get less than that.
One way or another I'd say nearly everyone behaves the same way despite
claims about everyone deserving equal compassion and consideration.
Sure, they might deserve it in a philosophical sense, but not in a
*real* sense from me personally.
If you think about it, our hypothetical pregnant woman is doing the same
thing. She's putting her family first, and I don't blame her for trying.
But the solution to Mexico's economic problems (or that of any country)
is not citizens abandoning their country and reaping the benefits of
this country. They are actually being quite selfish, just as I am for
not wanting them here.
I have no problems with taking steps to aid Mexico (or any other
country). I want them to have a strong economy so that people don't feel
the need to take shortcuts by coming here. And let's be honest, they
*are* taking shortcuts. They need to build up their own economy since
that will help the most people.
> I've seen a lot of hatred directed towards the "illegals". Most of it would
> be better directed toward their employers, in my opinion. It saddens me to
> know that my fellow musicians would embrace such a contemptuous attitude.
There's no need for any hatred whatsoever. I hold no contempt for
businesses or illegals. I just see it as a problem that needs to be solved.
> Anyway, all I am saying is that we should consider even illegal aliens with
> compassion, not with the sort of attitude evidenced by the desire to throw
> pregnant women into a hell-hole.
You can only show but so much compassion. Sure, let's let that one
pregnant woman stay here. Let's pay for everything and give her a job.
She's a nice lady. Hell, let's do it for 10 women. But how about 1,000?
How about 10,000 every year? Or 100,000 every year? Where does it stop?
Like it or not, these are decisions that *must* be made. Just blindly
talking about compassion and consideration ignores reality.
BTW, I am acutely aware of what it takes to become a citizen. I am
married to a citizen of Hungary. I have many European friends (all here
legally). Some have been naturalized. Others are permanent residents.
That part of the system needs to be improved. But until then I will give
preference to those who follow the rules. And when the system is
improved, I still expect limits. This country can only absorb so much
just like you personally can only help but so many people before you,
too, need help.
suds macheath
> "suds macheath" <sudsm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:j%Wqk.12989$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> pTooner wrote:
>>> And after drooling out all your Republican talking points, you finish
>>> up with the GOP Special: calling anyone who disagrees with you
>>> "whiny."
>>>
>>> You are truly a piece of work, but I've got to ask "How do you explain
>>> the 8 years Slick Willy was in the White House or the past few years when
>>> the Dems have been in control of Congress?"
---How about the six years the repubs had the WH *and* Congress?
>> ---I believe "Slick" only enjoyed a Dem congress for the first two of his
>> eight years.
>
> I don't suppose you wondered why?
---Doesn't really matter in this context....Slick only had "control" for
the first two years, not eight as you claimed.
>
>> Dems *are* in charge of the House, but Repubs enjoy an advantage in the
>> Senate, with Lieberman a DINO and Darth Cheney casting the tie breaking
>> vote....
>
> I wish I could claim control when I had 49 votes and the opposition had 50 +
> a man who served for the past 20 years as a democrat.
----"past" being the key word, here....Lieberman's speaking at the Repub
convention, haven't you heard? I guess Zell Miller was a Dem too....
Technically, he was a
> democrat for the first 18 years and for the past two years calls himself an
> "Independent Democrat". As for as Cheney is concerned, he only gets a vote
> if the Senate splits 50-50.
---I think that's what I said...
Why don't you check out how many times that
> split has fallen on strict party lines?
---google "obstruction by filibuster"....Dems don't "control"
congress...they control the House....
>
> You really do have a "convenient" outlook don't you?
---If convenient means factual....
SheaNC
> pregnant woman stay here. Let's pay for everything and give her a job.
> She's a nice lady. Hell, let's do it for 10 women. But how about 1,000?
> How about 10,000 every year? Or 100,000 every year? Where does it stop?
Jim, when you add these embelishments to the story you, you seem to think
that I am advocating the things you've invented. Let me try to explain to
you again.
I think throwing a pregnant woman into a hell-hole just because she's not a
citizen is cruel, and we are all better off if we treat her with more
compassion that that. That's all.
It doesn't have to be a choice between the two extremes you describe. There
are other alternatives to hell-hole vs. "pay for everything and give her a
job." Deport her if you must. Depending on how pregnant she is, some minimal
prenantal care is not unreasonable before sending her on her way. If she
delivers a baby while she's here, a physical check-up for her and the baby
isn't too much to ask. You don't have to "pay for everything" or give her a
job. But it has been stated in this discussion that these sort of people
lower our quality of life, such as when you wrote:
>I'm part of a country that has
>built up a standard of living. I don't want an influx of people to lower
>that standard. If as a policy my government wants to help another
>government build up *their* standard of living, that's fine. But don't
>do it by coming *here* and dragging down the low-end down even further.
I think we are dragged down much further by utilizing the "hell-hole prison"
approach. Or believing that our only options are that, or "paying for
everything." A compassionate, common-sense approach, which involves neither
of those options, can raise the standard for all of us.
pTooner
"SheaNC" <scome...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9oudnf-fMKWK7zDV...@comcast.com...
brings these pregnant women here in the first place. In short, remove the
provision that makes any child a citizen who is born in this country even
though the parents are not citizens and are here illegaly simply to gain
that citizenship for the infant.
Gerry
SheaNC
> > Again, you're not listening. I referred to people coming here from Mexico as
> > Mexicans, which is completely accurate and not at all racist.
>
> Bullshit. You wrote, "Mexicans are not the villains for taking jobs that
> are offered to them."
>
> You should have said, "Illegals are not..." because *that* is a precise
> term. What you did was take the debate about illegals and try to force
> me into using the term Mexicans.
Jim, I know you refuse to believe me, but I was using the word Mexican
specifically to describe people from Mexico. It is not racist to refer
to a nationality. By your own reasoning, the word American is racist,
or French, or Hungarian. I was referring to national origin. Whether
you believe it or not, that is the truth.
Your statement that I am trying to force you into using the term
Mexicans is also not true, but you sound awfully paranoid to say that
I am trying to force yuo to say anything. I explained why I use the
word, and I claim that your misinterpretation implies that you read
the word "Mexican" and react to it by regarding it as racist. Which
you did, by the way.
SheaNC
> brings these pregnant women here in the first place. In short, remove the
> provision that makes any child a citizen who is born in this country even
> though the parents are not citizens and are here illegaly simply to gain
> that citizenship for the infant.
That only applies to those women who come here specifically to give
birth. Not all of them do, and I was really thinking more about
foreigners who come here and happen to be pergnant or get pregnant
after they arrive, who are lumped into the policy described in that
original comment. The notion of pregant foreigners coming here just to
give birth, while it probably happens, only covers some of the illegal
alien population, and I think it's probably only a small percentage.
But those, however few, are definitely the ones Americans find most
disagreeable.
Jim Carr
> Jim, I know you refuse to believe me, but I was using the word Mexican
> specifically to describe people from Mexico. It is not racist to refer
> to a nationality. By your own reasoning, the word American is racist,
> or French, or Hungarian. I was referring to national origin. Whether
> you believe it or not, that is the truth.
As I said, I'll og with racist, nationalistic or whatever term you want
to use, but the point still stands: If the nationality isn't
specifically relevant, don't use it.
If you're talking about illegals, say it. If not, why are you singling
out Mexicans as not being villains? That implies that people from other
countries are villains under the old exception proves the rule doctrine.
You know, if I say, "no parking on Sunday" that implies that a rule
against parking exists. If you say "Mexicans are not villains" the
implication is that other nationalities are villains.
FYI, some Mexicans *are* villains. Some are criminals. Some are
absolutely wonderful people who will improve the world around them.
That's why I object to the use of the word Mexican. It's too broad of a
brush for this discussion.
Jim Carr
>> You can only show but so much compassion. Sure, let's let that one
>> pregnant woman stay here. Let's pay for everything and give her a job.
>> She's a nice lady. Hell, let's do it for 10 women. But how about 1,000?
>> How about 10,000 every year? Or 100,000 every year? Where does it stop?
>
> Jim, when you add these embelishments to the story you, you seem to think
> that I am advocating the things you've invented. Let me try to explain to
> you again.
I'm intentionally trying to force the discussion away from individuals.
I hear it time and again in the debates. Someone says, "Illegals are a
problem." Someone else replies, "How about Javier? He works hard, keeps
his place clean, and is supporting a family of four back in Mexico.
Would you send *him* back?" The implication is that illegals are not a
problem because some are really nice people.
I've used the term "in aggregate" to describe the problem. Imagine this
country with no illegals. Javier crosses the border illegally and starts
working for cheap cash wages. Is he a problem? No, not really. His
effect on the economy would probably be impossible to measure.
But when the number of people like Javier reaches a certain level, the
problem becomes noticeable. Eventually it can become a really big problem.
Thus, I see absolutely no point in debating the merits of individuals.
> I think throwing a pregnant woman into a hell-hole just because she's not a
> citizen is cruel, and we are all better off if we treat her with more
> compassion that that. That's all.
And I agreed.
> It doesn't have to be a choice between the two extremes you describe. There
> are other alternatives to hell-hole vs. "pay for everything and give her a
> job." Deport her if you must. Depending on how pregnant she is, some minimal
> prenantal care is not unreasonable before sending her on her way. If she
> delivers a baby while she's here, a physical check-up for her and the baby
> isn't too much to ask. You don't have to "pay for everything" or give her a
> job. But it has been stated in this discussion that these sort of people
> lower our quality of life, such as when you wrote:
You just did what I described above. It has become all about our
hypothetical pregnant woman. You're making a social policy a personal issue.
Here's where I'm coming from. If prenatal care costs $500 in Mexico (or
wherever), but it only costs $50 to drive into the USA and get free
prenatal care before being sent home, what do you think will happen?
Similar things already do happen. The fact that we grant citizenship
based solely on being born on this soil is incentive to come here illegally.
Here's the thing. If YOU want to help here, go right ahead. Donate your
money and services to set up free clinics in Mexico (or wherever). Hell,
I would still vote for a congressman who introduced a bill to spend my
tax dollars to do this because in the long run I think it's cheaper.
> I think we are dragged down much further by utilizing the "hell-hole prison"
> approach. Or believing that our only options are that, or "paying for
> everything." A compassionate, common-sense approach, which involves neither
> of those options, can raise the standard for all of us.
I never said pay for everything. I simply tried to force you to draw the
line. Platitudes are easy; policies are not. How about this: Why don't
you write up a policy that dictates what level of care we offer these
pregnant women and how we decide who gets what?
And while you're at it, make a prediction of how much you think it will
cost.
Oh, and don't forget about policies at airports. If a pregnant woman
shows up at a US airport without proper papers, does she get treatment?
Or is it only if she makes it past the border?
Jim Carr
> The notion of pregant foreigners coming here just to
> give birth, while it probably happens, only covers some of the illegal
> alien population, and I think it's probably only a small percentage.
So?
> But those, however few, are definitely the ones Americans find most
> disagreeable.
I think what people find disagreeable is that people here *illegally*
can have their children granted citizenship simply for being born here.
Why not just grant the same status as the parents to the child? Most
countries recognize a child born on foreign soil as citizens, so it's
not like they end up in purgatory.
I think it's an issue worthy of debate. I'm not sure the current policy
is in the best interests of the country.
Les Cargill
> SheaNC wrote:
>
>> The notion of pregant foreigners coming here just to
>> give birth, while it probably happens, only covers some of the illegal
>> alien population, and I think it's probably only a small percentage.
>
> So?
>
>> But those, however few, are definitely the ones Americans find most
>> disagreeable.
>
> I think what people find disagreeable is that people here *illegally*
> can have their children granted citizenship simply for being born here.
>
I think it's a miracle. Nothing you or I can ever do will make
us French. We can make them Americans with the stroke of a pen.
I don't advocate this, it's just something rather
unprecedented in human history. "You wanna be one
of us? Okay. There ya go." We're an *idea*.
> Why not just grant the same status as the parents to the child? Most
> countries recognize a child born on foreign soil as citizens, so it's
> not like they end up in purgatory.
>
Probably because we need all the help we can get. Obviously,
there must be limits, but the people who invented this
sort of isolation don't have the best track record in the
marketplace of ideas. I am not a big Hearst fan.
> I think it's an issue worthy of debate. I'm not sure the current policy
> is in the best interests of the country.
>
Any policy will run into some hard reality rather quickly.
My wife's brother's wife's father, Dan, was a picker
in the central valley of California. Dan was not a
legal immigrant.
Dan served in the Army and then the Navy ( I forget which one
first ) during WWII. He gave America a son in Vietnam, had
umpety grandkids when he died, owned his own business.
I don't think I've ever met a finer person. We can draw
all the map lines we want to, but the primary salient
characteristic of human beings is that they move around.
Any policy that does not recognize that is shoveling
sand against the tide.
--
Les Cargill
Jim Carr
> I think it's a miracle. Nothing you or I can ever do will make
> us French. We can make them Americans with the stroke of a pen.
We make them citizens, not Americans.
> My wife's brother's wife's father, Dan, was a picker
> in the central valley of California. Dan was not a
> legal immigrant.
>
> Dan served in the Army and then the Navy ( I forget which one
> first ) during WWII. He gave America a son in Vietnam, had
> umpety grandkids when he died, owned his own business.
>
> I don't think I've ever met a finer person. We can draw
> all the map lines we want to, but the primary salient
> characteristic of human beings is that they move around.
>
> Any policy that does not recognize that is shoveling
> sand against the tide.
Once again I am faced with someone telling me the story of some
individual in response to a question of social policy. Lord help me.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. My friend's uncle's cousin, Bob, was
not a legal migrant either. He ducked in and out of the country taking
stolen cars across the border. He fathered numerous children by several
different women. When he died, it turns out he was using a fake
identity, so we don't even know if his name was really Bob.
FYI, some advocate government/military service as a way of earning
citizenship. Seems reasonable on the surface.
RichL
> Once again I am faced with someone telling me the story of some
> individual in response to a question of social policy. Lord help me.
Jim, you can't really believe that social policy can be formulated and
executed without regard to its impact on individuals, right? Isn't the
overall objective of social policy to improve the lives of individuals?
The real question, I think, is whether the experience of a given
individual is representative of the particular segment of society from
which that individual is drawn.
Jim Carr
> Jim, you can't really believe that social policy can be formulated and
> executed without regard to its impact on individuals, right? Isn't the
> overall objective of social policy to improve the lives of individuals?
> The real question, I think, is whether the experience of a given
> individual is representative of the particular segment of society from
> which that individual is drawn.
If Les had told me that 18% of the military is made up of illegal
aliens, that would be relevant. The heroic story of one illegal is
irrelevant. My example of the car thief was just as irrelevant.
Whether we like it or not, we make all sorts of decisions based on
groups rather than individuals. Just about every medicine regulated by
the FDA can be fatal or cause serious injuries. We weigh the risks and
benefits in order to come up with a policy that we think works best.
If for every "died as a side-effect" I had to look at the dead body and
tell their families, "I'm sorry, but I'm not going to outlaw this
medicine unless you can come up with another 150 deaths this year" I'd
outlaw every freaking medicine out there.
Of course, then I would have to do the same for the families who had
someone die due to the lack of medicine. So I'd legalize every medicine
that could possibly offer some help. That is until I had to face the
people who died from taking the medicine. Then I'd just shoot myself in
the head.
In the end we've got to formulate a policy that we feel works best for
280,000,000 people. It's *impossible* to come up with a policy that
doesn't hurt some poor, innocent soul. It's also impossible to come up
with a policy that some asshole won't exploit or abuse.
So when I discuss the issue, I prefer to step back and try to look at
the big picture. It annoys me to hear these little anecdotes or
hypothetical situations because 99% of the time there's no context. I
see them as emotional appeals rather than practical examples useful for
crafting a social policy.
I feel like they are making me look at dead bodies, which I find
paralyzing. I don't want to forget that there are lives in the balance,
but in the end I have to look at the big picture.
Philosophically we can debate whether we should be looking at what helps
the most people, what helps the people who need the most help, or
whatever. That's a worthy debate where very intelligent and
compassionate people disagree.
Do you understand what I'm driving at?
SheaNC
> I'm intentionally trying to force the discussion away...
And then chastises me for not staying on topic. The only relevent statement
is the one that he agrees with, I guess.
> It has become all about our hypothetical pregnant woman.
I've already stated before, an early comment used pregnant women as an
example, and I responded to that comment. How many must I point that out?
The thread is not "all about" a pregant woman, but use of that example early
in the thread establishes it as one of the valid topics of discussion.
>You're making a social policy a personal issue.
For me, social policy *is* a personal issue. I work, I pay taxes, I am part
of the society in which these policies are applied. Also, I now live in an
agricultural community in California that happens to be in one of the
poorest counties in the state. I work in social services, so I am directly
involved with social policy every day.
> I never said pay for everything.
Really? Here is what you wrote in your comment of 8/21/08 12:27am.: "Let's
pay for everything and give her a job." When you wrote "pay for everything,"
did you mean something else? Oh, I know... you'll reply that you were only
being sarcastic to make a point. That way you can write off any thing you
say that might come back to bite you on the ass as being just an anoalogy or
something. Gosh, I've never seen that tactic before [rolling eyes].
> I simply tried to force you to draw the line.
Maybe you should try persuasion instead of trying to force me. I can be
persuaded to change my opinion if I am presented with a sufficiently
persuasive argument. Forcing an issue is not a path to enlightenment.
SheaNC
Yikes. That statement speaks volumes.
SheaNC
Okey dokey, Mr. Bossy. Do people actually obey your orders? You must be
quite the charismatic fellow in person, if you are used to getting your way
with statements like that.
> You know, if I say, "no parking on Sunday" that implies that a rule
> against parking exists.
See, if I tried using an analogy like that, you would chastise me by saying
something like, "It's about ILLEGALS, not parking! Stop trying to force me
to use the word 'parking'!"
Jim Carr
>> You're making a social policy a personal issue.
>
> For me, social policy *is* a personal issue.
See my response to Rich.
>> I never said pay for everything.
>
> Really? Here is what you wrote in your comment of 8/21/08 12:27am.: "Let's
> pay for everything and give her a job." When you wrote "pay for everything,"
> did you mean something else? Oh, I know... you'll reply that you were only
> being sarcastic to make a point. That way you can write off any thing you
> say that might come back to bite you on the ass as being just an anoalogy or
> something. Gosh, I've never seen that tactic before [rolling eyes].
[rolling eyes] I just love it when people take one or two lines out of
context and use it to construct an argument. Now it's my turn. The Bible
says "Judas killed himself" and later Jesus says "Go ye and do likewise."
I presented several scenarios and was clearly NOT advocating a social
policy that takes in every single pregnant woman so we can pay for all
medical care and give her a job. Do you *really* think I meant that? If
so, let me know so I can use shorter sentences and smaller words.
I asked you how many and how much, but you ducked the question.
You're a social worker. Fine. You need to figure out how to deal with
each individual that walks through the door.
I'm far more interested in coming up with a policy that sets a limit on
the resources you have available *and* which attempts to control the
number and background of people who walk through your door.
You have yet to address the issue in that fashion.
>> I simply tried to force you to draw the line.
>
> Maybe you should try persuasion instead of trying to force me. I can be
> persuaded to change my opinion if I am presented with a sufficiently
> persuasive argument. Forcing an issue is not a path to enlightenment.
You have once again succeeded in ignoring the real issue. It's about
social policy. I asked you to form a social policy, but I don't see one.
You keep avoiding the topic.
I'd love to offer persuasive arguments, but I can't even get you to
agree as to what the argument is. The best you can come up with is "I
thought musicians were nice people."
Yeh. That's useful.
If you want to debate a concrete social policy, I'm all for it. If you
want to continue with platitudes, I concede defeat.
SheaNC
> Otherwise, shut up with your opinions about my feelings towards Mexicans.
I guess you're "the decider" of what's relevant, ay? And heaven help us if I
should discuss *your* feelings about Mexicans, even though it's okay for you
to make an issue of the word in the first place. That's right, Jim: You're
the one who took me to task for using the word. I explained myself, but you
kept on harping on it. And now, because I refuse to concede to your highness
the dictator of newsgroup behavior, you have reached the point where you're
telling me to shut up. You must be so proud.
Here are some examples of Jim Carr addressing the economic issues without
mentioning Mexicans:
> people from Mexico can waltz in and out at their leisure.
>Remove the opportunities, eh? So we should become like Mexico? Yeh, that
>makes sense.
>You don't see people crossing the border to Mexico because there are no
>opportunities.
Quotes from Lord Jim. But don't worry, old man. Your secret's safe with me.
Jim Carr
>> We make them citizens, not Americans.
>
> Yikes. That statement speaks volumes.
Yikes? WTF?
The subject of this thread is *so* appropriate.
Suppose I have some friends from Germany visiting. They have a baby
while they are here. That baby is an American citizen, but I'm betting
her parents consider her German, not American.
If my child was born while we were on a day trip to Mexico, I wouldn't
consider her a Mexican though the official policy of Mexico might (not
sure about the rules, but the point still stands).
Lots of people choose to label themselves hyphenated Americans. My wife
is a Hungarian citizen and a permanent resident. Should she become a
citizen, will she, as Les put it, become an American at the stroke of a
pen? Does she consider herself an American having lived her for half her
life? I never asked.
Now, if you want to play semantics, you can say we use the one of the 10
dictionary definitions of American that means "American citizen" and
therefore I am completely wrong for correcting Les.
I guess I'm just more tolerant than you. If somebody wants to call
himself an American, that's fine by me. And if a naturalized citizen
still wants to call himself a Lilliputian that's fine by me, too. He's
still an American citizen, of course.
But we've seen how you like your labels.
Jim Carr
> Here are some examples of Jim Carr addressing the economic issues without
> mentioning Mexicans:
>
>> people from Mexico can waltz in and out at their leisure.
That's true because of the common border and border policies. I said
"people from Mexico" which happens to include people from other
countries using Mexico as a conduit.
It's not about Mexicans; it's about the realities of the border. I
notice that you conveniently ignored the part where I said if you
switched Mexico and Hungary you'd still have the same issues.
>> Remove the opportunities, eh? So we should become like Mexico? Yeh, that
>> makes sense.
That's about the economic conditions in Mexico. People will move around
to find better economic conditions.
It's not about Mexicans; it's about the economic realities in Mexico.
>> You don't see people crossing the border to Mexico because there are no
>> opportunities.
That's true. It's not about Mexicans. If anything it's about Americans.
Excuse me. American citizens.
> Quotes from Lord Jim. But don't worry, old man. Your secret's safe with me.
It's people like you that made Rush a millionaire.
SheaNC
>>
>> Really? Here is what you wrote in your comment of 8/21/08 12:27am.:
>> "Let's pay for everything and give her a job." When you wrote "pay for
>> everything,"
> [rolling eyes] I just love it when people take one or two lines out of
> context and use it to construct an argument.
Out of context? You claim you never made a statement. I proved you wrong.
You were either honestly mistaken, which is perfectly understandable, or you
were lying and now you have to go to these great lengths to cover it up.
That old "out of context" ploy does not apply here, Jim. You made the
statement, I responded to it, then you claimed you never said it. It's quite
simple. Your attempts to cloud the issue can't hide what you did.
> I presented several scenarios and was clearly NOT advocating a social
> policy that takes in every single pregnant woman so we can pay for all
> medical care and give her a job.
Do I need to paste your statement in here again? You are the one who wrote
it. If you want to disown it, fine. You can nuance it til the cows come
home. But regardless of that, you wrote it.
> Do you *really* think I meant that?
Do you *really* think everyone knows when you meant what you write? Or do
you write those things and then try to weasel out of it later by saying you
didn't really mean it? Has that really worked for you before?
> so, let me know so I can use shorter sentences and smaller words.
No need for that, just add a little footnote to the comments where you are
not serious. Something like, "Do you *really* think I meant that?"
> I asked you how many and how much, but you ducked the question.
Yeah, Jim, I decided not to do your bidding at every turn because, you know
what? I didn't know if you "Do you *really* think I meant that".
> You have once again succeeded in ignoring the real issue.
That line is getting really tired. I get that you are the "decider" of what
the issue is at any time and you reserve the right to redefine it at any
time, but you can stop repeating that one. I know that's what you think, so
no need to repeat yourself.
> I asked you to form a social policy, but I don't see one.
Geez, man, what do you think this is? I have a life, you know. That request
registered on my Outlook at 12:51 this afternoon. I got home from work &
grocery shopping at 6:30pm. I helped fix dinner, ate it, took care of a few
personal needs, and settled down to watch some TV and check email. Forgive
the fuck out of me for not taking the time to compose, review, edit, and
present a comprehensive and bulletproof social policy to address and revise
immigration policy in between my petty, insignificant evening activities.
Now, as evidenced by the verbosity of this thread, I may very well have
considered your request. But if you're going to behave like finger-wagging
nag, then you can just sit there and wait for it.
> You keep avoiding the topic.
Whoa, haven't heard that one before.
> I can't even get you to agree as to what the argument is. The best you can
> come up with is "I thought musicians were nice people."
That's not my best, actually, but I meant it. My best is an eloquent
variation of "fuck off", but I save that for my blog.
> If you want to debate a concrete social policy, I'm all for it. If you
> want to continue with platitudes, I concede defeat.
What you refuse to understand, yet I have explained before, is that I never
entered into this thread to debate any concrete social policy. Sorry you
haven't been successful in forcing the issue, but my concern was with the
humanitarian aspects of the comment Benj made back on the 18th, not the
economic ones. My main concern has remained the humanitarian one, not the
economic. If you're so insistent on debating the economic issue, why do you
keep coming after me? You could discuss that with ptooner on his blog, or
something. I'll even discuss it on mine, but it just wasn't my reason for
joining this thread
SheaNC
You mean Rush Limbaugh? Since my values are the complete opposite of his,
and I represent everything he claims to be against, I guess "people like me"
are the drug-addled gasbag's bread and butter.
Oops, you were fishing for a more emotional response. Sorry.
Jim Carr
>> It's people like you that made Rush a millionaire.
>
> You mean Rush Limbaugh? Since my values are the complete opposite of his,
> and I represent everything he claims to be against, I guess "people like me"
> are the drug-addled gasbag's bread and butter.
Thanks for clearing that up. I prefer to deal with people more in the
middle. BTW, it's nice to know that Rush isn't using straw men.
Lane Baldwin
"Jim Carr" <newsg...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:0_qrk.8289$Is1...@newsfe04.iad...
>
> FYI, some advocate government/military service as a way of earning
> citizenship. Seems reasonable on the surface.
>
In high school, I was very intrigued by Robert Heinlein's "suggestion" in
Starship Troopers that, in order to become a full citizen, you had to serve.
If you didn't, you were still legal and all, but you couldn't vote, and I
believe you didn't get any government assistance on anything.
Lately, I've come to think that may be a good idea.... along with having to
take a class on government, civics and participating in a democracy... and
passing it, of course. The concept of earning your rights as a citizen
appeal to me... and the idea of understanding your very necessary place in
government could well go a long way toward informing the public of its role
in gov't.
But I doubt either will EVER happen.
--
Keep Thumpin', Lane...
Ask not what bass can do for you...Ask what YOU can do for bass.
www.laneonbass.com | www.myspace.com/laneonbass
www.deeperblues.com | www.myspace.com/deeperblues
www.eden-electronics.com | www.myspace.com/edenelectronics
www.danvilefoodstock.com | www.myspace.com/danvillefoodstock
www.myempirestore.com | www.myspace.com/myempirestore
RichL
> "Jim Carr" <newsg...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
> news:0_qrk.8289$Is1...@newsfe04.iad...
>>
>> FYI, some advocate government/military service as a way of earning
>> citizenship. Seems reasonable on the surface.
>>
>
> In high school, I was very intrigued by Robert Heinlein's
> "suggestion" in Starship Troopers that, in order to become a full
> citizen, you had to serve. If you didn't, you were still legal and
> all, but you couldn't vote, and I believe you didn't get any
> government assistance on anything.
>
> Lately, I've come to think that may be a good idea.... along with
> having to take a class on government, civics and participating in a
> democracy... and passing it, of course. The concept of earning your
> rights as a citizen appeal to me... and the idea of understanding
> your very necessary place in government could well go a long way
> toward informing the public of its role in gov't.
>
> But I doubt either will EVER happen.
Something about that one sticks in my craw, but I can't put my finger on
it at the moment. I'll get back to ya :-)