i seem to have inartfully expressed myself. my comments about racism were about racism in america not the world at large. and contrary to espousing a return to segregation, i would strongly espouse instead, a return to integration as a societal goal. i'm sure you would agree that integration is no longer looked at as a goal to acheiving social or economic justice in this country. at one time it was. were all those people who went to jail to end segregation in the south in the late 50's and early 60's facists? (i guess their beliefs are now, sigh...)
i think that over the long term you can acheive a society where most people, although from different backgrounds, come to view themselves as being more similar to (as opposed to different from) their neighbors. i'm not certain that "celebrating" diversity is the best way to get there.
finally, i won't deny that racism still exists (especially on slashdot). however, in the circles i travel in (upper management, professional types) i just don't run into it. and are you certain people are "crossing the street" due to skin color? or is it possible that they are crossing the street due to other visual or verbal cues? i live in a predominantly black neighborhood and my youngest child goes to a predominantly black school. i've done volunteer work at one of the most socially disadvantaged schools in town. i'm certain that i stereotype people, but believe me; it's not based on race.
finally, sdon't you think it just the tiny bit inconsistant that someone who wants everybody in the world to get along has no qualms whatsoever, about calling someone "the biggest idiot on the planet". are you sure that your professed desire for a better world is consistant with your method of dealing with someone whose views you might disagree with? doesn't a better world start with how each of us INDIVIDUALLY deals with each other?
interestingly, in my lifetime, the amount of "old school" racism has fallen pretty dramatically to the point where people who make judgements based on skin color have pretty much been relegated to the trailer parks and the ghettos. in the 60's when people such as myself were opposing racism, the flip side of the coin was a support of integration. support of integration has now become, in effect the new racism because the concept of integration, by its nature, has a certain amount of built in conflict with the concept of diversity.
i wish people would cast a bit more critical eye as to the long term (100 years say) effect of making diversity a goal of society. yugoslavia had diversity; northern ireland has diversity; iraq has a ton of diversity. just how hard can it be to draw a mental map of the correlation between intercene conflict and cultural diversity? i'm afraid that if we continue to celebrate the values that separate us, at the expense of the values we share, we are all on the freeway to hell.
i too am an attorney. and you know (unless you are completely delusional) what i know. the system, as it relates to torts, is nearly completely corrupt.
i'm further to the right of most republicans and for the life of me, in my 53 years, i just cannot recall any republican with any influence (or anybody for that matter) saying that the majority of welfare recipients are inner-city black single mothers who "can't keep their legs together". it is common knowledge among those with an education that the majority of welfare recipients are rural whites. of course i don't hang around trailer parks or truck stops and i am certain that this view can be found there. the last bastion of racism in this country is the poor and the elderly. are you not guilty of the same stereotyping you you oppose? or maybe in your mind there are good stereotypes and bad stereotypes.
yet on the other hand i bet that you think that adjusting capital gains taxes for inflation would be just another tax break for the wealthy. i buy a 100k house as an investment and 10 years later its worth 250k. the government says i pay taxes on 150k gain. in other words, after i pay taxes on my gain i cannot even re-purchase the equivelent of what i sold. is that really a gain or is the government simply imposing a transaction fee. is there any question, that for all practical purposes, i am poorer than where i started from? e.g. i used to have a three bedroom house and now after selling it and paying taxes on my so called gain, i can afford a two bedroom condo.
of course while you will constantly hear in the media that capital gains reductions are a tax break for the wealthy, i defy you find find any even cursory examination in the media of the fact that capital gains tax is primarily a tax on inflation and not on true gain.
agreed. my solution is to change attitudes by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad. we could start by changing the law so that employers would have the right to require a high school diploma for any job no matter how menial.
"Aside from your good home environment, what is it about the private school that you think makes it more effective than the public school?"
Peer group pressure is more influential than parental pressure in a lot of cases. In a private school my children are surrounded by other kids who know that they will be attending college. Most of the private high schools in this area have college attendance rates close to 100%. at a private school it would be very unlikely that my kids could fall in with a crowd that did not value education. (unlike my high school where only a few dozen of a graduating class of over 300 went on to college.)
get real. money has absolutely zilch to do with education. I send my children to private school. I spend approximately $6,000 per year per child. The public school system in California, OTOH, spends approximately $9,300 per student. effectively, the fact that i do not send my children to public school should free up another $18,600 for those that do.
the public schools in my district have higher paid teachers and vastly superior facilities (i mean its not even close) compared to the private school. in spite of the fact that the private school spends 2/3rds of the public school (per student) the private school produces students that consistantly score 2 grade levels above the national average in reading and math on the standford 9 tests. OTOH, 80% of california public schools fail to achieve the national average for the grade level they are teaching and the public schools in my district score in the botton 25% of all california schools.
the bottom line? it's the parents and not the schools or the money put into schools that insure academic achievment. the dictionary is used in my home almost daily. reading, math and thinking are part of our daily home life and probably part of the daily home life of the other parents sending their children to the private school. NO amount of funding will produce a level of academic achievment which will come close to that of students whose parents really really really give a shit about education. talking about educational funding is a lot like arguing about the size of the firehose while the orphanage burns. it completely ignores the real problem. the educational crisis is a cultural problem, not an economic problem.
the problem is that the scientists are being used by the environmentalists just as scientists were used in nazi germany by the eugenists. environmentalism is a religion, not a science. the only question is how many lives will need to be ruined and how many children will have to die before we stand up and say enough is enough. for an example of environmentalism killing children today see http://www.fightingmalaria.org/news.php?ID=210&mon th=March%202004
actually, what few people in this country seem to understand is that the amount of goods and services that we can share among ourselves as a nation is primarily related to the amount of goods and services that we as a nation produce and not to: (1) the deficit, (2) the tax rate (3) interest rates, etc., except to the extent that these factors affect our productivity.
Now here's the kicker. i would submit that overall, there is a direct inverse correlation between the number of people working for the government and the amount of goods and services produced due to the fact that the government is for the most part one of least efficient producers of goods and services (right after lawyers) IAAL (or at least was one).
i've been in business for over 30 years, the first 10 of which was practicing law in (conservative) orange county california and in los angeles. maybe its just california but in all my years of business i never observed anyone making what i thought were business decisions based on race or gender. i did have one client in the mid 70's who made a derogatory comment about 'jews' and that's been about it. now thats not to say that it doesn't happen. i'm certain that it does. its just that i've seen more examples of reverse racism in the business world.
on the other hand, i have heard plenty of racist and sexist comments made by (1) the elderly (most of whom have now passed) and (2) the poor. in fact it seems to me that the last great reservoirs of racism in this country are the trailer park and the truck stop. given the fact that most racists and sexists are fairly nasty and above all STUPID people, why do people find it so easy to believe that racists or sexists can rise to a level of power where they can fire or hire within business organizations?
IWAL. on the other hand... if, in order to line my own pockets, i were to (falsely) tell your employer that you were a security risk, and based upon my statement your employer fired you, do you not think that you would have a cause of action against me for tortious interference with contractual relations and slander? (an a good shot at punies as well).
if memory serves me correct... it was about 1973 that the trend began and pretty much everything after that has been a consolidation of power. perhaps it just requires age to see. certainly the longer you live the better able you are to see short term current events in the context of a longer term historical picture.
one of the problems with my generalization is that it surrenders to the media's characterization of the political divisions of the late 20th century as 'liberal' vs. 'conservative'. in fact, the divisions can be characterized in other ways. for instance, the media will characterize the abortion issue in terms of right wing pro lifers vs. those who support a woman's right to choose. when if ever have you ever heard the issue phrased in terms of those who believe that we should have the right to vote on this issue vs. those who do not? don't misunderstand me. i believe a woman should have the option of a legal abortion, however on this and many other issues, the media will frame the debate in terms which most often predetermine the outcome.
environmentalism is another of those issues where one viewpoint is simply accepted a gospel and god forbid that one should blaspheme (how do you spell that?) my first and seventh grade children are taught about global warming and its (potential) threat to mankind but you can bet there will be no discussion tolerated about the tens of thousands of (real) third word children which have died due to the restriction of the use of DDT.
my point is that no real discussion of 'conservative' issues ever occurs in this country. (conservative is really the wrong word but i'm at a loss for the real one).
if 90% of the black voters in a district consistently vote for the black candidate over a white candidate what do we call that type of behavior?
if you could find a situation where 90% of the white voters in a district consistently voted for the white candidate over a black candidate what would we call that type of behavior?
due to gerrymandering there is a 98 retention rate for incumbants. virtually the only way to be removed as an incumbant is to become sexually involved with a (to be) murdered intern.
but does it really matter? think about it for a second. if you could cast the deciding vote between democrat and republican in each and every local, state and federal election, is there a way that you could arrange your votes so as to effect a difference in your life? pathetic isn't it? if you are a white, middle class male you might as well not bother. you cannot change a damn thing with your vote even if you win! the sad fact is that there is little if any democracy remaining in this country for this and many other reasons (some of which i will highlight):
1. virtually all laws passed by us or our legislatures are now subject to a serious (as opposed to not a chance in hell) constitutional challange. for all practical purposes the courts must approve all laws we pass (with the exception of laws increasing taxation which seem to be immune from constitutional challenge).
2. what democratic power there is, has migrated from local governing bodies, where your vote had more weight, to national governing bodies where your vote doesn't even rise to the level of the proverbial drop in a pond.
3. over the last 50 years the matters which we or our elected representatives are allowed to vote upon has been steadily diminished. on the state level for instance we are no longer allowed to vote on wheather or not an employer can require a high school diploma for a janitor's job.
4. the media coupled with special interest groups now have a virtual veto power over progress. in a battle between those in favor of technological progress and those opposed, the ludites will always win.
the net result is that democracy is one of the least effective methods of effecting change. more effective methods are:
1. protest and civil disobedience (especially when it comes to preventing something from happening).
thanks for a well thought out response but, as clarification of my points,
couldn't think of a good response to number 2 could you. sort of sad isn't it?
with respect to 3, i'm not saying the media should be restricted, i'm just saying the nationalization of the media coupled with the dilution of our vote has given them a disproportionate power they haven't had in the past.
with respect to 4, i am saying that the number of actions or laws which are subject to serious court challenge has grown substantially in the last 50 years. for instance, i doubt that a challenge to a store's right to have a separate section for girl's toys would have had any sort of serious chance of success in 1950.
you've misunderstood my point (or i didn't express it well) in 5. the number of things that we or our elected representatives, which we elect with our votes, can (for practical purposes without constitutional amendment) vote upon has substantially decreased. for instance abortion (which i think should be a woman's personal decision) is no longer subject to vote by either us or our representatives. in addition, the things our local or state representatives can vote on has also been substantially reduced (and our vote has more effect on the outcome of an election the more local we get). so for instance, we can no longer decide on a state or local level whether or not an employer should have the right to require a high school diploma for a janitor's job. the transferring of power from locally elected representatives to the national legislature has seriously diluted the power of our vote.
absolutely true. the brutal fact is that your vote counts very little. if you are a white middle to upper class male receiving no entitlements, your vote simply does not count at all in any significant way that effects you.
1. explain how your life would have been different in the past based upon whether the minority party had been in control? (for those of us who do not receive entitlements the fact is there would have been no difference).
2. explain how you as a white middle or upper class male could effect a change in your life by having the tie breaking vote in every single municipal, state and federal election? its a sad commentary on our democracy that you have to even think about this to come up with an answer. perhaps you might be able to reduce your tax burden by 5%, that's about it.
3. how many votes on a national scale would you have to control to equal the power you could wield as the editor of a major media outlet? the media is in fact another branch of the government subject to virtually no checks or balances.
4. describe a law which you could pass by referendum that would not be subject to constitutional challange? everything today is subject to approval by the court. (except, it seems, increasing taxes). sadly there are very few things we can vote on which are not now subject to being overturned by the courts.
5. has the number of things we cannot vote upon (which we used to be able to vote upon) been increased or decreased in the last 50 years? regardless of how you feel about it, we can no longer vote on the abortion issue. we cannot vote on the issue of whether or not an employer can require a high school diploma for a janitor's job. and the list goes on and on. every time we give someone a right we are taking away someone else's ability to vote on the issue.
we are returning to a feudal society of classes rights and duties. democracy has been dead for a long time.
i can't believe the number of people who mischaracterized or perhaps just misunderstood his comments. in any event, can we agree that perhaps the difference is that liberals believe (1) that bad luck / social disadvantage is an EXCUSE for not making an effort and (2) that government programs can overcome the 'inculcation' that you get in the ghetto.
why is it that some people can believe society's intolerance of say something like racism actually has a positive effect ( i think this intolerance does change behavior) and yet on the other hand, the same person will turn around and say that society's intolerance of bad choices (i.e. not finishing high school or having babies while a teenager) has no effect (because they've been inculcated).
I'm 52 now and this got me to thinking about what advice i'd give myself as a 25 year old. for some reason, it was amazingly difficult to come up with anything except:
(1) don't stay in a relationship that's anything less than euphoric for at least the first 3 months and
(2) don't stay with anyone you (majorly) fight with more than twice a year. (yes it is possible).
i'm thinking that the reason there's so little advice to give is that by 25 there's a good chance that you have learned not to have regrets. and once you have no regrets, its difficult to say that you would have changed anything.
This is absolutely true. I used to practice law (with one of the nation's largest law firms). it is well accepted among plaintiff and defense lawyers that the client is the true enemy. we would spend thousands of dollars of the client's money to protect them from hundred's of dollars of potential liability. there is no sense of proportion or of balancing cost versus benefit in the practice of law. this problem is PERVASIVE thoughout the legal industry.
well it was a rant and i do agree that some sort of structured law enforcement is desirable. but i think the two points that i wanted to make were (1) that behavior in our society is for the most part not moderated by the existance of police. in other words, most of us would continue to not murder and rape in the absence of a police force and conversely, those who do murder and rape today do not seem to be particularly deterred by the existence of the police and (2) small local groups (ala the post in question) seem to be more effective than large 'crime fighting' organizations. in the recent case of the theft of credit information of 30,000 people, the thieves were caught not by the police but in effect by the credit reporting agencies (after $2.7 million stolen). according to the news reports they would still be doing this today if they hadn't gotten greedy and started downloading 15,000 reports at a time. i used to practice law and i can tell you from personal experience that the police do not concern themselves with the small victim. steal 50% of a poor person's possessions and you get no police action. steal 1% of a rich person's and you get the crime lab.
.. might be better than having any police force at all. ok that's a slight exageration, but lets face it, for most of us the police are simply another governmental agency which issues paperwork that we have to submit to our insurance company along with our claim and THAT'S IT. i would be interested in knowing the percentage of people who have been victims of property crimes who have had a situation where the police actually solved their case. (in my life 3 home burglaries, 2 car thefts: none solved. i don't even bother reporting the small stuff like vandalism or theft from a car).
in the absence of a police force we'd have about 60 days of chaos, a fair amount of frontier justice and then things would settle down with community organizations that really got some work done. by the way, the fact that a small police force actually helped in his case once again illustrates the fact that the larger an organization becomes, the less likely it is to serve the interests of its 'customers'.
Slashdot Mirror
i think that over the long term you can acheive a society where most people, although from different backgrounds, come to view themselves as being more similar to (as opposed to different from) their neighbors. i'm not certain that "celebrating" diversity is the best way to get there.
finally, i won't deny that racism still exists (especially on slashdot). however, in the circles i travel in (upper management, professional types) i just don't run into it. and are you certain people are "crossing the street" due to skin color? or is it possible that they are crossing the street due to other visual or verbal cues? i live in a predominantly black neighborhood and my youngest child goes to a predominantly black school. i've done volunteer work at one of the most socially disadvantaged schools in town. i'm certain that i stereotype people, but believe me; it's not based on race.
finally, sdon't you think it just the tiny bit inconsistant that someone who wants everybody in the world to get along has no qualms whatsoever, about calling someone "the biggest idiot on the planet". are you sure that your professed desire for a better world is consistant with your method of dealing with someone whose views you might disagree with? doesn't a better world start with how each of us INDIVIDUALLY deals with each other?
i wish people would cast a bit more critical eye as to the long term (100 years say) effect of making diversity a goal of society. yugoslavia had diversity; northern ireland has diversity; iraq has a ton of diversity. just how hard can it be to draw a mental map of the correlation between intercene conflict and cultural diversity? i'm afraid that if we continue to celebrate the values that separate us, at the expense of the values we share, we are all on the freeway to hell.
of course while you will constantly hear in the media that capital gains reductions are a tax break for the wealthy, i defy you find find any even cursory examination in the media of the fact that capital gains tax is primarily a tax on inflation and not on true gain.
agreed. my solution is to change attitudes by rewarding good behavior and punishing bad. we could start by changing the law so that employers would have the right to require a high school diploma for any job no matter how menial.
Peer group pressure is more influential than parental pressure in a lot of cases. In a private school my children are surrounded by other kids who know that they will be attending college. Most of the private high schools in this area have college attendance rates close to 100%. at a private school it would be very unlikely that my kids could fall in with a crowd that did not value education. (unlike my high school where only a few dozen of a graduating class of over 300 went on to college.)
by the way, do you celebrate yak shaving day?
the public schools in my district have higher paid teachers and vastly superior facilities (i mean its not even close) compared to the private school. in spite of the fact that the private school spends 2/3rds of the public school (per student) the private school produces students that consistantly score 2 grade levels above the national average in reading and math on the standford 9 tests. OTOH, 80% of california public schools fail to achieve the national average for the grade level they are teaching and the public schools in my district score in the botton 25% of all california schools.
the bottom line? it's the parents and not the schools or the money put into schools that insure academic achievment. the dictionary is used in my home almost daily. reading, math and thinking are part of our daily home life and probably part of the daily home life of the other parents sending their children to the private school. NO amount of funding will produce a level of academic achievment which will come close to that of students whose parents really really really give a shit about education. talking about educational funding is a lot like arguing about the size of the firehose while the orphanage burns. it completely ignores the real problem. the educational crisis is a cultural problem, not an economic problem.
Now here's the kicker. i would submit that overall, there is a direct inverse correlation between the number of people working for the government and the amount of goods and services produced due to the fact that the government is for the most part one of least efficient producers of goods and services (right after lawyers) IAAL (or at least was one).
on the other hand, i have heard plenty of racist and sexist comments made by (1) the elderly (most of whom have now passed) and (2) the poor. in fact it seems to me that the last great reservoirs of racism in this country are the trailer park and the truck stop. given the fact that most racists and sexists are fairly nasty and above all STUPID people, why do people find it so easy to believe that racists or sexists can rise to a level of power where they can fire or hire within business organizations?
one of the problems with my generalization is that it surrenders to the media's characterization of the political divisions of the late 20th century as 'liberal' vs. 'conservative'. in fact, the divisions can be characterized in other ways. for instance, the media will characterize the abortion issue in terms of right wing pro lifers vs. those who support a woman's right to choose. when if ever have you ever heard the issue phrased in terms of those who believe that we should have the right to vote on this issue vs. those who do not? don't misunderstand me. i believe a woman should have the option of a legal abortion, however on this and many other issues, the media will frame the debate in terms which most often predetermine the outcome.
environmentalism is another of those issues where one viewpoint is simply accepted a gospel and god forbid that one should blaspheme (how do you spell that?) my first and seventh grade children are taught about global warming and its (potential) threat to mankind but you can bet there will be no discussion tolerated about the tens of thousands of (real) third word children which have died due to the restriction of the use of DDT.
my point is that no real discussion of 'conservative' issues ever occurs in this country. (conservative is really the wrong word but i'm at a loss for the real one).
good point.
if you could find a situation where 90% of the white voters in a district consistently voted for the white candidate over a black candidate what would we call that type of behavior?
but does it really matter? think about it for a second. if you could cast the deciding vote between democrat and republican in each and every local, state and federal election, is there a way that you could arrange your votes so as to effect a difference in your life? pathetic isn't it? if you are a white, middle class male you might as well not bother. you cannot change a damn thing with your vote even if you win! the sad fact is that there is little if any democracy remaining in this country for this and many other reasons (some of which i will highlight):
1. virtually all laws passed by us or our legislatures are now subject to a serious (as opposed to not a chance in hell) constitutional challange. for all practical purposes the courts must approve all laws we pass (with the exception of laws increasing taxation which seem to be immune from constitutional challenge).
2. what democratic power there is, has migrated from local governing bodies, where your vote had more weight, to national governing bodies where your vote doesn't even rise to the level of the proverbial drop in a pond.
3. over the last 50 years the matters which we or our elected representatives are allowed to vote upon has been steadily diminished. on the state level for instance we are no longer allowed to vote on wheather or not an employer can require a high school diploma for a janitor's job.
4. the media coupled with special interest groups now have a virtual veto power over progress. in a battle between those in favor of technological progress and those opposed, the ludites will always win.
the net result is that democracy is one of the least effective methods of effecting change. more effective methods are:
1. protest and civil disobedience (especially when it comes to preventing something from happening).
2. press and media control.
3. appointment of judges.
the battle is over. the liberals have won.
i modded you up ... but only for your sig ...
couldn't think of a good response to number 2 could you. sort of sad isn't it?
with respect to 3, i'm not saying the media should be restricted, i'm just saying the nationalization of the media coupled with the dilution of our vote has given them a disproportionate power they haven't had in the past.
with respect to 4, i am saying that the number of actions or laws which are subject to serious court challenge has grown substantially in the last 50 years. for instance, i doubt that a challenge to a store's right to have a separate section for girl's toys would have had any sort of serious chance of success in 1950.
you've misunderstood my point (or i didn't express it well) in 5. the number of things that we or our elected representatives, which we elect with our votes, can (for practical purposes without constitutional amendment) vote upon has substantially decreased. for instance abortion (which i think should be a woman's personal decision) is no longer subject to vote by either us or our representatives. in addition, the things our local or state representatives can vote on has also been substantially reduced (and our vote has more effect on the outcome of an election the more local we get). so for instance, we can no longer decide on a state or local level whether or not an employer should have the right to require a high school diploma for a janitor's job. the transferring of power from locally elected representatives to the national legislature has seriously diluted the power of our vote.
1. explain how your life would have been different in the past based upon whether the minority party had been in control? (for those of us who do not receive entitlements the fact is there would have been no difference).
2. explain how you as a white middle or upper class male could effect a change in your life by having the tie breaking vote in every single municipal, state and federal election? its a sad commentary on our democracy that you have to even think about this to come up with an answer. perhaps you might be able to reduce your tax burden by 5%, that's about it.
3. how many votes on a national scale would you have to control to equal the power you could wield as the editor of a major media outlet? the media is in fact another branch of the government subject to virtually no checks or balances.
4. describe a law which you could pass by referendum that would not be subject to constitutional challange? everything today is subject to approval by the court. (except, it seems, increasing taxes). sadly there are very few things we can vote on which are not now subject to being overturned by the courts.
5. has the number of things we cannot vote upon (which we used to be able to vote upon) been increased or decreased in the last 50 years? regardless of how you feel about it, we can no longer vote on the abortion issue. we cannot vote on the issue of whether or not an employer can require a high school diploma for a janitor's job. and the list goes on and on. every time we give someone a right we are taking away someone else's ability to vote on the issue.
we are returning to a feudal society of classes rights and duties. democracy has been dead for a long time.
why is it that some people can believe society's intolerance of say something like racism actually has a positive effect ( i think this intolerance does change behavior) and yet on the other hand, the same person will turn around and say that society's intolerance of bad choices (i.e. not finishing high school or having babies while a teenager) has no effect (because they've been inculcated).
(1) don't stay in a relationship that's anything less than euphoric for at least the first 3 months and
(2) don't stay with anyone you (majorly) fight with more than twice a year. (yes it is possible).
i'm thinking that the reason there's so little advice to give is that by 25 there's a good chance that you have learned not to have regrets. and once you have no regrets, its difficult to say that you would have changed anything.
This is absolutely true. I used to practice law (with one of the nation's largest law firms). it is well accepted among plaintiff and defense lawyers that the client is the true enemy. we would spend thousands of dollars of the client's money to protect them from hundred's of dollars of potential liability. there is no sense of proportion or of balancing cost versus benefit in the practice of law. this problem is PERVASIVE thoughout the legal industry.
in the absence of a police force we'd have about 60 days of chaos, a fair amount of frontier justice and then things would settle down with community organizations that really got some work done. by the way, the fact that a small police force actually helped in his case once again illustrates the fact that the larger an organization becomes, the less likely it is to serve the interests of its 'customers'.
rant over.