Oh ... really? You're not? I mean, with the mustache I just assumed ...
Looking rather butch yourself.
|
On the one hand, politicial correctness has quiet rightly made it unacceptable to be racist or sexist in public, and i am sorry if it offends your derek, but i fail to see that as a bad thing. So views are unacceptable in a civilised society. People are free to hold them and express them, but frankly the rest of us have a responciblity to make it unfashionable to do so.
It was around 1990 or so, and I was stationed in Berlin, Germany. The US Army started a big push towards fighting sexism, and we were regularly pummeled about how just about anything we did could be construed as sexist.
It worked. Perhaps a little too well. It actually got to the point that a group of male soldiers would be walking, see a female soldier, and deliberately cross the street. This had nothing to do about the capabilities of the female soldier, etc., but rather an established fear that having any sort of interaction with her would result in some sort of recrimination. This eventually ended up with us getting all sorts of classes and regular pummeling that we couldn't AVOID them either.
When PC is taken too far, it creates an atmosphere of fear and oppression. The people fear to speak against the powers that be because their very lives are in danger if they do. Are we there yet? No. Can we get there? Yes, quite easily I am afraid. We already have several nations on this planet that practice that exact principle, with the punishment being death.
What Tiger Dave said above illuminates exactly what happens when you hand over responsibility for combating prejudice and hate over to the government. The problem with the government handling moral and ethical problems is this: When the only tool you have is a hammer, you start to treat all your problems like they were nails.
The best way to combat ignorance and prejudice is by dialog and open communication. When fear shuts down communication, it builds resentment. Instead of instruction we get oppression. Instead of openess we get secrecy. Then when some extreme faction disregards the conventions and says what it wants its message of hate is all the more accepted because the lack of communication hasn't eradicated prejudice, it has merely pushed it under the carpet to fester. Then the bigots can claim the mantle of free speech and freedom.
WE are the solution, not some elected body of dunderheads. The American Constitution starts off with three simple words: We The People. Sometimes in the rush to legislate solutions to our problems we sometimes forget that we ARE the government, not outside it. Part of the responsibility of living in a free society is taking on the hard challenges and standing up for what you think is right.
Don't surrender you responsibilities to the government. It's not 'someone else's problem'. Let government stick to defending the country and maintaining our infrastructure, where it's skill set is best applied. Only by combating ignorance and pejusice individually will there ever be any real change.
|
Should I pity Americans for the huge differences between rich and poor in USA?
No. The poor in America are pretty well off and have the freedom to become rich if they have the inclination and the ability. Moreover, outside certain elite enclaves (mostly populated by rich liberals I notice) the poor and the rich in America regularly rub elbows socially. In most towns in America you would be hard pressed to identify which folks on the street were rich and which were poor.
As has been mentioned above, pity the poor in mexico or in other places where crime and corruption make it much harder to have a good life.
Should I pity Americans for the huge differences between rich and poor in USA?No. The poor in America are pretty well off and have the freedom to become rich if they have the inclination and the ability. Moreover, outside certain elite enclaves (mostly populated by rich liberals I notice) the poor and the rich in America regularly rub elbows socially.
Tell me about it. Just yesterday I saw Rupert Murdoch hanging out at the homeless shelter, checking out the scene.
|
|
Tell me about it. Just yesterday I saw Rupert Murdoch hanging out at the homeless shelter, checking out the scene.Should I pity Americans for the huge differences between rich and poor in USA?No. The poor in America are pretty well off and have the freedom to become rich if they have the inclination and the ability. Moreover, outside certain elite enclaves (mostly populated by rich liberals I notice) the poor and the rich in America regularly rub elbows socially.
Heh. Murdoch is Australian.
But more to the point, poor is not the same as destitute. The homeless are the destitute but most 'poor' in this country are neither homeless nor destitute. In fact 43 percent of the poor in America own their own homes. Eighty percent have air conditioning in their homes and the average 'poor' person in this country has more living space than the average 'middle-class' european.
A pretty good breakdown of 'poverty' in America can be found here.
I've mentioned it before that I have for all of my 35, going on 36, years been counted by the government as being in poverty. Nevertheless I have one brother who went to MIT (though he's not currently seeking wealth) and one brother who makes a pretty decent living as a salesman. My Grandmother, who was married to a dairy farmer (and they were never rich,) nevertheless gave one of my Aunts a peice of property to build a home on, the property being valued as over a million dollars. I socialize with people who I know have quite a bit of assets and people who don't. If I go to a baseball game in Pittsburgh and sit in the bleachers I have absolutely no idea what the net worth of the guy sitting next to me is. Likewise, when I invite people over for dinner or when I go and visit with others, our interaction is never based upon whether one of us is a millionaire and one of us is wondering how to pay for the gas to get home tonight.
Oh, sorry. Australian. Totally different. Not like he owns a substantial amount of American media in the form of broadcasting and newspapers.
I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of the poor in America: you're right. The people we consider "poor" are much better off than what are considered poor in other countries. What I disagree with is the broad generalization that "rich liberals isolate themselves from the poor because they're snobs" to go with the "liberals are hypocrites" point that runs through the discussion. Unless you're talking strictly about people you've met yourself or celebrities or something, I don't see how you can prove that rich conservatives don't do the same. Money does encourage people to isolate themselves, even in this country and I don't believe that politics are the only reason.
I can agree that it isn't as much of a dividing factor here as in other countries (Brazil, for instance? South of the border, like you were saying? I am in agreement there), I just don't think that isolation is as unique to liberals as your personal politics would say.
|
Something I've noticed that trips me out.....you can go down a road in Urban U.S. and hit two or three blocks of mid to high-six figure housing, then bam! there's a park across from government housing with a Mexican with an ice cream pushcart getting mugged by ten teenagers. (I almost got out and helped on general principles, but I had my wife an kid with me. It was a sucky feeling; I would've gotten out if I was alone). It's like this bizarre patchwork quilt any more.
|
|
Oh, sorry. Australian. Totally different. Not like he owns a substantial amount of American media in the form of broadcasting and newspapers.
I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of the poor in America: you're right. The people we consider "poor" are much better off than what are considered poor in other countries. What I disagree with is the broad generalization that "rich liberals isolate themselves from the poor because they're snobs" to go with the "liberals are hypocrites" point that runs through the discussion. Unless you're talking strictly about people you've met yourself or celebrities or something, I don't see how you can prove that rich conservatives don't do the same. Money does encourage people to isolate themselves, even in this country and I don't believe that politics are the only reason.
I can agree that it isn't as much of a dividing factor here as in other countries (Brazil, for instance? South of the border, like you were saying? I am in agreement there), I just don't think that isolation is as unique to liberals as your personal politics would say.
I'm thinking of celebrities for the most part. And 'elite' country clubs. While money certainly allows the rich to endulge in more activities than the poor there are not that many activities in this country that are not engaged in by both rich and poor alike.
And when defining the rich, it is useful to remember that they, like the poor, are not caricatures. Murdoch is one of the top 200 wealthiest people in the world. He truly belongs to an elite class of wealth. Most of the rich in this country maintain lifestyles very similar to the poor. They drive used cars, do their own shopping and work 40+ hours a week until they retire.
|
|
Something I've noticed that trips me out.....you can go down a road in Urban U.S. and hit two or three blocks of mid to high-six figure housing, then bam! there's a park across from government housing with a Mexican with an ice cream pushcart getting mugged by ten teenagers. (I almost got out and helped on general principles, but I had my wife an kid with me. It was a sucky feeling; I would've gotten out if I was alone). It's like this bizarre patchwork quilt any more.
I've noticed its even more diverse in West Virginia where you can have a million dollar house right next to the shack with tarpaper sides and an outhouse (the outhouse is an exageration). I'm always amazed by the diversity of housing quality in that state in the same neighborhoods and towns.
Not that West Virginia has a lot of muggings. The people there are pretty good, regardless of social strata. I'm in Ohio at the moment across from WV but WV has been my favorite state to have lived in.
Fair enough, though I fail to see the distinction between your lefty celebrities and my righty publishing mogul. Wouldn't both be considered beyond the kind of rich that you have as an example? All right, that's enough hair splitting from me. On the whole, I still mostly agree with your observation.
Living in New York is always fascinating just because it really is that kind of American economic mash-up. Everybody rides the same subways, everybody walks down the same streets, everyone goes to the same parks to stare at the only tree and think of the vast swaths of country to the west that are full of them. It scares us at times, thinking of all that... greenness our there and the feral squirrels that dwell within. Travel a few blocks in any direction and you're in a completely different income bracket. And it's always kind of interesting to see who offers their seat on the subway to pregnant women or the elderly and who doesn't or who asks if someone needs help getting a stroller up a set of stairs.
|
|
Squirrels ain't shit, city boy ;). I seen a coyote on the streets of Dallas at 2 a.m. He crossed the road, then he turned around like he was about to get bad with my suv.
We got bobcats in the neighborhood I've heard.
Not a lot of tree action in Texas though. That was more in Florida. The trees aren't quite so big here in Texas.
|
|
Fair enough, though I fail to see the distinction between your lefty celebrities and my righty publishing mogul.
There are far more lefty celebrities than there Rupert Murdochs. In fact I can count Rupert Murdoch on one hand. Liberal Hollywood celebrities would take more than one hand. :)
Though even in generalities, how many ultra rich conservatives are there anyway? Now I'm going to have to dig up a Forbes list or something to see how the elite break down policy wise. I believe in congress the liberals have a distinct monetary edge on the conservatives, popular viewpoints notwithstanding, c.f. the Kennedys.
My mother's family is from Vermont and they got coyotes and coydogs. I didn't think coyotes could mate with dogs, but there you go.*
*Please note that my incredulity at the prospect of coydogs does not, repeat, not infer that I have a problem with canine interspecies relations.
My mother's family is from Vermont and they got coyotes and coydogs. I didn't think coyotes could mate with dogs, but there you go.*
*Please note that my incredulity at the prospect of coydogs does not, repeat, not infer that I have a problem with canine interspecies relations.
Despite your objections, I am offended by the inference that such matings are somehow abnormal. I realize you weren't implying that but I inferred it and now blame you for my misunderstanding!!! How does this flag button work again???!!!
Be careful...you resemble that remark.
Coyotes are all whores.
Stop staring at my tail, you perv.
Anyone seen Sharoth?!?!! I really need to contact him ASAP!!!
Coyotes are all whores.Stop staring at my tail, you perv.
"So a tail is like a necktie for your butt?"
-Calvin to Hobbes
The best way to combat ignorance and prejudice is by dialog and open communication. When fear shuts down communication, it builds resentment. Instead of instruction we get oppression. Instead of openess we get secrecy.
All very true, which is why nice judgement on both sides is called for.
For example, let's say there's a group of people who hate satyrs (they feel that all fey are "unnatural" and are "abominations in the eyes of God"), and their bratty kids occasionally set upon satyrs they meet with cold iron clubs. If "free speech" and "dialogue" consist of telling all satyrs that they "deserve" to be beaten, and that God hates them, and that you hate them -- and if that form of free speech is protected, then satyrs of course will go in fear, and be secretive, and will stop communicating.
A perusal of the Bill of Rights shows that, in addition to understanding the need for government to be based on the consent of the governed, the Framers understood the corrolary: that some means of preventing what they referred to as the "tyranny of the majority" must also be put into place. Is PC the way to do that? I don't think so, because we've seen that it leads to exactly that sort of tyranny that it's supposedly preventing. But neither is encouraging the spewing of hatred and the making of veiled (or overt) threats under the falsely self-righteous cover of "free speech" a good way of doing things. It's a tough call either way, if people want to be angry and spiteful about things (which, sadly, they most often do).
|
|
For example, let's say there's a group of people who hate satyrs (they feel that all fey are "unnatural" and are "abominations in the eyes of God"), and their bratty kids occasionally set upon satyrs they meet with cold iron clubs. If "free speech" and "dialogue" consist of telling all satyrs that they "deserve" to be beaten, and that God hates them, and that you hate them -- and if that form of free speech is protected, then satyrs of course will go in fear, and be secretive, and will stop communicating.
People should feel free to teach whatever they believe to be true, whether it is distasteful to others or not. But when they engage in illegal or violent actions then they should be stopped. I feel you are conflating speech with violence when the two are not the same and are only marginally related to each other.
I should have the right to believe that certain activities and lifestyles are either unnatural or harmful I should even have the right to teach my children the same. But if my children then attack someone, they should be prosecuted. Furthermore, those that vocally encouraged violence should be prosecuted as well as participants in the crime of conspiracy to violence. However, it is possible to believe that something is morally wrong without advocating violence as the solution to the problem. Most of us who are Christians believe that certain actions are wrong without ever condoning or approving of physically attacking those that engage in such actions.
Codifying speech solves very little and creates more problems in the long run than it solves. Speech should be free. Violence should be swiftly dealt with.
It is better to let someone prove they are a fool, then to not let them.
The answer to ridiculous speech is not to stop it, but to ridicule it.
|
|
Tell me about it. Just yesterday I saw Rupert Murdoch hanging out at the homeless shelter, checking out the scene.Should I pity Americans for the huge differences between rich and poor in USA?No. The poor in America are pretty well off and have the freedom to become rich if they have the inclination and the ability. Moreover, outside certain elite enclaves (mostly populated by rich liberals I notice) the poor and the rich in America regularly rub elbows socially.
Funny, I saw Dick Deguerin having a beer with a homeless guy I know at the Alabama Ice House last week.
James, I don't know where you live, but in much of Texas (Dallas excepted, that is one snobby town), class means very little. Here, the working class poor and the (usually) self made rich rub elbows in a lot of social places.
But, then, Texas is one of the most misunderstood places in the country. I'm amazed at what people who have never been here think of this state. Talk about ignorance..
|
|
Squirrels ain't s*~!, city boy ;). I seen a coyote on the streets of Dallas at 2 a.m. He crossed the road, then he turned around like he was about to get bad with my suv.
We got bobcats in the neighborhood I've heard.Not a lot of tree action in Texas though. That was more in Florida. The trees aren't quite so big here in Texas.
Heathy, you live in the southern portion of the Great Plains, of course Dallas isn't a forest. East Texas is a continuous pine forest from Texarkana to Houston, The hill country is heavily wooded, as is South Texas, although that is mostly live oak and mesquite. North Texas, the Panhandle and Northwest Texas (think Midland/Odessa) are pretty much tree challenged, though.
Heathy, you live in the southern portion of the Great Plains, of course Dallas isn't a forest. East Texas is a continuous pine forest from Texarkana to Houston, The hill country is heavily wooded, as is South Texas, although that is mostly live oak and mesquite. North Texas, the Panhandle and Northwest Texas (think Midland/Odessa) are pretty much tree challenged, though.
Don't forget El Paso & the Chihuahuan Desert, where the only wild tree is mesquite, and that to my Yankee eyes was nothing more than a sandy bush ...
|
|
James, I don't know where you live, but in much of Texas (Dallas excepted, that is one snobby town), class means very little. Here, the working class poor and the (usually) self made rich rub elbows in a lot of social places.
Its not just Texas. I've lived in New Mexico, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio and its that way most places in this country. You have snobs everywhere of course but as Miss Manners rightly points out in one of her books (good reads if you haven't read them) if being snobbish is looking down your nose at how others live there are just as many poor snobs as rich and well mannered people, rich and poor alike, are never snobbish.
|
|
Don't forget El Paso & the Chihuahuan Desert, where the only wild tree is mesquite, and that to my Yankee eyes was nothing more than a sandy bush ...
Heathy, you live in the southern portion of the Great Plains, of course Dallas isn't a forest. East Texas is a continuous pine forest from Texarkana to Houston, The hill country is heavily wooded, as is South Texas, although that is mostly live oak and mesquite. North Texas, the Panhandle and Northwest Texas (think Midland/Odessa) are pretty much tree challenged, though.
I'm the one that thinks we should give El Paso to New Mexico, so I rarely think about that part of the state :)
James, I don't know where you live, but in much of Texas (Dallas excepted, that is one snobby town), class means very little. Here, the working class poor and the (usually) self made rich rub elbows in a lot of social places.
Living in New York is always fascinating just because it really is that kind of American economic mash-up. Everybody rides the same subways, everybody walks down the same streets, everyone goes to the same parks to stare at the only tree and think of the vast swaths of country to the west that are full of them. It scares us at times, thinking of all that... greenness our there and the feral squirrels that dwell within. Travel a few blocks in any direction and you're in a completely different income bracket. And it's always kind of interesting to see who offers their seat on the subway to pregnant women or the elderly and who doesn't or who asks if someone needs help getting a stroller up a set of stairs.
It's not that different up here. My objection is to the opinion that somehow lefties go further out of their way than righties to avoid people with a different fiscal standing.
|
|
I'm the one that thinks we should give El Paso to New Mexico, so I rarely think about that part of the state :)Don't forget El Paso & the Chihuahuan Desert, where the only wild tree is mesquite, and that to my Yankee eyes was nothing more than a sandy bush ...
Heathy, you live in the southern portion of the Great Plains, of course Dallas isn't a forest. East Texas is a continuous pine forest from Texarkana to Houston, The hill country is heavily wooded, as is South Texas, although that is mostly live oak and mesquite. North Texas, the Panhandle and Northwest Texas (think Midland/Odessa) are pretty much tree challenged, though.
Hey don't be dissing El Paso.
Lots of great people were born in El Paso.
Or at least, um, I was.
And Patrick - try digging up a mesquite bush sometime. It will give you newfound respect for that scraggly plant. Its hard to believe how long and tenacious their roots are.
|
|
Heathy, you live in the southern portion of the Great Plains, of course Dallas isn't a forest. East Texas is a continuous pine forest from Texarkana to Houston, The hill country is heavily wooded, as is South Texas, although that is mostly live oak and mesquite. North Texas, the Panhandle and Northwest Texas (think Midland/Odessa) are pretty much tree challenged, though.Squirrels ain't s*~!, city boy ;). I seen a coyote on the streets of Dallas at 2 a.m. He crossed the road, then he turned around like he was about to get bad with my suv.
We got bobcats in the neighborhood I've heard.Not a lot of tree action in Texas though. That was more in Florida. The trees aren't quite so big here in Texas.
I've been through there; it's sparse compared to central Florida.
...
I'm the one that thinks we should give El Paso to New Mexico, so I rarely think about that part of the state :)
Hand it back to Mexico then. They'll certainly want it back if y'all don't have any need for it anymore...
And Patrick - try digging up a mesquite bush sometime. It will give you newfound respect for that scraggly plant. Its hard to believe how long and tenacious their roots are.
Oh I've wrestled with em, tumbleweeds too, no one ever told me they were THORNY! LOL. I have respect for 'em, but they ain't a forest ...
And I LIKED El Paso when I lived there, I just grew up under forest cover and I missed it too much (way too much open sky ..)
|
|
Hand it back to Mexico then. They'll certainly want it back if y'all don't have any need for it anymore......
I'm the one that thinks we should give El Paso to New Mexico, so I rarely think about that part of the state :)
My Dad worked for a time as an metalurgical engineer for a potash mine in Carlsbad, New Mexico.
It was a common complaint that when they would call up secretaries in New York to order something for the plant, they would be rebuffed and told that shipments could not be made out of the country.
:/
|
|
It's not that different up here. My objection is to the opinion that somehow lefties go further out of their way than righties to avoid people with a different fiscal standing.
Well, with the exception of Austin, most "liberals" down here do not conform to east/west coast liberal standards. Texas Democrats tend to be more moderate/conservative than the national average. Sheila Jackson Lee excepted, of course.
Actually, she is a GREAT example of "PC gone bad". Back in the 80's, when the government was changing Federal criminal statutes, she and Maxine Waters pushed HARD to make crack weight count 100x powder cocaine weight. Kids arrested for crack would regularly get 10 year sentences for less than $100 of product. Most of these kids were black.
Twenty years later, and 5x the Fed prison population from before the new statutes, Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters started complaining the statute was racist and disproportionately targeted blacks (wow, who would have thunk a drug predominately found in black neighborhoods would have more black arrests?).
Anyway, those two called the law THEY FOUGHT FOR racist! Go figure...
|
|
Oh I've wrestled with em, tumbleweeds too, no one ever told me they were THORNY! LOL. I have respect for 'em, but they ain't a forest ...
When I was a kid, we used to take dried tumbleweeds, stack them up and then make tunnels into them. Sort of a desert igloo. I don't remember the thorns though. Or did you mean the mesquites were thorny?
|
|
(lol)
trying to tell somebody from Houston that they don't hardly have any trees is like trying to tell somebody from Florida that, though Florida is hot, it doesn't begin to compare with Texas.
Heathy, I used to live in Altamonte Springs. I know Central Florida. If you take US 59 from Texarkana to Houston, there is pine forest density to rival Central Florida, trust me (especially if you actually get off the freeway).
East Texas (the 50 mile strip running along the Sabine river, anyway) is the same climate/terrain/vegetation as Louisiana. I'd love to hear someone say Louisiana doesn't have trees ;)
|
|
But, then, Texas is one of the most misunderstood places in the country. I'm amazed at what people who have never been here think of this state. Talk about ignorance..Hey, we're fully informed.
We've all seen 'The Dukes of Hazzard'.
Um...that was Georgia (or was it Alabama?).
Texas ain't the Deep South, not by a long shot :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Tell me about it. Just yesterday I saw Rupert Murdoch hanging out at the homeless shelter, checking out the scene.Should I pity Americans for the huge differences between rich and poor in USA?No. The poor in America are pretty well off and have the freedom to become rich if they have the inclination and the ability. Moreover, outside certain elite enclaves (mostly populated by rich liberals I notice) the poor and the rich in America regularly rub elbows socially.
Funny, I saw Dick Deguerin having a beer with a homeless guy I know at the Alabama Ice House last week.
Hmmm, ... I barely scrape in above the poverty line these days but I've had dinner with a man who still has a chance of being prime minister someday and I've eaten lunch with Obama's 'terrorist friend.'
Still, economic class does matter. It's been really tough to complete my education without one damn cent from my family. I've had to work for everything but I've seen lazy-ass kids from well-to-do families coast through and devote more time to the extracurricular stuff that looks better on their resumes.
I agree that hardworking people can achieve things but the rich have it easier. Inclination and ability matter, but given these things in equal measures, the children of the rich will outstrip the children of the poor.
|
|
But, then, Texas is one of the most misunderstood places in the country. I'm amazed at what people who have never been here think of this state. Talk about ignorance..Hey, we're fully informed.
We've all seen 'The Dukes of Hazzard'.
Never mind of course the fact that Hazzard county is set in Georgia... :D