DISQUS

bill90814:
actually, you don't have a clue about where I live, but I'll give you a hint--it's not a pretty pink box. In fact, I don't even live with you in the 90814 area code! And I get out plenty, but I thank you for your concern. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a shut-in.

*****All I said in the original piece is that it looked like a group of people were being underpaid, since they were receiving a good **$2/hour less than the national average for their subsector**. I said that such a pay scale would make a union look pretty darned attractive. I also pointed out that the city is in the position of providing major subsidies to these businesses, and then picking up the slack when the employees can't afford life in this city.*****

That's it. The next thing I know, everyone is wringing their hands about Mexicans.

I still don't know (a) what makes you think that a majority of the hotel workers aren't citizens or legal residents, or (b) what that has to do with what constitutes a living wage. Again, if you want to argue that employers don't owe their employees a living wage I think we might have a horse race. But when you argue that it's nothing to get all worked up about because we are talking about illegal aliens and they should be grateful that they have jobs at all and why can't they just learn English, well, you are arguing facts that aren't yet in evidence. And we can't make labor laws based on a vague sense of the world as transmitted by Lou Dobbs. Shaping public policy without *hard facts* is sloppy at best, and at worst opens the door to rampant prejudice.

ProgressiveMan: As for being unpatriotic, or thinking that patriotism is "obsolete," well, I invite you to reread #16, paragraph 2. And I didn't say anything about laying back and enjoying a rape, but thanks for the classy metaphor.

Of course I know where most undocumented workers in socal originate from. I just don't know what crystal ball has told you that most of the hotel workers are "illegal"--seems like a pretty big assumption, if you ask me. I'm sure that Hilton and Marriot prefer to hire citizens, or at least people with green cards. If they *are* all undocumented workers--ie, if you know something that the rest of us don't--then the hotels are breaking some pretty serious laws and have some explaining to do.

And in this country we make laws--even labor laws--based on a whole host of ideals and principles that are entirely impractical....and yet completely miraculous, astounding, wonderful. We didn't become a shining city on a hill by implementing a sliding scale of rights based on background, or country of origin, OR EVEN MEANS OF ARRIVAL. We did it by basing our laws on notions of shared humanity.

If you want to argue about what constitutes a living wage in southern california, fine. If you want to argue that employers don't owe their full-time employees said living wage, that's fine too. I think that you could construct a valid argument from that premise.

But when you say, "we don't need to care about a living wage for THEM because I KNOW that they are all 'illegal' and everyone is already super poor in Mexico," well, you are relying on a handful of logical fallacies to make your argument.

(Maybe I spent way too many hours in church pews and going to Sunday School when I was growing up, but I never cease to wonder: why work so hard to maintain a position that is angry, mean-spirited, and completely lacking in compassion? Why adopt a political stance that allows you to write off the struggles of an *entire class* of people?)

So this is all about Mexicans for you? Really?

By the way, Long Beach isn't just 30 minutes north on the 405 from Mexico.

If you think that their lives are that simple, that easy, then you don't have a clue.

Jeff, that's wonderful. Please let me know how you are doing; email me at the district any time. I'll keep thinking good thoughts...

(And the honor was all mine.)

Christ, nobody actually reads what I write.

"White people do not make more than black people when apples to apples are compared."

Look, all that I said is that whites make more than blacks. Just as men make more than women. I didn't claim that there weren't other factors at work--education levels, time taken off to rear children--I just stated a fact. A fact that is true.

That said, one could easily claim that the disparity holds up when comparing apples to apples. For example:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_resea...

"That’s a broad statement. "

yes, it is. Because that particular point was (a) a given, and (b) totally ancillary to the discussion at hand, so I didn't feel the need to pull out the caveats, charts and graphs.

"Are you suggesting that is for every job. Waiters, union electricians, CEOs, athletes?"

no, not at all. Do you think that I am stupid? I would say that in any field where pay levels/scales are set, there will be parity. Minimum wage for a black man is the same as minimum wage for a white man. Any field which is staffed by union workers is going to see parity. But in fields where salaries for specific job titles are not set in stone--ie, any job where the hire can negotiate terms ("how big is my signing bonus? Will you pay for my relocation? Microsoft is offering me $$$, can you guys at Google do any better?")--will, for the most part, illustrate the wage disparities that you can find documented anywhere, including government websites.

"It really annoys me to hear those type of victim statements. "

Not really sure what this means. As a white overly-educated middle-class female I don't feel particularly victimized. So I'm certainly not making these claims from a place of feeling disadvantaged. Still, in this world, some people get screwed. It can be big ("God, why did I have to be born in Darfur?") or not so big ("Did they give that promotion to that guy because he's black? I've been here twice as long."). It is a proven fact that tall people make more money than short people, and attractive people make more money than unattractive people. No one is asking you to fork over your hard-earned tax dollars to pay for bone-lengthening surgeries or nose jobs. And sure, in this country there is no disadvantage that hasn't been overcome by many, many people. Still, there are disadvantages to begin with. Why this is such an infuriating truth to some people, I'll never understand.

"Poor neighborhoods have higher crime rates because the neighborhoods have more criminals."

Whatever. I never claimed to know the reason. All I said was that rich neighborhoods are obviously not the draw that they are assumed to be. That's it.

You can also look here:

http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_48/b3657067...

the title is "The Racial Wage Gap is Shrinking"--which is awesome news. But there is a gap.

also:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snap...

Duh, Andy, I knew that too. So I'm not quite sure why you disagree with me. Look at burglary rates across zip codes. Poor neighborhoods get hit far more than wealthy, or even middle class neighborhoods. That's all I was saying: the poor are targeted for crime, for whatever reason, far more than the well-off. That's why I responded to your statement: "about blacks targeting whites for assaults: that’s because they know where the money is–with rich white folks. If you’re a criminal, that’s just common sense."

OK, "enjoy" was a very creepy way for me to put it, I'll admit. Nonetheless:

"Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse?"

Also, rich whites are very seldom the object of economic crime (theft, for example). The poor tend to rob from the poor.

Pat Buchanan is an ultra-conservative who has been running for president and putting his foot in his mouth for decades. His last scandal: he was denounced by everyone on the Right for arguing that the US never should have entered WWII. I don't know much about his reasoning, but I can guess: if you aren't going to commit to kicking Hitler's ass, then your only remaining options are appeasement and containment, both of which had been attempted by numerous world leaders for almost a decade, with little success. (You'd think he would have known that, but as I said, he's a pretty sloppy scholar.) Anyway, he was accused of being a closet anti-semite by other conservatives for his argument. I don't know about the anti-semite bit--although arguing that Hitler should be left to do as he pleases in Germany is odd.....then again, when the US did enter the war it certainly wasn't to save Jews.

If Buchanan wanted to make the point that this is the land of opportunity, and that victimhood is an invalid claim, then he should have just said that. And he could have given examples: Colin Powell is always good, as is Oprah Winfrey. Barack Obama is another excellent example. He could have pointed out that in the very first post-civil war congressional election this nation got its first black congressman. He could have pointed out the racial balance of Bush's cabinet. But instead, in arguing that opportunity abounds in this country, he threw a snit about how there are more black criminals, and felt it necessary to remind everyone that black men enjoy raping white women more than white men enjoy raping black women. Never mind that most rapes are committed by white men, against white women.

Another thing that makes me crazy about Buchanan's essay: to attempt to mitigate the enslavement--and rape, and torture, and murder--of millions by pointing out that they were repaid with "Christian salvation" is repulsive. How dare he? I'd like to point out that they could have been exposed to Christianity without the chains and whips and dislocation, thank you very much.

I could say a lot more...

Lbresident:

I think that you need to read his quotes more carefully.

As for the *accuracy* of the statements: I can't speak directly to that, and I wasn't even attempting to comment on their validity. I found his *choice* of statistics interesting, however. Also his illustrative examples: He mentions Jena and Duke, and goes all the way back to the 80's to scrape the bottom of the barrel for Tawana Brawley, the result being a lot of sloppy, undisciplined implications: why Obama is being cast as the new Al Sharpton is beyond me. And I can come up with a few counter-examples: how about that black guy who got tied to the back of a truck by a couple of rednecks and dragged until his head came of and large chunks of flesh were scattered all over the road? If I can come up with 3 more examples, then have I proven that white America has declared a war on black America?

I could quote you a *pile* of statistics about Jews and money and banking and political influence, not to mention media "infiltration," and they might all be accurate. But their selection would say more about my wacky opinions than they could ever say about reality.

Pat Buchanan is a ridiculously sloppy thinker, too lazy to state a concrete thesis, and just adept enough at doing a google search to poke around for a few targeted statistics, tossed together and left to create a dozen different irresponsible impressions.

oh. my. god.

Are these april fool's jokes?

If not, check out this link (also embedded in the item):

http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/staff-infect...

I was certain that my first paragraph would be a dead giveaway, but in the event that you guys are actually serious, read my comments on the above thread. You'll see where I stand on free speech issues.

I am so frustrated that I think my head is about to explode.

Listen, Diane, I never said that your missionary friend was lying. I am saying that I'm not sure that I agree with her assessment. I don't think that anyone can claim to understand the aims of an entire culture, or even a subculture of that culture, because even subcultures (like islamic radicals) are made up of countless individuals who have different aims and opinions and motivations (like the guys who blow themselves up because it means that their starving parents will get a stipend as a reward.)

I am also highly suspicious of any argument that encourages people to be afraid of dark men coming over here and taking our women. Do I *really* need to explain why that is?

And again, you keep putting up this crap about how people with only second-hand knowledge should keep their mouths shut. Well, your knowledge is second-hand as well. The fact is that I've talked to plenty of vets. PLENTY. And MY vets disagree with YOUR vets. Deal with it. Are those vets that are anti-war guilty of sedition?

Another thing, Piet: I was an infant at the tail end of the vietnam war. I didn't spit on anyone. I didn't call anyone a baby-killer. I didn't refuse to hire vietnam vets. I was drooling on my pacifier and eating pureed carrots. So don't presume to lecture me about what I should have learned or what I (or people like me) might have done in 1970.

None of you--NONE OF YOU--have chosen to answer the questions that I have posed again and again, and I'm not posting until they are answered: WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU FEEL THAT THE WAR IS WRONG? WHAT DO YOU DO IF IT IS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE? AREN'T I OBLIGATED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST WHAT I SEE AS UNNECESSARY DEATH?

I ask you to consider that your attitude grants ridiculous power to governments: the minute they enter a war, all criticism is immoral, all dissent is unpatriotic. When things blew up in Somalia you didn't hear a single Republican saying, "Don't upset the troops!" They said, "THE MISSION IS STUPID, bring them home, for Christ's sake!" Why is that? Were all those senators and congresspeople anti-military?

So again: If I were a japanese citizen after pearl harbor should I support the emperor without question? If I'm a German citizen am I required to cheer for Hitler? If I was born in Virginia am I morally obligated to fight for Jeff Davis?

I pray that one of you guys will stop spouting feel-good platitudes and answer those questions. Until then, I can only assume that you *can't* answer them.

"How can you even joke about what Black people (not just men) suffered by being kidnapped and sold into slavery, sometimes by their own people, to greedy people in many countries (not just the US)."

--actually, he was joking about your theory that sex-crazed, murderous arabs are coming to impregnate our women with mini-terrorists.

"then make an intelligent argument, not just irrelevant points and sarcastic, caustic remarks."

--we've made a lot of them. We don't get much in the way of a response, other than pronouncements that you are exiting the conversation once and for all.

"A lot has been said about fear, and being pro-war. Just because someone is aware of a potential threat, doesn't mean they are in fear, just prepared."

--find me the place where we said anything contradicting this.

"You arm chair quarter backs should not shut up, just take responsibility for what your complaints and protests could do."

--hate to break it to you, Diane, but you are every bit the armchair quarterback yourself. Have you been involved in the fighting? No, of course not: you've just had some conversations with people who were. So have we.

And for Christ's sake, how many times do we have to explain to you that our complaints and protests are, for us, A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE? Do I think that you are a war-mongerer? A murderer? Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean that I don't feel that disagreeing with you may actually save some lives. And by the way, that doesn't make me a friend of the insurgents.

I recommend rereading comment #37.

OK, I'm convinced: Crush All Dissent!

Piet--

* Gas prices in western europe are almost exactly twice what they are here--not 3x. And they are paying that much because european governments have high gas taxes, not because of some sort of karmic retribution caused by not supporting the war.

* Just because people disagree with you, and do it vociferously on a website, doesn't mean that all of our arguments fall apart. The fact is, you are still here telling us to keep our mouths shut, just like every other conservative. Free speech isn't some luxury that we can only enjoy when we aren't in a conflict.

* You want us to think about what we say? We do. But it says something that you think that the terrorists are paying waaaaaay more attention to us than the US government is.

* As for "monopolizing the camel industry": you're all class, Piet. Why don't you extend some of that consideration that you save for the troops to the countries that are being overrun?

* Is Afghanastan a worthy war? In my opinion, it made a hell of a lot of sense to go after bin Laden. Remember him? If some Taliban were crushed in the process, I didn't shed a tear. It's a completely different country, with completely different political considerations, and a completely different rationale for military action. All those countries with camels are different, you know.

hey piet--
There's another study that you should know about: it's pretty big, and has participants in almost every country on the globe. It's a longitudinal study, as well. Governments have been super cooperative, too, from King George, to Louis XIV, to Pinochet, on and on and on. Basically, it's proven that an informed and vocal populace is, like, really important to the health of a nation, no matter what views are being expressed. It's also given us plenty of evidence that a very popular--and effective--method of quieting down troublesome citizens is to explain to them that the integrity of the nation depends on them shutting up. You know, like "Hey Colonials, don't you revere your British sovereign? Don't you think that this is a really inconvenient and dangerous time to start doing something as silly as refusing to pay your taxes? I mean, the survival of the Crown is at stake!" Or "Come on, my fellow Germans, these are dangerous times! And they require that we get our hands a little dirty! We're under assault by a group that has NO NATION, NO BORDERS, and they insinuate themselves into every aspect of our lives, even through intermarriage and lax immigration laws! Under normal circumstances, of COURSE we wouldn't conduct an unsanctioned invasion of Poland, or use stress positions on those pesky Resistance members, but the survival of the Fatherland is at stake!"

I don't CARE if those examples don't measure up to the present day situation, in your mind. Principles aren't always convenient! Democracy is messy! Haven't I heard that somewhere before?

We are both in luck! Today the NYT fronts with a story entitled "Can't Grasp the Credit Crisis? Join the Club." It's a pretty helpful breakdown:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/business/19le...

Are you REALLY going to split that hair? You malign the culture and historic contributions of an entire nation, but think that you are off the hook because you stop short of mentioning their genetic makeup?

Fine. You aren't a *racist*--but you are still a BIGOT.

And it's "dodge" not "doge". Like I said: back to school for you, and this time, take something other than CS courses.

So *Indians* aren't unimaginative and incapable of innovation: *Indian culture* is.

good question: I keep hearing the stories about the LA budget, and they're pretty scary.

I have some friends who teach grade school, and the stories that they tell are worrisome. An example: At one local grade school, class size is going up to 35. 35 4th graders, and one teacher! They are losing their librarian. They are losing the PE coordinator. They are losing their science teacher.

At least, that's what's been planned thus far.

I don't think that anyone here ever said that homeownership is a *right*. I certainly don't feel that way. All that was said is that affordable HOUSING (not "homes") was a good idea. Because it is in a *society's interest* that as many members as possible live in safe, sanitary conditions. So municipalities need to find a balance between scooping up every homeless person and giving them their own MTV Real World crib, and saying, "screw you: if you can't afford rent, then *obviously* you're lazy and/or stupid." If you are able to boil down mankind's greatest problem--poverty--to such simple one to one relationships, well...I guess that must provide some comfort. You can tell yourself that you ended up where you are because of your innate awesomeness and self-discipline. You are a modern-day Abraham Lincoln, doing your homework by candlelight with no shoes on, and making the determined march to the presidency. But to my mind, not having a home is proof that you don't have a home, nothing else.

Should people reap what they sow? Sure! Absolutely! But let's be clear: a lot of people are poor and undereducated because their parents were poor and undereducated. Is it impossible to stop that cycle oneself? Absolutely not--plenty of people do it--but *apparently* it is pretty damn hard, because only a percentage of those who grow up in poverty find a way.

Is someone actually arguing against affordable housing?

Really?

Andy, you're awesome.

Did you notice the David Duke link on LG's website?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Wang

so tell me how this guy doesn't count...

I'll just take these as they come to me:

I haven't checked this out, but if memory serves, the first programmable computer was actually the invention of a French weaver.

The Romans had fire brigades.

You'd thin out that list even more if you didn't give out a major award anytime someone came up with a new computer model.

you also write:

"What would the world be like if the H1B program started in 1990 had been around a hundred years ago and these people had been displaced before they had the opportunity to make their great contributions?"

We did have an H1B program. It was called "give me your tired, etc." Open up any history of labor and you'll get a whole list of protectionist rants against immigrants, like those from china (an wang, who invented a whole shitload of stuff), ireland (john holland, the submarine), germany (einstein, relativity), italy (enrico fermi, neutron reactor).

And that's not even counting Levi Strauss.

ok, this is one of the funniest goddamn things I've ever read:

>>Look around your home, find all the technological artifacts that were INVENTED in China and India. I did. I found none.

...if there was ever an example of the need for a good liberal arts education.

As for that (highly selective) list of major cultural accomplishments culled from some John Birch website: I think that you are confusing TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES with PATENTS.

Every study and every expert confirms that science and math education in places like China and India is light years ahead of those disciplines in the US. So yes, the US is great, rah-rah, and yes, other cultures--european and asian--have been hamstrung by intellectual orthodoxy, but Americans aren't learning the basics anymore. So while we may continue to be an *employer* of the world's most innovative thinkers, we won't necessarily produce the majority of them.

We can't even really pat ourselves on the back for democracy (nice try, though)--the US is rather late in a relatively long line of representative democracies. (Again, you might need a little humanities education to round out your linux guru-ness.)

Go ahead: explain to me how every American invention is proof of our greatness, and every non-American invention was either (a) inevitable and therefore unimpressive, or (b) too far in the past to be relevant.