Civil Rights, Civil Wrongs, and Not So Civil People
Wednesday, June 16th, 2010Author Tony DeMaio
During the initial Civil Rights movement, I was a young tad. I went to an integrated school and didn’t think much about my friends’ color or heritage. I walked without fear in “black” (Negro at the time) neighborhoods. I was in the ninth grade when the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision was issued. Living in California, I didn’t understand the magnitude of that decision.
In the early sixties, I was in college. I recall reading how college students were going down to the south for “civil rights”. I thought about it a bit, but really did not understand. Clearly, their motives were pure and their intentions good. (Wot’s the old saw? The way to hell is not paved with good intentions; it is greased with them.) Something about the situation bothered me. I couldn’t put my finger on it at the time, but there appeared to be “something wrong” with a bunch of “kids” or “foreigners” who were totally unaware of the southern culture, going down there and using “non violent” tactics such as sit-ins, eat-ins, sleep-ins, etc. to forcibly change that culture. They were “invading” the south, and using intimidation and extortion to accomplish their goals.
Having subsequently lived in the south (1970, 2001), it is my considered opinion that those students essentially “destroyed” a culture and civilization; and by using the tactics of force and coercion set “the movement” back several decades. When confronted with the proposition that they were “breaking the law”, they answered, “An immoral law does not have to be obeyed.” Or “We serve a higher purpose than the law.” Evidently arrogantly presuming (or conferring upon themselves) the ability (and right) to determine which laws are immoral, which should be obeyed, and when they should be obeyed.
What was somewhat interesting and, in retrospect, amusing, was the “north’s” reaction to that movement. Since THEY were not involved in any manner, they cheered the students on and made folk heroes of them. As long as the students were an expeditionary force, they were applauded and commended. Apparently, the northerners were not cognizant of the phrase, “What goes around, comes around.”
Upon returning to the north, the students settled back down to their studies—temporarily. They then saw “injustice” in the north. They saw job discrimination. Having just been reasonably successful in the south with the tactics of intimidation and extortion, they used the same tactics in the north to deal with the problem. They began to picket a drive-in restaurant that they believed was discriminating against Negroes (an acceptable word at the time). The manager capitulated, and not only agreed to hire more Negroes, but also to fire some white waitresses and replace them with Negroes. The students then turned their attention to other restaurants. Some yielded, others went broke as the students tied up their telephone lines (no reservations), picketed, chanted, and harassed customers. (At the time, I thought it was somewhat “unjust” that twenty students or so with no vested interest or stake in the outcome, could destroy a business that had taken a lifetime to build.) The students then attacked the Safeway store with “shop-ins”. They would get a basket, fill it with food, have it checked out, and then claim they could not pay.
The tactics of fear and intimidation worked quite well—for a time. Subsequently, the restaurants closed, Safeway closed that store, and other “victories” turned hollow as the various stores closed, and no other stores took their places.
Shortly after the demonstrations concerning “job discrimination” ended, a citizen (non-student) was passing out literature on campus. He was asked to leave, and when he did not, the campus police were called, and he was arrested for trespassing. About 6 students were associated with the “movement”. They surrounded the police car and imprisoned it. Other students gathered around out of curiosity. The situation escalated, got out of control, and became the “Free Speech Movement”. AGAIN, the students used extortion and intimidation to enforce their “demands”—including sit ins, student “strikes”, sleep ins, “occupying” the administration building, etc.
Eventually, the students were successful in their demands—one of which was that anyone could be on campus for any reason. The unpublished results of this event were that it attracted every kook and nut from across the country. The student union had unkempt, disreputable looking people sleeping on the couches, some “camped” on the campus grounds, campus rapes increased, and illicit drug use became widespread. Car thefts, robberies, and burglaries skyrocketed. The campus became unsafe after dark and the fraternities instituted “patrols” and “escort” services for coeds. More businesses left.
The students then turned their attention to “school integration”. They insisted on an immediate mass-bussing scheme and immediate (essentially unplanned) implementation. The school board acquiesced to the pressure and a plan was hastily drawn up and implemented. The schools deteriorated, and the middle class fled.
Today, the city of Berkeley, which was once a very desirable place to live, is one huge slum.
The business community learned well from History. When “charities” like the “Rainbow Coalition” inquire about “donations” the companies “contribute” or face boycotts or other sanctions. When “Gay Pride” applies pressure on Wells Fargo or Ford to “contribute” to various functions, the companies yield to the intimidation and extortion pressure. They elect to submit to the extortion and intimidation rather than face the loss (or possible disruption) of business. Like submitting to blackmail, they are short sighted.
I have watched the same tactics applied at various World Trade Organization meetings. “Protestors” (essentially hoodlums) engage in various “activist” measures (like starting fires and breaking windows) and use fear and terror to “protest” and express their displeasure with the organization. I observe the initial phases of such a movement with respect to the immigration issue.
What has provoked this writing is a little publicized situation in Portland, Oregon. A fur company is lawfully engaged in selling fur apparel. Various “animal rights” organizations wish to express their displeasure with this (legal) practice, and wish to drive the store out of business. Inexplicably, the city fathers, police, and administration are siding with the protestors. In an apparent attempt to appease the “protestors”, the city administration is taking no action against various protestor law violations—and has suggested that the store move. (Clearly, if the store moves, the protestors will simply follow. Of course, if the store moves out of town—as suggested—then it will be someone else’s problem.) I suggest to the city of Portland that if they wish to see the (past) consequences of their policy, they need merely visit the city of Berkeley, California. It is not a pleasant sight, but it IS an instructive one. It is usually not a good idea to yield to intimidation and extortion—as Berkeley did.
It is somewhat unfortunate that the “Civil Rights Movement” that started with such good intentions and magnificent goals spawned tactics which have resulted in the justification of anarchy, extortion, intimidation, coercion, fear, bullying, and terror—all for a “noble cause” and a “higher good”.
One might note that this is a case where a law is used in a manner totally unexpected and unanticipated by the framers of that law. The notion of “free speech” was designed to allow people to express themselves—not drive a legitimate company out of business. One should be most careful when passing laws, and even more careful when such laws are perverted and corrupted to accomplish something for which they were never intended. Whoever would have thought that when Congress passed the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) the bureaucrats would believe they then had the right to tell the population how much water their toilets could use when flushing.
Be careful America. As your laws are ignored or considered “immoral” and thus justify disobedience, you lose safety and court anarchy. As your laws become more and more corrupted, convoluted, and perverted (or differentially/selectively enforced) to favor certain groups, YOU lose more and more rights and freedoms. As these pressure groups use the laws to obtain more and more power, the legislators become more and more fearful of those groups, and pass additional laws to appease them, not restrain them. If laws are passed to restrain those groups, they will not be obeyed by the “protestors”, and those laws will restrain YOU—those that DO obey laws. As a consequence, YOU will lose more personal power and freedom.
Do not justify using a law in a way not intended because your purpose is “noble” or you agree with the goal or planned result. It is only a matter of time before the laws are perverted, corrupted, and used in ways in which you do NOT approve. As stated earlier—“What goes around comes around.”
Related posts:
Oldmanriver says:
June 17th, 2010
6:23 am
Tony,
Perhaps the civil rights movement was the “comes around” from slavery’s “what goes around”. Do you really think that a society which treats one segment of its people as second class citizens is worth preserving?
Desertrat says:
June 17th, 2010
11:41 am
OMR, the issue is NOT of “preserving”. The issue is that of creating a desirable change in a rational manner.
It’s the ancient saying, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
What good is a change in the law, if it breeds an unending and escalating resentment from those whose lives were “changed”?
All these efforts to assuage white guilt and atone for the misdeeds of the past have–IMO–led to more hostility, now, than I ever saw back some fifty years ago. That’s what it has looked like in the daily news, these last twenty and more years…
‘Rat
Linda Brady Traynham says:
June 17th, 2010
4:08 pm
Another term for the behavior Tony discusses is “The Protection Racket.”
Linda Brady Traynham says:
June 17th, 2010
4:11 pm
OMR, I certainly don’t think a society that treats me as it does should be preserved. Shall you tell Congress, or shall I?
Oldmanriver says:
June 18th, 2010
6:47 am
Rat,
I do agree that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Put yourself in a black person’s shoes in 1950s America. Would you be willing to be patient to wait so that you could eat in the same resturants go to the same movie theaters as white people? Im thinking you wouldnt be. Although given what I know of you I would bet that you would go someplace you were more welcome and say to heck with folks that dont want you around. How long do people have to wait to be treated as equals? Yes it changed things about the culture of the time, but was it so bad? If folks back then would not have dug in their heels so much would things have gotten as bad as they did? Imagine if people would have just done the right thing from the get go, we would not even be talking about this now.
Oldmanriver says:
June 18th, 2010
7:17 am
Linda,
How exactly are you being discriminated against? I guess I just dont see myself as being disadvantaged or persecuted. I consider myself to be incredibly fortunate. Im of average intelligence, average looks, I havent really had to work all that hard, I quit college early and didnt finish my degree until last year and yet I am amazingly successful. I live in a country where all this is possible. Im free to travel the world, Im free to pretty much do anything I want. The only thing that is holding me back is myself. Every single thing that is wrong or bothers me in my life is completely and totally my own fault. Do I wish some things were different? Of course but all in all we have a great life here in the USA. I do not see any advantage being born to another race other than what I am. I never find myself thinking “if only I had been born red yellow black or green I would finally be successful” I dont envy the folks that get government aid, their lives are usually not very good. I would not change positions with them for anything. In short I feel like the luckiest guy in the world. I have been able to do things that probably over 90% of the people in the world will never be able to do and its all pretty much due to the fact that I was born in the USA.
Desertrat says:
June 18th, 2010
11:45 am
OMR, we’re drifting away from what Tony was talking about. His gripe is much more about how the reformation has been abused in the ensuing years since LBJ’s Civil Rights Act. The rise of such creatures as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, playing the race card as blackmail to make money. They’re not interested in actual “rights”.
Same for the other victim-group creations.
Oldmanriver says:
June 18th, 2010
12:16 pm
Yes you are right Rat. I veered off a bit as I tend to do lol. Yes people have abused things and people do take advantage of the system. Which I dont agree with either, but I dont think that invalidates the civil rights movement. That is what I was getting from Tony’s article, I may have read too much into it your milage may vary. If Im wrong call me on it. I dont like it when everyone agree’s all the time, nothing gets vetted. In truth I think that in another generation or so its not going to matter at all. Kids today do not seem to think much about race or culture at all.
Desertrat says:
June 18th, 2010
7:42 pm
No, no invalidation–but any system can be abused. Proof: The present administration and Congress, vs. the Constitution…
Well, past administrations and Congresses, as well, of course.
CheriVNB says:
June 19th, 2010
5:50 pm
I am so daft, here I thought Tony was writing about tactics “any means necessary” and how “winning” doesn’t always bring about the just result desired. Force vs. understanding/cognition. Fear and intimidation work. Mob rule (51%) is a very scary thing and counter to the longevity and purpose of the bicameral republic of our founding.
I guess you get from the party what you bring to the party, eh?
A computer error prevented my submitting my reply after OMR on Thursday. I submit it now for interest.
Tony,
I think I get what you are saying. However as the first reply shows some will get stuck in your comparison subject choice which blinds many to your point. The “purists” do not care what has to happen except that they get their way. Too many people don’t truly comprehend why “by any means necessary” yields only partial or perverted results, even when the cause is “just”. How the remnant resentments and damages continue on and grow into new opposition and conflict.
I think you have identified the exact cause of many of the seemingly unsolvable political situations occurring ‘round the world. (Reminds me of your description of a liberal.) No introspection, reflection, or contemplation of merit, just “I want” or “I don’t like”. There needs to be more support gathering through reasoned persuasion. The uninformed protests of the recent Arizona immigration law situation shows how these “bullying” techniques are blindly applied. Most don’t care what the facts are, just want their way. Many towns in CA are actually taking time out of council meetings to hear arguments for and deciding on whether to boycott AZ. That is insanity. First it is not their business and second it wastes local resources. Is our populace so corrupt and uneducated they are actually championing the lawless?
While the “animal rights” people think they are raising the level of animals, in reality they are lowering the level of all humanity. Fighting arrogance with denigration is counter productive. People who have to “prove” they are better than others generally aren’t and most are looking for self glorification and validation.
OMR per your response to Linda, she did not claim discrimination, just maltreatment for being “an unfed milk cow” and suspect for the vocalization of her opinions.
Most of us are thankful for our good fortune of being born in America, and want that good fortune to continue for all, not the chosen few.
Cheri
Tony says:
June 20th, 2010
7:15 am
Folks,
If you do not have a society of laws, you have a society of outlaws.
tony
Tony says:
June 20th, 2010
8:40 am
Cheri,
Yep, youse gots it. “Civil Rights” was but a minor point in the paper.
Interestingly enough, in my opinion, there is no “higher” goal or purpose than the pursuit of the rule of law and due process. To say you are “pursuing a higher purpose” and sacraficing the rule of law to get there is a bit of an oxymoron. To claim that is to disagree with me–which makes you wrong.
tony
Tony says:
June 20th, 2010
8:59 am
OMR
You sed:
How long do people have to wait to be treated as equals?
Sometimes the worst decision you can make is not a bad decision. Sometimes the best decision you can make is not a good decision.
Should that generation have “snatched” or “grabbed” a step forward and thus deprived their off-spring of taking TEN steps forward? Are they treated as “equals” today? How much of the “problems” of today can be traced to the tactics of force used in the sixties? How much “damage” to the movement was done?
It is my opinion that slavery died a peaceful death in the north because it became economically unfeasible. It was cheaper to pay the blacks then own therm.
It was economically feasible in the South because of cotton. HOWEVER, cotton is hard on the soil and the southerners kept moving west to continue to plant cotton. The problem was that as they moved west, the land became less and less suitable for cotton. Had the north merely waited, slavery would have died a peaceful death in the south in the 1800s.
How many of our problems of today can be traced to the forcible destruction of slavery?
In like manner, I accuse the Civil Rights movement and the tactics they used of actually causing harm to the very movement they professed to espouse.
Like South Africa and Zimbawe (Rhodesia), the folks causing the carnage never look back to see the results of their actions.
rebel without a job,
tony
Tony says:
June 20th, 2010
9:33 am
Folks,
Cheri got it right. (Finally, someone who understands me. The offer of marriage still goes.)
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the title I did.
The “civil rights movement” led to the “civil rights act”. The major flaw in the civil rights act was that in order to accomodate the goals of the movement, the government had to essentially abolish property rights. (Wot was the cry?? “What’s more important–property rights or human rights?” by imbeciles that didn’t realize that without property rights, there are no human rights.)
In order to “desegregate” restrauants, they had to deny the owner the right to refuse service “for any reason”. In order to stop housing segregation, they had to make it illegal to refuse to sell for any reason. Once those pry bars had been inserted, it was “Katie bar the door!!”
NOW, the federal gubbermint has the authority to take money from one citizen and give it to another. It has the right to tell us what kind of light bulb to use and how much water our toilets can use. Men’s clubs couldn’t be “Men’s Clubs” since business decisions were made there–they had to admit women. Schools had to bus children in order to achieve “integration”. Businesses were commanded to hire certain proportions of various groups. The latest(?) outrage was the Kelo decision.
Areas in which the federal gubbermint had absolutely no business interfering became fair game–all in the name of “a higher purpose”. Most, if not all, can be attributed to the “Civil Rights Movement”, if only that it allowed the initial pry bar(s) to be inserted.
The results?
Our cities are slums, our schools are “not performing well”, there is racial tension, property values slumped (historically, not recently), suburbs flourished (consuming much gasoline and generating urban sprawl), government is incompetent with the hiring of employees based upon race/gender/etc., our budget is more than half welfare of various sorts, the once intact black family has vanished (and we’re on course to do the same with the Mexican family), as of 2007 almost half the babies born were to unwed mothers, and crime is rampart in the cities. I’m sure each of you could add more.
How much of this is attributed to the Civil Rights Movement? I don’t know. I see the logical chain, do YOU? As I sed above, “Like South Africa and Zimbawe (Rhodesia), the folks causing the carnage never look back to see the results of their actions”.
Also, as I wrote in the original paper:
“It is somewhat unfortunate that the ‘Civil Rights Movement’ that started with such good intentions and magnificent goals spawned tactics which have resulted in the justification of anarchy, extortion, intimidation, coercion, fear, bullying, and terror—all for a ‘noble cause’ and a ‘higher good’.”
To this I add, “And perhaps the destruction of our society as we know it.” Without property rights, there ARE NO RIGHTS AT ALL.
rebel without a job,
tony
Tony says:
June 20th, 2010
9:41 am
Folks,
Along another line, consider that when you state it is illegal to refuse to sell to someone because of race, or refuse service to someone because of race, you are making “thought” a crime.
In order to enforce such a law, you must consider the REASON for the act. Certainly difficult to prove, but with the threat of court action by the NAACP or ACLU and the costs that would be incurred, not at all difficult to enforce–whether true or not.
Such laws paved the way for “hate crimes”,”hate speech”, and other “thought crimes”. Of course such laws are to protect various minorities and “protected groups”.
I suggest to youse folks that we are well past 1984.
always,
tony
Oldmanriver says:
June 21st, 2010
8:45 am
All,
I agree that everything that came out of the civil rights movement was not desirable. I understood that the article was about the tactics. I just think that we have a much better nation now than we did back then. Is every perfect? Not at all, I would prefer that we didnt have to have laws like that and we were truely color blind. I also know what white people truely think when its only white people around. We have a long way to go, at least from my generation and older. I think younger people are becoming truely color blind. I think we have a better society when everyone has a chance to participate. The problem is you could make the same case that you are making now for the Revolutionary War. Think of all the things that were disrupted by that. Im sure it caused a lot of resentment to some British folks. Why didnt the colonists just wait and be patient, after all it was just a few small taxes and life was actually better in the colonies than it was in GB. It was against the laws of the crown as they were at the time. What bothers me is that Americans should be for individual freedom and equality for every citizen. Even if it causes some pain to people that dont agree with that. How many people here would be willing to be part of a minority that it is lawful to treat as a second class citizen? Would you be so patient if you were told no you cant shop here, no you cant go here you are an inferior organism. Im sorry but not one person that posts on this site would stand for it.
Tony says:
June 22nd, 2010
6:26 pm
OMR,
I must disagree. We ARE standing for it.
I’m told I cannot have this parking space, it’s reserved for a handicapped person.
I’m told I can’t have this job, it’s reserved for a minority person.
I’m told my kid cannot have this scholarship, it’s reserved for black students.
I’m told my kid can’t get into the school of his choice because all the white students’ slots have been filled.
I’m told to modify my business bathroom so a handi-capped person can use it.
Idiocy to the point where drive up windows have to have raised letters on ATM machines so the BLIND can use them.
I apply for a job in IT at a major department of 23 people in California government and observe 21 Asians working there–that’s all right.
I go to McDonald’s and note Spanish spoken in the “back room”. No “whites” need apply. That’s O.K. also.
I’m told that if I value my life, I cannot go into certain areas of town.
I’m told that although blacks can use certain words, I cannot use those same words because it is “hate speech”.
I’m told not to wear certain colors as they are “gang colors”.
I’m told I cannot work in a certain field unless I join a union–and there are no more openings for whites.
In school, I’m told I cannot wear my hair long because–well just because. The Mexicans CAN wear their hair long because that is their culture.
You see, OMR, you think that the actions helped to solve the problem. I don’t. I think those actions simply generated more hatred and resentment. Much of it has gone subliminal and will be harder to weed out, but it’s there. If you don’t believe it, spend a month or so in the deep south. At this time, we have the gubbermint dictating which “discriminations” are “appropriate”.
As a matter of fact, had the colonists “been patient”, it is most probable that our country would have fared as Canada. A peaceful separation over time with no animosity, and no war of 1812. If you think taxes were onerous under King George, try them under King Obama.
In terms of a “better nation”, would you say that you have as much personal and financial freedom as your father had? If you are going to claim “better”, you have to define your terms. Is it “better” for certain groups? Perhaps. Is it better for EVERYBODY? Perhaps not.
Personally, I’m FER capital punishment. That does NOT mean I’m for lynching. Lynching someone to “achieve justice” is a contradiction in terms–much like trampling on civil rights to protect civil rights.
rebel without a job,
tony
Oldmanriver says:
June 23rd, 2010
8:10 am
Tony,
I do agree with you that we disagree
. The comparison between my father and I is not really applicable in this case. He was and is a farmer that rented most of his ground. I grew up as a slave to our largest land lord. My life right now has so much more freedom than my father’s its not even funny. As far as life in general, I believe that life is getting better for generally everyone. I dont want to go back to an earlier time period. I dont have any statistics to back that up just a general sense that things are getting better. Does that mean financially or economically things are better no, not right now at least. I think though that this recession was the best thing to happen to us as a nation. It is a tradgedy on the personal level but on the national level its making us take a good long hard look at our value system. Its going to set us up for some very good times down the road. Look around, you see mixed race couples all the time now, if you have a baby outside of marriage you are no longer shuned. People have a lot more freedom in that sense. Women have been gaining ground thats a good thing. Our society is not as rigid as it was. Its finally ok to be different than others. People have the ability to be themselves more so now than at any other time in history. Do we have more environmental and OSHA laws? Yes but even though it is a pain to deal with the EPA, no one that I know of that works in industry wants to go back to the way it was. People dont die as often at work. People are not getting sick as often from work. Work in general is a lot safer. We are not poisoning our communities as much as we used to. Environmentally this country is a lot better off now than it was at the beginning of the 20th century.
As far as access for handicapped people…I dont begrudge them that. I dont see how that has taken anything away from me. Im glad that we as a society can help make people’s lives better. I like it that someone who has had some real problems in their life can still participate. I dont see that as a loss of rights for me. I think that speaks well for a society. What would you have these people do?
As for the references to quota’s and what not. I have never expirienced any of that. I dont know of anyone that has. The only time I have ever heard of it is on the news. I have done a lot of hiring for the company I work for. I am basically the company HR person in addition to my other duties. The only quota’s I have ever had to worry about was that in order to recieve a grant from the state, we had to hire a certain percentage of people below a certain earnings level. It wasnt that hard to do. I managed to get some great people. I think the only time quotas come into play is if you are doing government work.
How do you know no whites need apply when spanish is spoken? Did you actually apply for the job or did you just assume something? I for one have applied at a place where I was the only guy that english was not a second language. I got hired right on and even got promoted.
My clothing choices have never been dictated by gang members..wasnt that a late 80’s early 90’s thing anyhow? I dont know what to say about not being able to go certain places in cities…crime sucks but if you look at long term rates we are getting better all the time. Looking at murder rates they were much higher per 100000 population in the 1940’s than they are now.
I agree with you on hate speech. They are trying to legislate manners and that just dosnt work. I dont think anyone gets prosecuted though. Actually I dont know of any laws forbiding hate speech. Isnt it only if it is in conjunction with another crime such as murder? Then they can get you for a hate crime? You can say pretty much whatever you want you just have alot of public scorn and perhaps get fired from work for creating a hostile work environment.
There are scholarships avaiable to only white kids, Rhodes scholarship. Its not hard to get scholarships white or black. The Army paid for my tuition.
I dont know anything about length of hair in schools. When I went in the 80s anyone could have long hair.
As far as union membership goes, that really dosnt matter as much as it did in the past. The unions have lost a lot of their power in the last 20 years. I dont see that being much of a stumbling block anymore. As far as the skilled trades go, I would only hire union workers…they do better work. Everytime I hire non union I regret it. For full disclosure, I was a member of the United Food and Commercial workers Union for 3 years. Before I was in a union I was dead set against them. Now that I have been a part of one I really see how they can work well not only for the workers but for the company as well. I dont see why people should not be able to negociate for their labor and I dont see why you cant do it as a group as it gives you more leverage. That is as capitalistic as you can get. I have managed Union and Non union plants. I always got along well with the Union and not because I gave in but because I was a good manager. I treated people like human beings. Its easier to manage in a union environment. Everything is already spelled out. Non union environments are much harder but with the right people you can get a lot more work done more effiecently than a Union plant. Although with the proper management a union plant can do the same thing.
I havent spent a month in the deep south continuously but my gf is from columbia, South Carolina and she currently lives in the Dallas/FT Worth area. I visit her once a month for few days. We have talked about this. She says that the biggest problem Southerners have is how they were treated after the war and that resentment has lingered on for generations. She thinks the civil rights movement was a good thing. The way minorities were treated in this country was shameful in her opinion. I realize that Southern people have a lot of resentment to the North but just because you resent being on the wrong side of history dosnt make you right. I just dont see how anyone can honestly stand up and say that the way minorities were treated was a good thing and that people should have to be patient just so they can be treated as human beings. Is hatred and resentment worse? Im not sure thats a hard thing to measure. Racially I think the hatred and resentment is much less now than during the 60s. Maybe its just underground. I dont know. Usually people who play the race card black, white or brown are usually people that arent much account. Any white person who thinks they cant succeed because the laws of this country favor minorities usually isnt trying very hard.
I think of it this way. Have I ever honestly thought that if I could only have been born a minority that my life would be better? No, I havent and nor do I think it would be worse off being a minority. I think that in this country we are starting to become color blind, at least to the point that everyone generally has the same access to society that everyone else does. Is it perfect? Not at all, but its going to take generations to get rid of old thought patterns. For the kids coming up this is not even going to be an issue that they think about.
Oldmanriver says:
June 23rd, 2010
8:49 am
Tony,
I do agree with you about the Revolutionary war. We would have been like Canada. Although its interesting to think about, would the Civil War happened anyhow? GB outlawed slavery in 1833, would the Southern States revolted then? Probably so. I think that the USA would not look nearly quite the same as she does now. We would probably have serval countries in place of one. Would Mexico still have California and much of the South West except for Texas? Interesting to think about.
Desertrat says:
June 24th, 2010
2:41 pm
OMR, to pick just one item from your lengthy post, I gotta say that children born out of wedlock are nowhere near as likely to have happy and successful lives as those who come from a stable environment involving a marriage. (Granting that in today’s world many people can’t handle the responsibilities over the long haul–but that’s actually irrelevant to my pointl)
Mature adults in a stable marriage produce a very high percentage of successful offspring. A far lesser percentage of those from broken homes do as well, and those born out of wedlock with no father’s presence in the home do worst of all.
TLOK how many studies and surveys have agreed on this conclusion. Gazillions. Many master’s theses or doctoral dissertations, aside from think-tanks and government.
Murphy Browns don’t raise Tim Tebows.
Oldmanriver says:
June 24th, 2010
10:28 pm
Rat,
Sorry I have been trying to limit the length of my replies and I get long winded. I wasnt saying that its a better way I was trying to say is that there is no stigma attached to that anymore. I wasnt focusing on the results. Rich people raise more successful children than poor people do. That has been proven by multiple studies as well. Im not sure what it matters. I didnt know who Tim Tebow was, hes just an athlete which there are many successful athletes from single parent homes. I dont know their names because I dont care much for sports that I am not participating in. Alexander Haig grew up without a father, which Im not sure means anything or not.
admin says:
June 28th, 2010
1:09 am
OMR
I suspect that we can agree that we disagree. I’m not at all sure we can agree on where we disagree.
You say you don’t mind giving handicapped folks parking spaces. Fine, YOU give parking spaces to them, don‘t mandate that every business give them. You are arguing practicality. You believe it is acceptable to give handicapped folks a convenient parking space. On the other hand, I am arguing principle. I maintain that once the government gives special privileges to ANY group, the issue changes from, “Should the government give certain groups special privileges?” to “What reasons are acceptable for giving certain groups special privileges?” Given our political structure, the results were entirely predictable. We give special privileges to those groups with political power or that contribute to our campaign, or vote “correctly“.
You misunderstand. In talking about economic and personal freedom, I refer to government interference. Right now, the government takes over half of most folk’s incomes, so that today the wife has to work in order to support the government. If this is “getting better”, I’m glad it’s not getting worse.
May I suggest you peruse
http://thetexasring.com/2010/03/29/town-hall-meeting/
On this site.
When I was growing up, if someone wanted to buy a gun, they went down and purchased one–or got one mail order. Today, there are innumerable rules and regulations. Forgive me, but the way I read the second amendment, most of those “rules and regulations” have no business in this country.
In terms of “clothing”, I hear cases on the news concerning kids that get beat up because they have the wrong color clothes. Whether it’s “today” or the “nineties” is irrelevant–it wasn’t the sixties. It’s a country gone crazy.
In terms of “hate speech”, the fact that “no one gets prosecuted” is not the point. The point is a government that believes it can regulate how folks talk. As a matter of fact, as long as folks BELIEVE such laws exist, they change their behavior to accommodate those laws. As such, the laws fulfill their purpose. Consider McCain/Feingold’s “Campaign Finance Reform”. Again, you may agree with the outcome and believe that the end justifies the means. If so, you have missed the whole point of my original paper. Please reread the last two paragraphs.
In terms of crime, I think you are referring to the fact that the baby boomers have passed the age where they commit crimes. Strictly a demographic phenomenon. Look at the number of black and Mexican gangs in the U.S. It is estimated that there are 274 black gangs and 22,000 Mexican gangs in Los Angeles area–in addition to the Asian gangs. What is the government(s) doing about this?
Yes, the work place may be safer. Yes, folks may be healthier if restaurants don’t cook with transfats. Yes, folks may be healthier if the government put Burger King and McDonald’s out of business. Yes, it may be better if we don’t allow smoking in restaurants. Yes, folks would be safer if we banned sky diving, skiing, recreational airplane flying, commercial flying, automobiles, snow mobiling, camping, water skiing, hunting, fishing, boating, etc. The goals are admirable, don’t you agree? Yes, we would be healthier if we worked out every day–shall we pass a law? Yes, we would be healthier if we ate “properly”–shall we ban household cooking and make folks eat at a community cafeteria?
We could save literally thousands of lives if we limit the speed on freeways to 35 mph. Let’s do it–everyone would be safer.
OMR, you see the “great good” that came out of the civil rights movement. I also see the good, but I also see the carnage and destruction that was left behind. As I said, like Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and South Africa, you look at the fact that the “people are now free”, and do not know realize that in being hungry, scared, homeless, and terrorized, they are more imprisoned now than ever before.
When you have a “pragmatic” government that will pass laws to address a present day, specific problem, you end up with a mish mash of laws with no ethical or philosophical underpinnings that are often in conflict with each other.
Look around at our laws.
Tony
Oldmanriver says:
June 28th, 2010
9:47 am
Tony,
You are right, Im arguing from a practical standpoint not from a philosophical one. Actually I agree with you in that Government should be as you describe, but I dont think that will work in the real world. I think that is a kind of utopia which as a nation we have never achieved. You are right Im a very practical person. I dont really care so much about the politics of something, I just want it to work. That being said I believe that each person has natural rights which end as soon as they infringe on another persons rights. I see how you could see that I contradict myself in that I support individual rights but yet gladly agree to collecting taxes, building codes, saftey rules and etc. Perhaps I do. I do see society as a collective which individuals can work together to make life better. Thats the role I think government fills to a certain degree. That being said government is only as good as the people and the people elected. I know things are not perfect but I dont expect them to be either.
I dont see any difference between economic freedom and personal freedom. In order to be truely free you have to have both. The reason women have to work is not because of taxes. Tax rates were much higher in the 1950s when women were not working nearly as much outside the home. Women work because: they want to, families today want more stuff than they can afford, inflation is silently stealing value from our money, they have to, to support themselves/children
On buying firearms, State differ wildly. Where I am now is much better than my home state, but there is still some regulation. I dont know that its a bad thing, which is what we fundamentally disagree on.
Babyboomers and crime. The statistics I looked at were per 100,000 population. This adjusts for different sized age cohorts. We are a much more law abiding society than we were 50 years ago.
Work Safety, envirnomental, etc…We disagree fundamentally. I dont know that you have spent much time in refinery’s, chemical plants or other industrial processes. I suspect that if you had, you wouldnt be so cavalier about this. The government regulations keep company’s from infringing on the rights of others. As we see in the case of the gulf spill the lack risk management on the part of one company has now affected the lives of many. This was even in the presence of regulation that may or may not have been enforced.
I think we disagree fundamentally, I dont think there is any way to change that fact. Neither will we ever be able to prove the other wrong or right. I would easily jump aboard if you could prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that your society would be all inclusive and not just degenerate to a place where only the wealthy have a voice and everyone else become serfs or chattle.
Tony says:
June 28th, 2010
2:09 pm
OMR
I suspect we will never know if my model government will work in the “real world“. I DO know that ANY large undertaking has to have an underlying philosophy in order to be successful. Without some underlying philosophy, you are like a ship without power or rudder–you get pushed and pulled in various directions depending upon the wind and waves.
I guess the question is, “Do it werk NOW?” I claim no. You say my rights end when they infringe upon others. How then do you justify making a restaurant a non smoking area? How do you justify usurping private parking spaces for the handicapped? In effect, you are imposing YOUR views on others, and forcing behavior YOU believe is justified, forcing some to abstain from smoking and others to park further away.
As a matter of fact, I support taxes if used for the general good and not wasted. San Francisco spent an amount of money to bevel sidewalks for wheelchairs that would equip EVERY WHEELCHAIR in California with curb climbing capabilities. Apparently the company that got the contract was a heavy campaign contributor. General safety codes also get my approval. Stop signs, red lights, speed limits, etc. are for the general good. If someone wishes to work in a dangerous environment, why is it MY business? If it’s dangerous enough, no one will work there and things will change or the place will go broke.
My model “right” is the “right to vote”. I am not allowed to stop you from voting. I am NOT obligated to provide you with a ride to the polling place. How can one claim a right that imposes an obligation on someone else? A “right” to “health care” imposes an obligation upon someone ELSE to PROVIDE IT. Suppose everyone were to claim such a right simultaneously? (As I observed elsewhere, we live in a society where all one has to do is claim a right; claim it loudly; get a sufficient number of people to join in; then demand that others [government] provide it.)
I’m afraid I must disagree with you. Simply look at the amount of the GDP the various governments took back then and the amount they take now. I have argued elsewhere that when you take the fed tax as “tax freedom day” (April 17, 30%), Social Security and Medicare (17%), State income tax (8%), property tax (6%), sales tax (2%), gas tax (1%), and payroll taxes (5%), you get over 2/3 of your money going to taxes. That doesn’t include the various licenses (hunting, fishing, marriage, dog), permits (gun, building), and miscellaneous taxes (telephone, shelf, bridge tolls, parking meters, utility). Of course, the prices you pay for goods and services reflect the imbedded taxes. Over half the taxes we pay did not exist 30 years ago. Shore ’nuff, the rates were higher back there, but nobody paid them. Only the “rich” were affected, and they had LOTS of deductions. (See my paper on “Charitable Giving”) Inflation is basically a “tax”.
On buying firearms, why do you believe you have the right to make me pay a tax (permit) in order to purchase one? Many of the laws are FEDERAL laws, not STATE laws. How do you think the “arms” situation would change if the second amendment were interpreted as liberally as the first amendment. Why is that? Both are Constitutional amendments.
In terms of baby boomers and crime, you would be correct if the demography of the country were not changing. Baby boomers have been described as a “pig in a python”, in that as a population they are a “bulge” in the population statistics. Hence their behavior has a disproportionate effect on statistics. This will be dramatic when they start collecting Social Security in earnest.
Regulations which affect the general public are generally acceptable to me. Regulations which affect a small proportion of the community are not–particularly if they have a choice to not be affected. Hence, a factory which is spewing garbage into the air for the public to breath is susceptible to regulation and control; smoking in a restaurant where all folks have to do to be “protected” is not enter is not. Why have gambling laws? If YOU don’t want to gamble, don’t go into a casino. It struck me as “strange” that in Oregon, some 18 year gal, who could not enter a bar, was VOTING on whether or not some 30 year old could walk into a bar and put a quarter into a slot machine. It’s simply none of her business. Such is our present “practical” society which passes laws at lightning speed (3,000/yr fed and about the same in the states) to addres each and every constituency with an axe to grind or a fetish or phobia.
If some employer is engaging in “dangerous” acts, folks have several choices. They can change jobs or sue if they get hurt. Why do you believe that the general population must pay to inspect coal mines for the benefit of coal miners? I suspect that the unions would be most agreeable to undertake the function and pursue any issues through the courts or job action.
As my hero, Yogi Berra, sed: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Of course I cannot guarantee anything about my model. For one thing, I cannot even guarantee that it would be implemented correctly. For wot it’s werth, I would dearly like to see the philosophy expressed in the Constitution implemented in this country, and not be warped and contorted by “practical supreme court judges“.
Tony says:
June 28th, 2010
7:22 pm
OMR
I found it!!
I once calculated that the average person in this country pays over 2/3 of their pay in taxes. The reasoning went something like this.
Tax freedom day is about April 1 or so. That’s about 25% for federal tax. Add in 15% Social Security and Medicare and you end up with a total of about 40% federal tax. Using the figures of 6% state income tax, 2% sales tax, 5% payroll tax (unemployment, disability, etc.) 6% property tax, and 1% gas tax yields a 20% state tax rate. That’s 60% total combined federal and state tax rate. Then add in marriage license, hunting/fishing/dog licenses, hotel tax, motel tax, phone tax, building permits, driver’s license, car registration, parking meters, traffic tickets, and any and all of the various and sundry other “miscellaneous” taxes and you easily reach 2/3. (Of course, that does not include the costs of complying with the tax laws or the added costs of products since taxes are included in their prices.)
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/starving-the-tax-beasts/
Oldmanriver says:
June 29th, 2010
8:18 am
Tony,
Yup, you are right about taxes I should have done some figuring before I shot my mouth off. I was just figuring 30% on what I see come out of my check for Fed, State and what not, not the total that you is paid in your name. Once you include the rest like you did then it does indeed put it up there. As far as fee’s go its hard to do an accurate assesment of them. Many are local and Im sure they existed in the past but its hard to find out when they were installed and how much they were. At least a quick google search didnt pan out for me. You are indeed right though, I wasnt taking everything into account.
Oldmanriver says:
June 29th, 2010
8:24 am
Tony,
On firearms, I dont know that I pay any special taxes in Ohio. I can pretty much buy what I want and take it home the same day. Im limited in some magazine capacities and some class 3 stuff but its much better than Illinois was. I do have to fill out a background check form and It does have to be phoned into a Fed office to Ok it.
Oldmanriver says:
June 29th, 2010
8:38 am
On the baby boomers…I guess Im not understanding. If the crime rate per 100,000 people drops…Its not affected by population size or if one cohort that is significantly larger than the others. What you are saying is that baby boomers were more likely to commit crimes than other generations. If you have 5 crimes per 100,000 population (just to help me understand) If you have 500000 people = 25 crimes.
If you have 700,000 people = 35 crimes total. A person in the 500 k group has a .005 percent chance of being involved in a crime. In the 700k group they also have a .005 percent chance of being involved in a crime. Total crimes go up with population growth but the rate stayed the same. Almost all crime stats have been coming down since the 1940s. Rape being the one exception as the definition and reporting of this has changed over time.
Oldmanriver says:
June 29th, 2010
10:43 am
Actually I agree with most of what you are saying Tony. I guess anymore I dont trust people or companies to do the right thing. If we were to live in a society like what you describe people would have to be trusted to do the right thing regardless of the consequences. Its like what you were saying about the folks who go delinquent on a mortgage just because they are underwater and want to purchase another house that is better at a cheaper price. A company that I am familiar with(which will remain nameless) on a daily basis sticks it to vendors who only want what was agreed upon. Most companies these days work to get by on only what they have to do. Only if its spelled out in a contract that they cant get out of or if its a government regulation will money be spent regardless to the risk of workers and the community. Our whole society is wrapped up in money and whatever makes the individual the most money in the short term is the choice that will be made. If we do have an underlying philosophy in our society its get as much stuff as you possible can.
CheriVNB says:
June 29th, 2010
6:50 pm
OMR,
You are assuming that each person has the same potential to commit crime without regard to age. A boomer criminal has probably slowed down. I don’t know the age group that commits the most crimes; I would guess it is under 40. As that population ages/shrinks, so does crime as well as the percentage of crime reported across the whole population.
Question….People can’t be trusted to do the “right” thing or the “feel good” thing? When too many illogical things happen people/business will begin to do only that which is required, especially if their pockets are getting picked on a regular basis. This is not justification, just observation. Big companies are required to be “Equal Oportunity” employers, provide benefits they may not agree with to be “competitive”, etc. all at their expense.
Does a person HAVE to compromise one’s survival for the foolishness of another? If not, at what point do you get to stop? And who decides? In Psychology, they call this co-dependence and it is not a good thing, it allows non-optimal behavior to continue. We are not allowed to turn our backs to or “shun” undesireable activities or lifestyles, we have to tolerate them, support them and claim them to be the same as desirable ones. When money is scarce, price is the deciding factor.
Cheri
Oldmanriver says:
June 30th, 2010
6:40 am
CheriVNB
Im not sure I follow you on the second part. The first part I see where I may have errored but I need to think about it some more. If you have more people of the crime commiting age in each 100000 of the population, then yes I see where I made the mistake.
On the second part…if companies were doing the right thing before all the laws were implemented then why did the laws have to be implemented? If a company has to provide a certain benefit to remain competitive then that is the logical thing for them to do. Im a plant manager, I have to comply with all these rules, I enforce them. Its not that hard. Everyone makes it seem like its the hardest thing in the world to treat everyone decent and give everyone an equal chance to succeed. I have hired the entire staff of a plant twice…I enforce all these safety, environmental and human resource regulations. I have never felt like these rules were not allowing me to succeed.
What do you mean by undesirable activities and life styles? Im sure your list is different than mine. In a society that Tony describes you have to have everyone doing the right thing all the time, regardless of consequences. By the right thing I do not mean some sort of feel good BS. The right thing usually never feels very good and usually is never easy. Alot of the time doing the right thing requires some sacrifice on the part of the individiual and or organisation. For example in a world like that smoking would not be banned anywhere but smokers knowing that most people are non smokers who dont like the smell of smoke just go outside to have a cigarette when they are in a bar or resturant. Its that type of basic polite behavior that you need to have in order to have a society like that. Its having a banker or car dealer tell a customer: you know you can barely afford this loan, maybe we should be looking at a cheaper model? The customer would then reply you know you are right I think I will. Its people that pay their debts even though it puts a kink in their lifestyle and it would be easier to declare bankruptcy. Its a society that dosnt stick its nose into other peoples business and try to decide who other people can marry, where they work eat sleep and go for entertainment. Until you have a society like that you are going to have all these laws, unless you are comfortable with a society that treats certain segments as second class.
Tony says:
June 30th, 2010
12:28 pm
OMR,
No, I do NOT suppose everyone does the right thing all the time. I agree with laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc.
I do NOT agree with laws passed for the purpose of helping, hurting, or pleasing a particular group. I do not believe in using the government for personal gain.
Hence, using the government to pass a law to stifle competition (Rockefella, oil), force membership in unions, etc., is not pleasing to me. I suspect you will find a strong relationship between campaign contributions and the kinds of laws introduced by those receiving those contributions. Do you think it was “coincidence” that Obama got a million bucks from BP, then allowed off-shore drilling. (course unexpected events …) Do you think it is coincidence that Ryaldi (sp?) gave millions to Clinton and got mining rights in Utah–after Clinton made it a federal park and thus off limits for Utal to tap into the coal. Do you think it was coincidence that folks that made huge contributions to the Clinton library and campaigns got pardons?
You ask why laws are passed? Usually, they are passed to assist or hurt some group. Why would you pass a law banning smoking in a public outdoor park? Obviously to please the anti-smoking nazies. Why would you pass a law determining how much water your toilet can flush or what kind of light bulb to use? Obviously to please the environmentalists. Why would you have a commission on the California Turtle? Obviously to have a place to put politically connected people. Why do you NOT seal the southern border? Obviously to please the Mexican voters. Why would you pass a law concerning transfats? This one, I don’t know, but I’m sure there is some group out there that wanted it–maybe those that produce the other kind of fats.
Wot’s the old story? A man will mind his own business as long as it is worth minding. When it is not worth minding, he will attempt to mind his neighbor’s business–causing all kinds of chaos and destruction. After causing such, they never look back to see the harm and devastation they caused, but instead, move on to their next victim.
I call such folks “busybodies”.
Oldmanriver says:
June 30th, 2010
5:35 pm
Sorry Tony,
I didnt mean to say that you thought everyone did the right thing. But in a society where you have very few laws you have to have people who generally do the right thing most of the time. You also have to have people who are advanced enough to be able to let things slide like water off a ducks back.
Tony says:
July 1st, 2010
8:05 am
OMR,
In some of the more “primitive” societies, they have found “an” answer. Folks that do undesireable things are simply shunned. Nobody associates with them. FAR more effective than incarcerating them an using valuable resources.
I wrote to a California congressman. I told him that California was going to “die” from an overdose of democracy and a derth of ethics and morals. I also said that laws were being passed for the benefit of any kook or nut with an axe to gring, a fetish, or a phobia. If you “analyze” our laws, you will find that most of them are for the benefit of some group. In Texas, I’m in a “dry” county (actually precinct). Can tell me what business it is of some 18 year old whether or not some guy can open a bar in an appropriately area, and why he/she should be able to vote on it?
Busybodies, OMR, the country is being run by busybodies. It wouldn’t be so bad if they gathered facts and evidence and logically presented their case. What they do is ignore and bend facts and evidence to fit their preconceived notion of “how things should be” and shout loudly. For evidence, I present the current situation with the national health care law. Passed with propaganda, lies, arm twisting, and bribery with total distortion of all evidence of cost and effect.
In terms of crime rate, perhaps this will help.
Assume two classes of people–under 40 and over 40. Assume that the under 40 group consists of 200 people, and the over 40 group consists of 100 people. Also assume that the crime rate for those under 40 is 10% and that over forth is 0%. NOW, clearly, the “overall crime rate” is 20 crimes/300 people, or about 6.7%.
NOW, fast forward. The previous under 40 group is now over 40, to be replaced with (only) 100 people in the under 40 group. NOW, the crime rate is 10 crimes/300 people, or about 3.3%.
always,
tony
oldmanriver says:
July 1st, 2010
10:13 pm
Thanks Tony, I see now where I was not figuring it right. Some times it takes a while for my mind to work right. I agree with you there. If information was gathered and deciphered without all the emotion we would have a much better system of laws. As well as what you said earlier. A philosophy or mission statement would help out as well. I realize that is what the constitution and DOI is. But something more specific perhaps like what exactly is our nations policy on energy and have our laws reflect that
Tony says:
July 2nd, 2010
2:47 pm
OMR,
One of my major “beefs” with this country is that getting accurate information is damn near impossible. Instead of using information to solve problems, define situations, communicate, and share ideas,it is used to “win arguments”. I was once in a college class, and I brought up a point “in favor” of a position. A few minutes later, I brought up a point “against” that same position. Someone asked me which way was I “for”. I said, “Neither. I want to know something about it before I take a stand.” Apparently folks make up their mind and then distort the facts and evidence to confirm their point and convince others–as in, “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.
Wot’s the old story.When they changed the sex laws in Denmark/Sweden, sex crimes dropped by 80%. Nice statistic. HOWEVER, many “crimes” were no longer crimes, so they were no longer counted. Another–the average lifespan of Americans is less than…. That shows that their health care system is better. HOWEVER, when you take out violent deaths and car accidents, the numbers change drastically. Damn few car accidents in Tibet.
I wish I knew if it was deliberate or just incompetence. Hence, we have a president that says, “The borders are more secure now than ever before.” Sounds good, but that does not mean they are secure.
I liken their measures of inflation, the economy, etc. to a guy in a cold room holding a match under the thermometer and saying, “Look, see how warm it is!”
Be very suspicious of the numbers they pass out. When there is a company that advertises, “Tell us what you want to prove, and we’ll supply the numbers to prove it.” you KNOW you’re “in trouble”.
CheriVNB says:
July 2nd, 2010
6:38 pm
OMR
I didn’t mean to suggest that all the laws were illogical, but many are. They shift the burden of personal responsibility from the person to the employer. Ever wonder how many more people might be employed if it were cheaper/easier to employ them? Your implication is of callousness and malice on the part of the employer for not providing some of these benefits and conditions before. Reread David Franklin’s “The Supreme Inviolate Law of Economics” it is kind of what I meant with regard to the expectation of employees on their employers.
Linda in her McCrystal article today expressed, a little more colorfully, my thinking on if or when I should compromise my survival on someone else’s “foolishness”.
Your last statement “Until you have a society like that you are going to have all these laws, unless you are comfortable with a society that treats certain segments as second class.” is a little confusing to me. The topic is too broad.
No matter how many laws you write, some parts of society will always treat some segments of society as second class. These segments are not based on race, sex or nationality, but on ability, education and productivity. Those other factors are red herrings. One person makes themselves so valuable, their boss pays for their maternity leave. Another PROTESTS their way into a job and maternity leave. That is the type of difference I am talking about. One is the “thing” and the other is sort of the thing, but not really, unless you force it.
No law has ever changed a man’s heart, except God’s law.
A person cannot act like a jerk and expect not to be treated like one.
For the record I DO expect people to behave themselves and not require me to carry and brandish a weapon (mine or law enforcement’s) to go about my daily business. That can be accomplished by teaching simple manners. Maybe a weekend at Field Marshall Traynham’s? ; )
Cheri
PS Sorry so lazy,quoting other’s articles, but they are far better writers. That and I am too tired to stay on track! Happy 4th of July!
Linda Brady Traynham says:
July 2nd, 2010
9:38 pm
Cheri, what a lot you have added to a very interesting, passionate discussion I missed, somehow! OMR, aka Eric, is our resident Liberal, but he is atypical because he can think AND he is willing to discuss issues…and even change his mind when we have better facts and philosophies. Tony is one of my heroes. So bright, so articulate, so rational. A terrible flirt, of course. My “sin” in modern America is that I want to be responsible for my own decisions, and I’m willing to take the punishment the laws of nature dole out if they are bad ones. I am NOT willing to agree that the government or other groups should be making my choices, I do not agree that they can do so better than I can, and I do not agree that what I do is any of their business, barring robbery, murder, and treason…in which case Congress should be in a great deal of trouble. I howl with fury daily over the sacred handicapped parking places. Yes, decent people are kind to those who are less fortunate, but equal treatment before the law. Until I have a reserved space in front of every business and building in America, no one else is entitled to one, either. Great work, all of you, and my apologies for missing all the fun. LBT
Tony says:
July 3rd, 2010
12:16 pm
Linda,
I do not agree that what I do is any of their business, barring robbery, murder, and treason…in which case Congress should be in a great deal of trouble
That’s why they’re trying to get the ten commandents taken down in the halls of Congress. The claim is that it makes a hostile work place.
always,
tony
Tony says:
July 3rd, 2010
12:17 pm
Linda,
Bite your tongue. I am NOT a “terrible flirt”.
I’m a damn good flirt!!
always,
tony
Tony says:
July 3rd, 2010
12:30 pm
Cherie,
Youse sed:
“One person makes themselves so valuable, their boss pays for their maternity leave. Another PROTESTS their way into a job and maternity leave. That is the type of difference I am talking about.”
If you want to have “some fun” with a “liberal”, try this:
First, ask them if they believe in “equal pay for equal work”.
Invariably, they will say “YES!”, quite decisively.
Then ask, Do you believe in the company providing child care facillities for workers with small children?”
Invariably, they will say “YES!”, quite decisively.
Then say, “Well, if the person with the child is getting their child care paid for, aren’t they making more money than the person without the child? I mean, if they are doing the same work, should they not be paid the same?”
While they are muttering, you can ask, “Should the company pay the insurance premiums for a worker’s family?”
Again, the answer is invariably, “YES!”
Then ask, “In that case, isn’t the married person with kids being paid more than the married person without kids who is being paid more than the unmarried person? If they are doing the same work, should they not be paid the same?
I’ve had a lot of fun with those statements. Unfortunately, they are often wasted on liberals since they have no sense of logic.
It’s like I was discoursing with OMR. We have a mish mash of laws, rules, and regulations which are often contradictory and mutually antagonistic. Clearly, if there were some ethical or moral foundation to the situation, it would be obvious that both sets of “opinions” could not be held simultaneously. Doublethink,anyone?
rebel without a job,
tony
Oldmanriver says:
July 4th, 2010
10:55 am
LOL resident Liberal LOL, I think most liberals would be horrified to know I was counted in their ranks. When I was in Jr High school I forged my fathers name on a petition to pardon Lt. Col. Oliver North lol. Most people get more conservative as they age and I have done the opposite.
Tony says:
July 4th, 2010
10:38 pm
OMR,
Wot’s the old joke??
How do you turn a liberal into a conservative?
Two ways:
1. Mug him
2. Get him a job
As people get older, they generally have more wealth. Since they have wealth to “protect”, they generally get more conservative.
Also, those with more education tend to vote conservative. Again, the “educated” (or what passes for it today) tend to get the better jobs and accumulate more wealth.
Those with little or no wealth can “take chances”. Hence the Democrats pushed to allow 18 year olds to vote–knowing the young tend to be liberal and vote democratic. They push for higher welfare, courting the “poor” vote. They push for “more” immigration–same reason.
It’s easy to vote for higher taxes and more government benefits if you’re not paying for them. Wot’s the old story??
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.
always,
tony
Oldmanriver says:
July 6th, 2010
6:10 am
Hmm I have a job maybe I need a good mugging?
CheriVNB says:
July 6th, 2010
12:41 pm
OMR-If you were a true liberal you wouldn’t be able to stand this site. You want us to lure you back cuz deep down you know we are right. ; ) No mugging needed.
Cheri
Oldmanriver says:
July 7th, 2010
6:28 am
LoL Cheri, perhaps perhaps
Tony says:
July 8th, 2010
7:54 am
OMR,
Is it a gubbermint job or a (staff) union job?
Perhaps “community organizer” or lawyer?
last guess–”activist”?
always,
tony