Philosophy Now Forum

Here is a video clip that was sent to me by one of my conservative friends.

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/v ... o_id=15915

Most of my conservative friends are very concerned that such things take place in such abundance that sometimes I think, they think, their whole entire tax liability is going to fund such programs. It would be nice to see the true percentages of how much an average family pays for funding of such students. I think if people where told....if you make 50k a year and your tax liability is such and such...then you would pay about this much. I would be curious to know what that figure was in actual dollars. What would it be...100 dollars a year? 10 dollars a year? 1000 + dollars a year? Then we could begin to figure out if it was worth it or not by considering the benefits of such programs in society.

Anyway, here is my response...

How many people like that do you think us taxpayers are funding? I don't think that many...at least not enough to warrant taking away needed programs for those who do want to get an education.

I don't see anyway around it...there is no way to police such programs to see who is using the money "correctly" and who is not. It would simply not be cost effective. So you have the problem of keeping such programs and having to deal with these parasitic cases, or you just get rid of the programs altogether and help no one. That brings us to the scenario of contemplating what our society would look like if there were no programs to better its citizens. Would the benefits of saving a little in taxes benefit the country in the long run. Studies have shown it does not. Studies have shown that citizens who are more educated pay more taxes over their lifetimes that the original cost to tax payers to send them to school.

I am not trying to justify people like this fool...I am only bringing it to your attention that with any tax payer program there is going to be fraud and mismanagement of funds.

Also, it surprises me that judge judy got so angry that the young man did not understand. As if it was his fault. Obviously, he did not have the ability to understand what she was saying. He simply did not have the intelligence and no amount of school would be able to make him understand what she was saying. But what really made me sit up and take notice...is how frustrated she got trying to teach him something which was obviously above his intelligence. How is it she could be so intelligent to be able to tell him he is stealing...when she can't even grasp the concept that he is never going to understand? That he is just one brain cell away from being mentally challenged? It should have been very apparent to her that he was borderline disabled, but it wasn't. What does that say about HER intelligence? Could she not see it?

That brings us to another problem....and that is...what is our responsibility as a society to take care of those less fortunate. If all it boils down to is those who cannot think, must be forced to dig ditches all their lives...(or some other menial task) then should they not be compensated fairly, lest we take advantage of the weak....making them nothing more than our glorified "slaves"?

I have a ton of other thoughts...but these are just a few questions I had when I watched that video.

I live in St. Paul, so this guy is my "neighbor". He probably once asked me for money or a cigarette if I smiled at him on the street.

When I lived with my son, he had a new roof installed. The work crew was all Hispanic. They did an excellent job. I have been told that the Hispanics control the roofing industry in the Twin Cities.

I have questioned my apartment complex manager and friends why I don't see black roofing companies or other construction type workers. Their response has been: "They play the system". They guy in the video is playing the system.

The answer is to abolish the program. For college, make student loans (which are not dischargeable in bankruptcy) available. The motivated will make proper use of the program.

There are many spongers.

Mitt Romney.

Annual Income $44million.
%age of Tax paid 14%


Me.

Tax; PAYE 20%, NI 10%.

chaz wyman wrote:Mitt Romney.

Annual Income $44million.
%age of Tax paid 14%


Me.

Tax; PAYE 20%, NI 10%.

Are you comparing apples to apples (income from employments), or apples to oranges (income from employment (Warren Buffet's secretary) vs. income from investments (capital gains) Warren Buffet)?

Obama's encouragement of class conflict (rich vs. poor) may just provoke other class conflicts, perhaps white taxpayers vs. black free-riders exemplified by the dolt in the video.

Or maybe it might be white law-abiding taxpayers vs. the black criminal class who commit serious crimes disproportionate to their numbers. The Twin Cities newspapers regularly publish the photographs of offenders of serious violent crimes. Citing the practice, I once opined to my very liberal friend that it seemed to me that blacks committed about 75% of such crimes. To my shock, he responded: "Its more like 95%"

In the Twin Cities I have discovered a great amount of resentment toward blacks in white people. Not so relative to the productive, law-abiding Hispanics, Hmong, and Somali peoples.

The guy in the video deserves some "benign neglect". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_neglect

tbieter wrote:Obama's encouragement of class conflict (rich vs. poor) may just provoke other class conflicts, perhaps white taxpayers vs. black free-riders exemplified by the dolt in the video.

Or maybe it might be white law-abiding taxpayers vs. the black criminal class who commit serious crimes disproportionate to their numbers.

You do know that when Obama speaks from behind a bulletproof barrier it's to protect him and not the crowd?

Can't be easy getting a decent job when the white guys handing them out think there's a good chance you're a criminal based on the colour of your skin.

John wrote:

tbieter wrote:Obama's encouragement of class conflict (rich vs. poor) may just provoke other class conflicts, perhaps white taxpayers vs. black free-riders exemplified by the dolt in the video.

Or maybe it might be white law-abiding taxpayers vs. the black criminal class who commit serious crimes disproportionate to their numbers.

You do know that when Obama speaks from behind a bulletproof barrier it's to protect him and not the crowd?

Can't be easy getting a decent job when the white guys handing them out think there's a good chance you're a criminal based on the colour of your skin.

Well John, I think you have to take careful note of what Tom is saying...there is certainly prejudice in the US. But it can't all be every white man in America at fault...can it? Let me try to put it in another way. Let's say that most white people in my town are prejudice against Mexicans...which is probably an accurate statement....but even through their prejudice...they will admit that Mexicans are harder working people than whites or blacks. They will admit that Mexicans will take the jobs whites or blacks won't...and they will perform those jobs quite well. You can see it everywhere...like Tom said. Same goes for most Asians...only most people here don't hate them...they respect them. But now lets get on to blacks and whites...and I hope we can discuss this honestly and openly without coming to the defense of a certain group....as then there will be no way of even having this conversation.

I don't have experience in the employment market as I am self employed so I can't speak for who doles out the jobs and who gets them. I do know there was affirmative action and some white people resented that...I never did because when I was a young woman...I did see a need for it and I must say...most Americans fought hard for blacks to have equal rights. What I am basing what I am going to say is strictly on today's world and what I see happening now. I don't know a white person alive today that won't admit certain things are present between people of different colored skin. For example, when driving a car and stopping for pedestrians....if they are white....they give you the thank you for stopping nod and try to jog across your path quickly. If they are black they don't even acknowledge you stopped for them and they go extra slow. Another example is...when you are in line at a store....you go to an asian clerk...you get speedy service....go to a white clerk...you get ok service...go to a black clerk...and it's the slowest service ever...why is that?

It can't be all the white people's fault....can it? I don't know what it is like over there...It sounds as if everyone treats everyone else the same. Which is if that is the case...then kudos to you...that would make things nice. But it is not the way it is here. No matter how nice whites or blacks are as individuals, there are raw nerves exposed and white people are very tired from bending over backwards for what their ancestors did. There is only so much groveling one can do in order to make amends for something that they didn't even do. It is an unspoken power play pure and simple in which no one wants to lose. White people in the 70's were willing to swallow their pride and take a back seat to try to make ammends...but years later...when there was still hard feelings...I notice the next generation has just said, "fuck it...like us or don't like us...obviously there is nothing we can do" . It does feel hopeless here. The only thing that has changed is the law...according to the law...whites and blacks should be equally poor or rich. But the law can't change peoples prejudice...and if you think it is all one sided on the part of the whites...then you are mistaken.

But I am curious to hear what else we can do to make blacks feel as if whites are on their side...and furthermore how to get whites to actually be on their side?

I know it's easy for you on that side of the pond to have all the answers...as you are all such an enlightened group...why even your women are just like men and visa versa...according to arising.

artisticsolution wrote:I know it's easy for you on that side of the pond to have all the answers...

Sorry, I don't remember saying that I had all the answers so maybe you could help me and show me where I did.

artisticsolution wrote:as you are all such an enlightened group

Sorry, I don't remember claiming that we, whoever "we" are, were such an enlightened group so maybe you could help me and show me where I did. Unless of course you were expressing your own opinion of how enlightened "who" are.

artisticsolution wrote:why even your women are just like men and visa versa...according to arising.

Are they? I'm not arising so why don't you take it up with him rather than pre-emptively souring any discussion we might have had, which frankly I don't feel particularly encouraged to have now.

One observation I do have though is that you clearly find it easy to group people collectively: "you on that side"; "you are all such an enlightened group"; "your women". One sentence with so many generalisations. That's pretty good going considering the subject matter.

John wrote:
Sorry, I don't remember saying that I had all the answers so maybe you could help me and show me where I did.

You don't see it do you....this statement of yours ....

John wrote: Can't be easy getting a decent job when the white guys handing them out think there's a good chance you're a criminal based on the colour of your skin.

[/quote]

Is the same type statement I was making. Why is it wrong for me but right for you? Or is it just right when you talk about white people? Or is it just right to talk about rich people? Or those who are not popular at the moment....hey I know...we could talk about fat people...as they seem to be a blanketed group to pick on by all races! So I suppose that would be ok. The fact is...we all use that type of language to discuss different cultures or genders or whatnot....because it is more natural to us...then trying so hard to be fake.

I did not take offense by your words and thought you would extend the same courtesy to me so we could have a frank discussion. BUt I can see that you only want to point fingers. So I will let you have at it...I don't know what it's going to solve. I for one am tired of apologizing for speaking what I see in real life. I am tired of lying. Perhaps if you came over here you would see the same?

John wrote:

tbieter wrote:Obama's encouragement of class conflict (rich vs. poor) may just provoke other class conflicts, perhaps white taxpayers vs. black free-riders exemplified by the dolt in the video.

Or maybe it might be white law-abiding taxpayers vs. the black criminal class who commit serious crimes disproportionate to their numbers.

You do know that when Obama speaks from behind a bulletproof barrier it's to protect him and not the crowd?
When did Obama speak behind a bullet-proof barrier? I don't recall any such instance. Does he have a protective barrier on stage like the pope-mobile?

Can't be easy getting a decent job when the white guys handing them out think there's a good chance you're a criminal based on the colour of your skin.

No, getting a decent job requires that the applicant be qualified to do the job, that he or she possess skills. In Minnesota, less than fifty percent of blacks graduate from public high school despite the fact that the public schools are free. And the dropouts are not likely to pursue job skills elsewhere.

In my opinion, an employer should run a check for criminal convictions on every prospective employee regardless of the applicant's group.

In this video interview, Darren Evanovich states that employers won't take a chance and hire a man with felonies on his record. http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 54113.html Evanovich had a prior conviction for armed robbery.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8083&hilit=samaritan
I know Aaron, a guard at the Ramsey County Workhouse, from the dog park. He knew Evanovich. Aaron said that he was a "rotten little bastard".

I think that it is reasonable and prudent for an employer to decline to hire an applicant who has been convicted of a felony-level crime of violence such as armed robbery. He may just want to protect the employees and customers.

I, a conservative, won't hire such an applicant. I don't object to the liberal employer hiring the guy as long as he gives notice to the public of the employee/criminal's record of conviction.

artisticsolution wrote:

John wrote:
Sorry, I don't remember saying that I had all the answers so maybe you could help me and show me where I did.

You don't see it do you....this statement of yours ....

John wrote: Can't be easy getting a decent job when the white guys handing them out think there's a good chance you're a criminal based on the colour of your skin.

Is the same type statement I was making. Why is it wrong for me but right for you?

My statement is an observation not a solution and it wasn't even directed at your comments anyway so why do you assume I'm making some statement about you? I recognise the point about generalisations and my only intent was to comment that cultural issues often arise from underlying structural issues within society. That's not American society that's any society.

I just get a bit fed up when someone starts a thread about an issue pertinent to America and anyone who suggest American society is less than perfect gets greeted with comments like the ones you made. If you want to discuss issues relating to America and you don't want European's commenting then don't have the discussions here. And if you've got some bone to pick with Arising because of comments he's made about America in the past then take it up with him not me.

tbieter wrote:

John wrote:You do know that when Obama speaks from behind a bulletproof barrier it's to protect him and not the crowd?

When did Obama speak behind a bullet-proof barrier? I don't recall any such instance. Does he have a protective barrier on stage like the pope-mobile?

He made his election victory speech from behind bulletproof glass and he spoke, alongside Bush, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 from behind bulletproof glass as per the two links below. I assume he's done it on other occasions but I'm not keeping count as it was only intended as a joke.

Bulletproof glass shields Obama for victory speech as security is stepped up for President-elect
September 11: US falls silent to mark 10th anniversary of 9/11

tbieter wrote:

John wrote:Can't be easy getting a decent job when the white guys handing them out think there's a good chance you're a criminal based on the colour of your skin.

No, getting a decent job requires that the applicant be qualified to do the job, that he or she possess skills. In Minnesota, less than fifty percent of blacks graduate from public high school despite the fact that the public schools are free. And the dropouts are not likely to pursue job skills elsewhere.

I'm not suggesting the problem lies with employers because they should be entitled to employ the best qualified people for the job. However, if any particular group is doing worse educationally or is committing more crimes then I think it would be wise to examine the reasons and see if anything can be done about it. If we assume it's not genetic, and I doubt anyone is making that case, then it has to be cultural and social. It may be painful examining the origins of cultural and social divides but unless it's done and some action taken I would imagine you'll be stuck with a self-perpetuating cycle.

"I'm not suggesting the problem lies with employers because they should be entitled to employ the best qualified people for the job. However, if any particular group is doing worse educationally or is committing more crimes then I think it would be wise to examine the reasons and see if anything can be done about it. If we assume it's not genetic, and I doubt anyone is making that case, then it has to be cultural and social. It may be painful examining the origins of cultural and social divides but unless it's done and some action taken I would imagine you'll be stuck with a self-perpetuating cycle."

I generally agree, but when white people criticize black people's behaviour their criticism is often met with the charge of being a racist. Thus, they decline to dialogue on the race question. Silence is safer. And resentment grows. And when blacks like Bill Cosby expressed the same criticism he was called an uncle tom and was accused of "blaming the victim".

Sorry John...that did sound snippy. I have not felt well lately...I guess it makes me a little cranky.

J:My statement is an observation not a solution and it wasn't even directed at your comments anyway so why do you assume I'm making some statement about you?

AS: I don't think you were making the statement about me per se...but that generalizations are apart of human behavior and I wanted to discuss the issue of racism from a different point of view, because I don't think calling people racists is working to stop that behavior. Not only is it not working...things are getting worse I believe. I was making an observation too, but my point was to come up with possible solutions to America's problem....without resorting to the old "white American men suck".


J:I just get a bit fed up when someone starts a thread about an issue pertinent to America and anyone who suggest American society is less than perfect gets greeted with comments like the ones you made. If you want to discuss issues relating to America and you don't want European's commenting then don't have the discussions here. And if you've got some bone to pick with Arising because of comments he's made about America in the past then take it up with him not me.

AS: I have no beef with arising or you. I respect what he says. But that does not mean I have to agree with all of it...as I don't expect him to agree with me when he doesn't just because we're friends. But that is neither here nor there as he is not contributing to this thread. It's just that you reminded me of some of the things he says. I don't care if you want to call America less than perfect. I would agree with you. I have spent many years saying the same sort of thing...it's just recently that I have bothered to venture out from behind my liberal veil to take a good hard look at the world around me. Racism is not as prevalent today as it was...however, as far as unspoken resentment...it's worse. American liberals promised that if everyone had opportunities that they would use them to better themselves.. and some have...but then there are many more who don't. Maybe they (everyone who receives college money) aren't capable of it...maybe some kids...white or black...are not intelligent enough for college...like this guy on the video. What the hell good will it do him to go to college...it's apparent he will not understand. He clearly has a learning disability if he could not understand what she was saying. So why should we waste money on sending him to college? Wouldn't it be better to send someone who is capable? So we send him and another may have to go without.

However, there is a flip side, if he is really handicapped and is not capable of learning at a college level...then what is societies responsibility to take care of him? I think instead of call it "college fund" then we need to call it what it really is....disability fund...and then find him a job he is capable of...and then pay that job a salary that is acceptable in order for him to live and have health care and such.

tbieter wrote:"I'm not suggesting the problem lies with employers because they should be entitled to employ the best qualified people for the job. However, if any particular group is doing worse educationally or is committing more crimes then I think it would be wise to examine the reasons and see if anything can be done about it. If we assume it's not genetic, and I doubt anyone is making that case, then it has to be cultural and social. It may be painful examining the origins of cultural and social divides but unless it's done and some action taken I would imagine you'll be stuck with a self-perpetuating cycle."

I generally agree, but when white people criticize black people's behaviour their criticism is often met with the charge of being a racist. Thus, they decline to dialogue on the race question. Silence is safer. And resentment grows. And when blacks like Bill Cosby expressed the same criticism he was called an uncle tom and was accused of "blaming the victim".

I agree Tom...it is a problem. Like when Larry summers was fired for merely mentioning that test result show that men score higher in math than women. Feminist came unglued. I never understood that, being a feminist myself, I would be interested in researching that bit of information further and trying to find out why for a possible solution or even reason.

I just think it's kinda dumb that we can't talk frankly about such things.

artisticsolution wrote:Sorry John...that did sound snippy. I have not felt well lately...I guess it makes me a little cranky.

Don't worry about it, I was probably just being a bit over sensitive and equally cranky back.

artisticsolution wrote:J:My statement is an observation not a solution and it wasn't even directed at your comments anyway so why do you assume I'm making some statement about you?

AS: I don't think you were making the statement about me per se...but that generalizations are apart of human behavior and I wanted to discuss the issue of racism from a different point of view, because I don't think calling people racists is working to stop that behavior.

I agree and I've witnessed the same issue here where people would see what they perceived to be, and usually way, a situation where racism was an institutional problem but instead of helping find a solution they'd yell "RACISTS!" and think they were somehow helping.

artisticsolution wrote:Not only is it not working...things are getting worse I believe. I was making an observation too, but my point was to come up with possible solutions to America's problem....without resorting to the old "white American men suck".

It wasn't meant to be an attack on white men as such but a recognition that white men are still, despite protestations to the contrary, the dominant demographic.

artisticsolution wrote:Racism is not as prevalent today as it was...however, as far as unspoken resentment...it's worse. American liberals promised that if everyone had opportunities that they would use them to better themselves.. and some have...but then there are many more who don't.

I think you've pointed out one of the weaknesses of liberalism, particularly Rawlsian liberalism. Not everyone feels able to participate in what Rawls called "public reason", where ideas are debated in public and plurality decisions made on the basis of what reasonable people could agree on, because not everyone has an equal footing socially or economically and for various institutionalised reasons some people feel excluded. I think many of the same problems that sees disadvantaged black people feel excluded from the system apply equally well to disadvantaged white people as well even if some of the roots of the problems are different.

I've been reading some papers on the French riots in 2005 over the last few days and I read something interesting in a New York Times Article from the time (France Has an Underclass, but Its Roots Are Still Shallow that said:

The despair in these housing projects (called cités here) has been mitigated by better schools than those that serve poor, minority districts in the United States (education is financed nationally in France, rather than through local tax rolls) and by extensive welfare programs.

Now I don't know how true that is about the funding for American schools as I haven't looked into it but if it is true is that not a good example of an institutionalized imbalance that is likely to engender longer term negative effects?

artisticsolution wrote:Wouldn't it be better to send someone who is capable? So we send him and another may have to go without.

I agree there's no point in sending someone to college if they aren't equipped to cope with it but that brings me back to schools (generally, not specifically about individuals like the person in the video)

artisticsolution wrote:However, there is a flip side, if he is really handicapped and is not capable of learning at a college level...then what is societies responsibility to take care of him? I think instead of call it "college fund" then we need to call it what it really is....disability fund...and then find him a job he is capable of...and then pay that job a salary that is acceptable in order for him to live and have health care and such.

No argument from me. I should point out though that I haven't seen the video because I'm posting from work and it's been blocked (apparently our filter thinks it's sex related ).