[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] I am on my phone and data currently is such that I can watch video at the drop of a hat
Can we PLEASE talk about Racism?
- Thread starter Skarekrow
- Start date
These are the people that the conservative right like to call “takers”….how sad that propaganda and not facts prevail in our society.
A home health care worker in Durham, N.C.; a McDonald’s cashier in Chicago; a bank teller in New York; an adjunct professor in Maywood, Ill.
They are all evidence of an improving economy, because they are working and not among the steadily declining ranks of the unemployed.
Yet these same people also are on public assistance – relying on food stamps, Medicaid or other stretches of the safety net to help cover basic expenses when their paychecks come up short.
And they are not alone.
Nearly three-quarters of the people helped by programs geared to the poor are members of a family headed by a worker, according to a new study by the Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California.
As a result, taxpayers are providing not only support to the poor but also, in effect, a huge subsidy for employers of low-wage workers, from giants like McDonald’s and Walmart to mom-and-pop businesses.
“This is a hidden cost of low-wage work,” said Ken Jacobs, chairman of the Berkeley center and a co-author of the report, which is scheduled for release on Monday.
Working families were the biggest beneficiaries of federal programs aimed at the poor in all but six states, a recent study finds.
Working families’ share of federal safety net programs Annual average, 2009 to 2011
Note: The study included Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, the earned-income tax credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Source: U.C. Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
By The New York Times
Taxpayers pick up the difference, he said, between what employers pay and what is required to cover what most Americans consider essential living costs.
The report estimates that state and federal governments spend more than $150 billion a year on four key antipoverty programs used by working families: Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, food stamps and the earned-income tax credit, which is specifically aimed at working families.
This disparity has helped propel the movement to raise the minimum wage and prompted efforts in a handful of states to recover public funds from employers of low-wage workers.
In Connecticut, for example, a legislative proposal calls for large employers to pay a fee to the state for each worker who earns less than $15 an hour.
In 2016, California will start publishing the names of employers that have more than 100 employees receiving Medicaid, and how much these companies cost the state in public assistance.
“The low-wage business model practiced by many of the largest and most profitable employers in the country not only leaves many working families unable to afford the basics, but also imposes significant costs on the public as a whole,” Sarah Leberstein, a senior staff lawyer with the National Employment Law Project, testified recently before Connecticut lawmakers.
Other states, as well as several cities, including Washington, D.C., have moved to raise the minimum wage above $10, while local activists in fast food, retailing, home care, airport services and other low-wage industries have organized protests to demand $15 an hour.
Organizers of the Fight for 15 movement are planning a nationwide wave of protests and strikes for this Wednesday – April 15.
Adriana Alvarez, a cashier at a McDonald’s in Chicago, is among the people pushing for higher wages.
After five years with the fast-food giant, Ms. Alvarez, 22, earns $10.50 an hour, well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25.
Still, she depends on food stamps, Medicaid and a child-care subsidy to help get through the week.
“He eats a lot,” Ms. Alvarez said of her 3-year-old son, Manny, with a laugh. He also drinks a lot of milk, she said – “a half-gallon every two days” – and because he is lactose intolerant, he requires a more expensive brand, using up most of her $80 allotment of food stamps.
Adriana Alvarez, earns $10.50 an hour as a cashier at a Chicago-area McDonald’s. She depends on Medicaid, a child-care subsidy and food stamps to help care for her 3-year-old son Manny.
Most everyone else she works with – including many 10-year-plus veterans of the franchise – receives food stamps, said Ms. Alvarez, who started working at McDonald’s full time when she was in high school.
She depends on Medicaid for her family’s health care, and receives a subsidy for the day care center where she drops off Manny on her way to work.
With the recovery now well into its sixth year, stagnant wages have increasingly become the central economic issue and a political flash point.
A report issued last week by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland said that labor’s share of overall income had fallen to record lows in recent years while profits have soared.
A handful of powerhouse companies have cited a tightening labor market as the reason behind recent wage increases, including McDonald’s, which recently announced a $1 bump over the local legal minimum for its corporate employees. (The announcement does not apply to the vast majority of McDonald’s employees, who work in franchises.)
Several economists, including the Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz, who has written extensively on inequality, credited political rather than competitive pressures for the decision by some larger fast-food and retail employers to raise wages.
William E. Spriggs, chief economist at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said the McDonald’s announcement was “a response to worker campaigns to increase the minimum wage and what is going on in legislatures on the state and local levels.”
PLAY VIDEO|4:30
Labor’s $15 Wage Strategy
Organizers behind fast-food workers’ calls for a $15 hourly wage have been pushing a bigger national strategy. They hope to galvanize low-wage workers under the banner of civil rights.
Denise Rush, a home health care worker in Durham, N.C., often works seven days a week, returning home near midnight after her two teenagers have already gone to bed.
At $9.50 an hour, her biweekly paycheck totals just over $700, or the cost of her monthly rent.
There is little left for other expenses.
“It’s a crazy dilemma,” she said. “Do I pay the whole bill or do I gas up the car to go to work?”
Despite receiving coverage for her children’s health care from Medicaid as well as about $300 a month in food stamps, Ms. Rush, 41, is still struggling. “We’re talking about basic needs,” she said, including such staples of modern life as a cellphone to keep in touch with work and her children and a home Internet connection to allow her children to do their homework.
Her paycheck also fails to pay for the uniforms and fees for the lacrosse, basketball and soccer teams that Ms. Rush says she believes are essential to keep her son and daughter occupied and out of trouble while she is working.
Fortunately, she said, the school has helped pick up that tab.
About 48 percent of home health care workers are on public assistance, the Berkeley researchers found.
So are 46 percent of child care workers and 52 percent of fast-food workers.
Even some of the nation’s best-educated workers have turned to taxpayers for support; a quarter of the families of part-time college faculty members are on public assistance, the Berkeley researchers found.
“I’m very proud of my doctorate, it was well-earned, but in terms of the work force, it’s a penalty,” said Wanda Brewer, who lives in Maywood, a Chicago suburb, and teaches at DeVry and Concordia colleges.
She is paid $2,700 for each 15-week course she teaches.
She and her 4-year-old daughter are both on Medicaid; they also receive $390 a month in food stamps and a child care subsidy.
She has applied for other jobs at chains like Walmart, Home Depot and Menard’s, but says she can’t even get a call back because such employers consider her overqualified.
“When I apply for anything outside education, they laugh at me,” Ms. Brewer said. “The term professor immediately commands respect. The assumption is you’re making a fair wage, a living wage, but that is not necessarily so.”
Correction: April 14, 2015
An article on Monday about the hidden costs of low wages misstated the name of the Chicago suburb where Wanda Brewer, a part-time college teacher who receives Medicaid and food stamps, lives. It is Maywood – not Mayfield, which is a township.
Working, but Needing Public Assistance Anyway
Denise Rush, a home health-care worker in Durham, N.C., often works seven days a week, but still relies on food stamps and Medicaid for her children.
Denise Rush, a home health-care worker in Durham, N.C., often works seven days a week, but still relies on food stamps and Medicaid for her children.
A home health care worker in Durham, N.C.; a McDonald’s cashier in Chicago; a bank teller in New York; an adjunct professor in Maywood, Ill.
They are all evidence of an improving economy, because they are working and not among the steadily declining ranks of the unemployed.
Yet these same people also are on public assistance – relying on food stamps, Medicaid or other stretches of the safety net to help cover basic expenses when their paychecks come up short.
And they are not alone.
Nearly three-quarters of the people helped by programs geared to the poor are members of a family headed by a worker, according to a new study by the Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California.
As a result, taxpayers are providing not only support to the poor but also, in effect, a huge subsidy for employers of low-wage workers, from giants like McDonald’s and Walmart to mom-and-pop businesses.
“This is a hidden cost of low-wage work,” said Ken Jacobs, chairman of the Berkeley center and a co-author of the report, which is scheduled for release on Monday.
Working families were the biggest beneficiaries of federal programs aimed at the poor in all but six states, a recent study finds.
Working families’ share of federal safety net programs Annual average, 2009 to 2011
Note: The study included Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, the earned-income tax credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Source: U.C. Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
By The New York Times
The report estimates that state and federal governments spend more than $150 billion a year on four key antipoverty programs used by working families: Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, food stamps and the earned-income tax credit, which is specifically aimed at working families.
This disparity has helped propel the movement to raise the minimum wage and prompted efforts in a handful of states to recover public funds from employers of low-wage workers.
In Connecticut, for example, a legislative proposal calls for large employers to pay a fee to the state for each worker who earns less than $15 an hour.
In 2016, California will start publishing the names of employers that have more than 100 employees receiving Medicaid, and how much these companies cost the state in public assistance.
“The low-wage business model practiced by many of the largest and most profitable employers in the country not only leaves many working families unable to afford the basics, but also imposes significant costs on the public as a whole,” Sarah Leberstein, a senior staff lawyer with the National Employment Law Project, testified recently before Connecticut lawmakers.
Other states, as well as several cities, including Washington, D.C., have moved to raise the minimum wage above $10, while local activists in fast food, retailing, home care, airport services and other low-wage industries have organized protests to demand $15 an hour.
Organizers of the Fight for 15 movement are planning a nationwide wave of protests and strikes for this Wednesday – April 15.
Adriana Alvarez, a cashier at a McDonald’s in Chicago, is among the people pushing for higher wages.
After five years with the fast-food giant, Ms. Alvarez, 22, earns $10.50 an hour, well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25.
Still, she depends on food stamps, Medicaid and a child-care subsidy to help get through the week.
“He eats a lot,” Ms. Alvarez said of her 3-year-old son, Manny, with a laugh. He also drinks a lot of milk, she said – “a half-gallon every two days” – and because he is lactose intolerant, he requires a more expensive brand, using up most of her $80 allotment of food stamps.
Adriana Alvarez, earns $10.50 an hour as a cashier at a Chicago-area McDonald’s. She depends on Medicaid, a child-care subsidy and food stamps to help care for her 3-year-old son Manny.
She depends on Medicaid for her family’s health care, and receives a subsidy for the day care center where she drops off Manny on her way to work.
With the recovery now well into its sixth year, stagnant wages have increasingly become the central economic issue and a political flash point.
A report issued last week by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland said that labor’s share of overall income had fallen to record lows in recent years while profits have soared.
A handful of powerhouse companies have cited a tightening labor market as the reason behind recent wage increases, including McDonald’s, which recently announced a $1 bump over the local legal minimum for its corporate employees. (The announcement does not apply to the vast majority of McDonald’s employees, who work in franchises.)
Several economists, including the Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz, who has written extensively on inequality, credited political rather than competitive pressures for the decision by some larger fast-food and retail employers to raise wages.
William E. Spriggs, chief economist at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said the McDonald’s announcement was “a response to worker campaigns to increase the minimum wage and what is going on in legislatures on the state and local levels.”
Labor’s $15 Wage Strategy
Organizers behind fast-food workers’ calls for a $15 hourly wage have been pushing a bigger national strategy. They hope to galvanize low-wage workers under the banner of civil rights.
Denise Rush, a home health care worker in Durham, N.C., often works seven days a week, returning home near midnight after her two teenagers have already gone to bed.
At $9.50 an hour, her biweekly paycheck totals just over $700, or the cost of her monthly rent.
There is little left for other expenses.
“It’s a crazy dilemma,” she said. “Do I pay the whole bill or do I gas up the car to go to work?”
Despite receiving coverage for her children’s health care from Medicaid as well as about $300 a month in food stamps, Ms. Rush, 41, is still struggling. “We’re talking about basic needs,” she said, including such staples of modern life as a cellphone to keep in touch with work and her children and a home Internet connection to allow her children to do their homework.
Her paycheck also fails to pay for the uniforms and fees for the lacrosse, basketball and soccer teams that Ms. Rush says she believes are essential to keep her son and daughter occupied and out of trouble while she is working.
Fortunately, she said, the school has helped pick up that tab.
About 48 percent of home health care workers are on public assistance, the Berkeley researchers found.
So are 46 percent of child care workers and 52 percent of fast-food workers.
Even some of the nation’s best-educated workers have turned to taxpayers for support; a quarter of the families of part-time college faculty members are on public assistance, the Berkeley researchers found.
“I’m very proud of my doctorate, it was well-earned, but in terms of the work force, it’s a penalty,” said Wanda Brewer, who lives in Maywood, a Chicago suburb, and teaches at DeVry and Concordia colleges.
She is paid $2,700 for each 15-week course she teaches.
She and her 4-year-old daughter are both on Medicaid; they also receive $390 a month in food stamps and a child care subsidy.
She has applied for other jobs at chains like Walmart, Home Depot and Menard’s, but says she can’t even get a call back because such employers consider her overqualified.
“When I apply for anything outside education, they laugh at me,” Ms. Brewer said. “The term professor immediately commands respect. The assumption is you’re making a fair wage, a living wage, but that is not necessarily so.”
Correction: April 14, 2015
An article on Monday about the hidden costs of low wages misstated the name of the Chicago suburb where Wanda Brewer, a part-time college teacher who receives Medicaid and food stamps, lives. It is Maywood – not Mayfield, which is a township.
Recent Supreme Court Ruling Confirms Republicans are Trying to Disenfranchise African-Americans
Back in 2013, the Supreme Court proved how out of touch it can be when it issued a ruling striking down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act that required several states (mostly in the South) with a history of racism and discrimination to get federal approval before changing election laws.
Obviously these laws were put in place due to the continued attempts by many of these states to disenfranchise African-American voters.
Well, in a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the Supreme Court dissolved that requirement, opening the door for Republican legislatures all across this country to swiftly begin changing their voting laws to, once again, disenfranchise African-American voters.
To be fair, many of these new voter ID laws seek to disenfranchise almost any demographic that tends to vote for Democrats, not just African-Americans — though they’re clearly a primary target.
At that time, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote: “Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
Basically, because he felt “times have changed,” he felt the Voting Rights Act in its current form was antiquated and called upon Congress to fix it for a more modern society.
It was a classic case of trying to fix something that wasn’t broken — or at least that’s the excuse the conservatives on the Supreme Court were using.
Naturally, two years later Congress hasn’t attempted to do a single thing to update the Voting Rights Act, mainly because Republicans don’t want to “fix it” since they like having the ability to rig elections. (Not that anyone with even a shred of common sense expected Republicans in Congress to actually “fix” the Voting Rights Act in the first place.)
Well, in a recent ruling, the very same Supreme Court basically contradicted itself when it ordered a review of North Carolina’s recent redistricting, more or less admitting that Republicans in that state unlawfully gerrymandered congressional districts to weaken the influence of African-American voters.
This decision follows a similar ruling where the Supreme Court threw out a lower court’s decision that upheld Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map, with the highest court in our land stopping just short of calling the state’s redistricting “unconstitutional.”
So, in the court’s 2013 ruling they claimed that “times have changed,” therefore requiring federal approval before some of these states could change their voting laws needed “updating” by Congress - yet here they’ve ruled two separate times that two states with a history of racism, segregation and discrimination unlawfully redrew congressional districts to weaken the African-American influence in those states.
In other words, times really haven’t changed.
Many of these states are still doing just about everything they can to disenfranchise African-Americans when it comes to their representation in our government and their voting rights in general.
Because studies show that the largest demographic that these new voter ID laws target is African-American voters.
But with these recent rulings by the Supreme Court basically admitting that Republicans in North Carolina and Alabama intentionally redrew congressional districts to disenfranchise African-Americans, they essentially contradicted their 2013 ruling on the Voting Rights Act because these states continue to show that even more than 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed, conservatives are still doing whatever they can to strip away the voting rights of African-Americans and any group that might vote against them.
Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...g-confirms-republicans-trying-disenfranchise/
Back in 2013, the Supreme Court proved how out of touch it can be when it issued a ruling striking down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act that required several states (mostly in the South) with a history of racism and discrimination to get federal approval before changing election laws.
Obviously these laws were put in place due to the continued attempts by many of these states to disenfranchise African-American voters.
Well, in a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the Supreme Court dissolved that requirement, opening the door for Republican legislatures all across this country to swiftly begin changing their voting laws to, once again, disenfranchise African-American voters.
To be fair, many of these new voter ID laws seek to disenfranchise almost any demographic that tends to vote for Democrats, not just African-Americans — though they’re clearly a primary target.
At that time, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote: “Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
Basically, because he felt “times have changed,” he felt the Voting Rights Act in its current form was antiquated and called upon Congress to fix it for a more modern society.
It was a classic case of trying to fix something that wasn’t broken — or at least that’s the excuse the conservatives on the Supreme Court were using.
Naturally, two years later Congress hasn’t attempted to do a single thing to update the Voting Rights Act, mainly because Republicans don’t want to “fix it” since they like having the ability to rig elections. (Not that anyone with even a shred of common sense expected Republicans in Congress to actually “fix” the Voting Rights Act in the first place.)
Well, in a recent ruling, the very same Supreme Court basically contradicted itself when it ordered a review of North Carolina’s recent redistricting, more or less admitting that Republicans in that state unlawfully gerrymandered congressional districts to weaken the influence of African-American voters.
This decision follows a similar ruling where the Supreme Court threw out a lower court’s decision that upheld Alabama’s Republican-drawn congressional map, with the highest court in our land stopping just short of calling the state’s redistricting “unconstitutional.”
So, in the court’s 2013 ruling they claimed that “times have changed,” therefore requiring federal approval before some of these states could change their voting laws needed “updating” by Congress - yet here they’ve ruled two separate times that two states with a history of racism, segregation and discrimination unlawfully redrew congressional districts to weaken the African-American influence in those states.
In other words, times really haven’t changed.
Many of these states are still doing just about everything they can to disenfranchise African-Americans when it comes to their representation in our government and their voting rights in general.
Because studies show that the largest demographic that these new voter ID laws target is African-American voters.
But with these recent rulings by the Supreme Court basically admitting that Republicans in North Carolina and Alabama intentionally redrew congressional districts to disenfranchise African-Americans, they essentially contradicted their 2013 ruling on the Voting Rights Act because these states continue to show that even more than 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed, conservatives are still doing whatever they can to strip away the voting rights of African-Americans and any group that might vote against them.
Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...g-confirms-republicans-trying-disenfranchise/
I find this extremely encouraging! Truth is now surfacing and being supported. Although I still believe most of the "race" issues are promulgated by those who want to maintain control and they use it to keep people divided and conquered - it's time the truth came out about the police organizations in this country. This is one of the dark places needing the light.
"...The death of Freddie Gray was a homicide, and six Baltimore police officers now face criminal charges that include second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, Baltimore chief prosecutor Marilyn J. Mosby says..."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...peculation-on-his-death-and-peaceful-protests
"...The death of Freddie Gray was a homicide, and six Baltimore police officers now face criminal charges that include second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, Baltimore chief prosecutor Marilyn J. Mosby says..."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...peculation-on-his-death-and-peaceful-protests
A friend who lives in another country just recently asked me, "Why must everything turn into an issue of race in the US?" Why indeed. I would like to say that we are more socially progressive than that. I would like to say that we see very little of racism or bigotry in general. But I'd be lying if I said such. The US is still extremely racist. A sad truth, but the truth nevertheless.
It's something hidden, like a dirty little secret that people only discuss in hushed whispers. We need to talk about racism. I admire those with the courage to speak frankly about it. It's one step closer to making a change.
I love that this thread exists.
It's something hidden, like a dirty little secret that people only discuss in hushed whispers. We need to talk about racism. I admire those with the courage to speak frankly about it. It's one step closer to making a change.
I love that this thread exists.
Couldn't have put it better myself! I've always been that person who was neutral and got along with everybody, but I still find it confusing how people will confide in me about how they feel about a certain race of people. Particularly mine:"Black people are bla, bla, bla..." Then in another breath, "Why do black people bla,bla,bla?"
It's fucking mind-boggling! I'm moving to Canada!
Saying the US is racist is like saying blacks are criminals. It doesn't matter if the statistics are supportive to the fact that blacks more often end up in jail than whites. Calling all blacks criminals is a generalization that can lead to profiling, discriminating and even hating certain groups. Welcome to cognitive dissonance. You are all discriminators and haters. I find it odd that society thinks race/color of skin and sex orientation are the only ways a person can discriminate in. Hate the rich lately? 'The 1% are all criminals.' Hate politicians lately? Give out any lawyer jokes at all? 'all liars' Think this people from this country are all bad drivers?
I don't care about racism. Discrimination of any kind and hate thereof is all the same and leads to the same results. The only way to stop it is to stop making judgments and to give every person a chance to draw you a picture of who they are and not base it on your own history of the groups they might associate with. 'Oh, you are a Christian? ... you must be a judgmental self righteous bigot who thinks women are second rate'. Go ahead and hate Americans and refer to them as bigots. I got news for you. You just stepped into the bigot boat being towed by the hypocrisy craft.
I don't care about racism. Discrimination of any kind and hate thereof is all the same and leads to the same results. The only way to stop it is to stop making judgments and to give every person a chance to draw you a picture of who they are and not base it on your own history of the groups they might associate with. 'Oh, you are a Christian? ... you must be a judgmental self righteous bigot who thinks women are second rate'. Go ahead and hate Americans and refer to them as bigots. I got news for you. You just stepped into the bigot boat being towed by the hypocrisy craft.
Misadventure
butt fros and asian purrs
One of the only things you have posted here that Istrongly disagree with. What are you basing your assessment that the US is still EXTREMELY racist on?
Or are you like the vast majority basing your conclusion on being told how racist it is by news stations or people like Al Sharpton? How many actual instances of rasicism have you seen with your own eyes?
It’s isn’t like saying all backs are criminals.
I never implied that everyone in the US is racist…I think you didn’t read the thread like someone else mentioned.
Yes, we are all hypocritical in one way or another…so fucking what? We are all human. Should I just not give a shit about anything then?
Fuck that.
Some things have improved like this -
While certain other things have gotten worse.
But I guess I can’t trust my sources right…it’s a big conspiracy by the Obama admin to divide America….
Guess what? It’s always been divided and this thread is designed to help bridge that gap.
So if you don’t believe it exists, or is rampant even in certain parts of this country, then go start a thread for yourself and you can talk about that.
Sorry then, but my thoughts about it still stand.
Yes, we are all hypocritical, and apathetic in ways, and self-centered.
But we all also the opposite of all those things at times too…it’s the struggle we all fight within ourselves when we are deciding and constantly reassessing who “we” are as a person and what kind of world we wish to see prosper.
I agree. I only think that obsessive focus on race, sex orientation, and other lawfully protected categories blinds us to the billions of other ways we might discriminate making a persons personal growth very limited. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
******
Is comparing blacks using drugs to whites and blacks committing drug crimes even accurate? Are we assuming that all individuals who abuse drugs are drug traffickers/distributers and visa versa?
It is common knowledge that poorer people are more likely to commit crimes in desperation to survive. Blacks a generally poorer. Can we be certain this doesn't have anything to do with it?
I’m sure that has everything to do with it, along with all the other factors.
What really pisses me off though is that we have statistics showing they get fucked with more than whites, even thought the whites when searched turned up drugs more often.
But then, then get stricter charges, and longer sentences…
That is an injustice, and a racial injustice…and there are many reasons for it, but it’s one that I think can be fixed as some outdated generational ideals people had die out.
For one, I despise Al Sharpton and his ilk, and two, I'm intelligent enough to search for the real news rather than be satisfied with the drivel that is spoon-fed to the placated majority of the country. I form my own opinions, they are not handed to me. Back to the matter at hand.
The mistake you made is thinking that perhaps I am too naive about racism. I do think you are entitles to your opinion, however, I am entitled to mine as well. I do admit that my opinion is rather biased, because I have lived it, not just "witnessed" it.
I see it all the time. But since that would be hearsay, what's the point of detailing it? Furthermore, I have lived it. My parents are immigrants to this country. They came with nothing but a passport in their pockets. Even though they were highly educated in their home countries, they were treated like dirt here. My father with an engineering and science degree, my mother with a degree in business and human services; both ended up working minimum wage jobs. They learned English, became tax-paying citizens of the US, and were still treated like society had a disdain for them. There were more than 5 times growing up we would have "Go home you fucking spic" or something equally choice spray-painted on our car. We would have our windows busted out in the middle of the night. Even in the grocery store people would "comment" that they "are the ones buying that food. Our taxes pay for the welfare you brown people are on"..when not once, not once did my parents get welfare benefits and instead paid into them like every other tax paying citizen. It has changed since I was a kid, but I'm only 35, it hasn't changed that much. And also, please, racism involves every race, not just ,minorities. I am not saying America is white against black at all. I see more times than not, black vs black, latino vs black, latino vs white, and every other combination there is. I am NOT saying it's white against the world. I AM saying that it is an issue in this world, and one we have to deal with. Sooner or later America is going to bend over backwards trying to appease everybody in this all to politically correct world.
My father is a retired Marine, my brother just died a Marine in service to his country. Make no mistake about my patriotism. I love this country and the opportunities that America, and only America, gave me.
You are right, and I happen to agree with some of the things you've said. I only discussed racism because that's exactly what this thread is about. If you want to get into all the other forms of bigotry, by all means, lets talk about it.
For everything else, refer to my post above.
That is an interesting story. Guessing what I was thinking for my asking the questions I did is a mistake on your end.
Racism is not only an American thing and it is this that is wearing on me. You are correct when you say its not a white against the rest of the world thing as so many getting face time in the news today would love to have everyone believe. You were confronted directly with it and for that I would like to apologize for the human race in general.
