Michael Wolraich's picture

    Racism in Paradise

    By Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:41pm | Social Justice

    Yesterday,  I received an email from Adam Falk, president of Williams College, a liberal arts college in western Massachusetts. Mr. Falk had written to inform me--and every other alumnus on the mailing list--about an incident of racist hate speech on campus. Someone had scrawled, "All N****** Must Die," on a dormitory wall.

    Mr. Falk assured us that the college was taking appropriate steps. It had canceled classes for the day and convened a school-wide assembly on the main lawn. The Counseling Center, Chaplains' Office, Dean's Office, and Multicultural Center had all mobilized to help students cope with the trauma. And of course, the administration had notified the police of the "hate crime." In case the police didn't get the memo, a group of students also marched on the police station to press for an investigation.

    The graffiti itself is heinous, and the perpetrator should certainly be prosecuted for vandalism and harassment. If a student, he (or she) should be expelled. But there is a difference, apparently lost on the Williams community, between a heinous message and a heinous crime.

    Outside the ivy-trimmed walls of exclusive liberal arts colleges, the world does not grind to a halt every time a racist slur sears a public structure. The authorities erase such messages and on rare occasions pursue the perpetrators. The rest of us carry on, recognizing that there are crazy people who violate boundaries and that not every burst of bigotry represents a mortal threat to racial equality.

    But colleges like Williams are unusual places. Elite academic communities in the United States strive endlessly to perfect their green-grass-red-brick-white-trim little worlds. This thirst for perfection is shared not only by the ranking-obsessed campus recruiters but also by professors and students, who try to fashion their pretty corners of America into glowing beacons of social enlightenment. Thus, the smear of racism in a pristine environment like Williams College presents an even nastier outrage than it would in the dirty world outside--like a brown smudge on a white wedding dress.

    There is something more. It can be awfully frustrating to battle injustice in a perfect world. Other than a few obnoxious souls who somehow resist the freshman year acculturation process, liberal arts campuses offer few enough villains to fight, reform, or despise. Idealistic young Williams students desperately want to make the world a better place, but their isolated world has already been nearly perfected by generations past. In such a world, the opportunity to react with unsurpassed zeal to real-life racism holds a strange allure.

    Indeed, it can be so seductive that the racism is not always real-life.

    When I attended Williams in 1993, the campus also suffered from a hate speech incident. Someone wrote racist letters and pinned them to the door of the Black Student Union. The campus exploded with outrage comparable to the recent incident. We deplored, denounced, and reviled with great fervor.

    In that case, they eventually caught the perpetrator. He turned out to be an African-American student who had concocted the racist messages to provoke a reaction. He got it, along with a suspension.

    This time around, the author of the racist threat on the dorm wall may be a genuine bigot, but there is no doubt that he too is trying to provoke a reaction. And the Williams College community is enthusiastically complying, with many of the most righteous loving every minute of it.

    Topics: 
    Social Justice

    Comments

     Idealistic young Williams students desperately want to make the world a better place, but their isolated world has already been nearly perfected by generations past. 

    Too bad so many of these idealistic young Williams (and other Ivy League) students turn to media professions as an outlet for the frustrations of their perfect world.  

    Thanks for a good read.  I laughed out loud at your description of the various reactions to the graffiti.


    by EmmaZahn on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:00pm

    Ha. I think that many more Williams students become i-bankers and consultants than writers, though I do admire journalist Bethany McClean, two years ahead of me, who broke the Enron story.

    PS My description of the campus's reaction was taken nearly verbatim from the the president's letter.

    PPS Here's another alum who offers a different take than me: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracey-e-vitchers/violent-hate-speech-inci...


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:23pm

    All bankst**s and consult***s must die!


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 2:37pm

    A death threat is a death threat. If that was written on the wall in an office or a high school... similar actions would take place. No, you cannot liken the college to a random alley way on the street and dismiss the gravity of a death threat in a particular setting. You might realize this if you were one of the said 'n*ggers' in question. I cannot stress enough that this was not graffiti, it is a death threat. 


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 1:50am

    The Graffiti is certainly graphic.

    And I can see how the collective consciousness of the college might say:

    NOT ON OUR WATCH!

    This message is so clear, I understand but...

    Just look at rush lately:

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201111110010

    To say nothing of his Barack the Magic Negro or a hundred other slams against race and gender. Sometimes rush likes to put gender and race together as he continually slams the first lady.

    This is O'Reilly in 2006 but he recently said the same thing the other day in praising Buchanan's newest racist tome (I am too lazy to find that link):

    On his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly on the edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, interviewed guest Charles Barron (pictured right), a New York City councilman, revealing the hidden agenda behind the current immigration debate. O'Reilly states: "The bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out White majority and to have the browning of America."

    http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2267

    And Arpaio not only spews out his filth, he acts on his racist thoughts:

    Arpaio's immigration enforcement has drawn national attention. He has ordered raids in predominately Latino neighborhoods, sweeping up undocumented immigrants for traffic violations and other offenses. He erected tents to house inmates, which have sometimes hit 145 degrees, brought back chain gangs, forced inmates to eat green bologna and to wear pink underwear and flip-flops. He is under investigation by a federal grand jury for abuse of power allegations. 

    harpaio

    And every goddamn time these types of statements and actions are quoted to some right wing 'conservative' who will respond:

    Oh rush is not a racist

    Oh O'reilly is not a racist

    Oh Arpaio is not a racist or a torturer

    Which is worse?

    Some scribbler who is discovering the value of shock journalism on a bathroom door or the spewers of filth who star on what is now the real MSM?

    And what about the 'moderates' who then respond:

    Oh I know x and x is no racist.

    the end


    by Richard Day on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:19pm

    Put yourself in the Sheriffs shoes. 

    First off, realize you have a very limited budget.  

    The sheriff has a tall task to perform. Enforce the law and fight the Supervisors, who control his budget, who wants him to do more with less.  

    You write “he raids predominately Latino neighborhoods”

    Well YEAH,....... where would you look for illegal Latinos?  In Chinatown?  

    You write “He erected tents to house inmates”.

    Where else would you put them if the supervisors don’t want to provide brick and mortar buildings?

    No money from the Maricopa Board of Supervisors for drug rehab, ....no budget for much of anything that doesn’t pad their pockets.

    Imagine your one of the thousands of meth users (Tweakers) who lives on the streets of Maricopa county; preying on others to support your habit. stealing 1000's of dollars of copper from behind commercial buildings, breaking and entering private homes to find something to pawn.

    Imagine the tweakers if they thought the Sheriff has a fine building downtown, with air conditioning with meals;

    Alright!!   No more dumpster diving,  in hot weather looking for discarded green sandwiches.

    All you have to do, Mr. Tweaker, is get busted for a misdemeanor and you get to stay at the sheriffs Holiday Inn, all summer?  

    Air conditioning, meals and a shower; ...sure beats living on the street, stealing copper and dumpster diving.    

    But living in a tent,  hmmm ……. some might reconsider breaking the law? Crime doesn’t reward you now, does it?

    The stories of green bologna is over exaggerated, they are dyed green, because some meat has the green tint AS IT NEARS expiration.

    The pink underwear is a result of mixing the  white underwear with the red shirts.

    How about you Richard you want to buy them all new clothes?

    Maybe we could take some of the paltry sum of money, allocated  for mental health care and buy them something other than pink?  

    Imagine you’re that same Tweaker and the sheriff has prime rib every night.

    No doubt about it,  in my mind if I was living on the street; it’s hot in Phoenix, the sheriff provides air conditioning and prime rib; …………

    Where do I sign up, to live at the Ritz, on the taxpayer dime.

     No doubt about it, Crime would pay better?


    by Resistance on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:02pm

    I have done several blogs on this fascist corporate double triple dipping government employee for some time.

    Arpaio represents every single thing I hate about this Country and how it works.

    There is no fairness, there is no equity, there is no justice in Arpaio's county and he is one of the biggest pricks I have ever investigated in my life.

    And I shall continue to battle his existence.

    And I shall continue to battle his philosophy.

    And I shall continue to battle his politics.

    And I shall continue to battle his felonies.

    And I shall never quit.

    EVER!

    The man is a traitor to every single belief system I can imagine. He certainly is an enemy to the Constitution, to the American Way of Life, and to my sacred beliefs.

    Arpaio is a pig!


    by Richard Day on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:18pm

    Wow, it's as if we haven't all been watching The Real Tweaker Copper Thieves of Maricopa County on Bravo.

    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:39pm

    I believed I presented one side of the problem in Maricopa County.

    There is not enough revenue, to meet the demands  to keep the people of Maricopa County safe, from those who do not respect life nor property.

    What did either of you offer as a solution? No solutions? Just attack the person sworn to defend the LAWFUL citizens?  

    Am I supposed to feel safer, will I be safer, if I remove the non - coddler sheriff?

    Do the Crime...... Do the time..... thats what I was taught in the schools.

    What..... did you think;  you were exempt?  

    If thats not simple enough; for those lacking in the knowledge of civil responsibility; to think before you act; ...... The time will not be spent at the Country club, so don't do the crime.  

    While on Earth you will answer to the superior authority, when you leave, God can deal with you.

    You will not like the living arrangements and society would hope, that in the time you spend at the jail; you'll reflect upon your future course.

    Don't pick a life of crime. You will not be coddled,  no ones going to tuck you in and read you bedtime stories.  

    PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE .......DONT DO THE CRIME.

    ps  The real tweaker copper thieves of Maricopa County, better not even think about rustling.   


    by Resistance on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:47pm

    Do the Crime...... Do the time..... thats what I was taught in the schools.

    Here's one source of revenue: sue those schools for teaching over-simplified modes of thinking!

    Here's another: rather than arresting undocumented immigrants (whose crimes are motivated mainly by wanting to feed their families), institute stiff fines on those who hire them (whose crimes are motivated primarily by greed). Not only do you no longer have to house and feed inmates, but you also get a new source of income. Fewer costs + more revenue = WIN!

    It's a real shame when the 1% can convince the 99% to turn on each other.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 8:09pm

    Oversimplified?

    Direct and to the point, in my opinion

    Do the crime, get a prize?  Don't worry nothing will happen?

    rather than arresting undocumented immigrants (whose crimes are motivated mainly by wanting to feed their families

    Wow, just open all the jail house gates tomorrow, , the criminal only has to claim they were motivated mainly by wanting to feed their families.

    What about US legal citizens, we get up every morning because were motivated mainly by wanting to feed their our families.

    Only to find, someone sneaked  across the border, someone who doesn't care that you have a family to feed. ( If they did think, it was a fleeting thought)

    An illegal entry;  illegal because WE THE PEOPLE as a nation at the turn of the century 100 years ago,  through our elected officials, stated ; we wanted controls on the amount of immigrant labor, that would be allowed into this country, so that it would not be a burden on AMERICAN WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES 

    Americans especially UNION WORKERS  fought for and demanded that the Department of  Immigrations and Customs do their job. The reason: The industrialists wanted to break the Unions and in order to do that, they needed to bring in immigrant replacement workers.

    For sure one could expect the same old cry then, as now "the immigrant worker wants to feed their families"

    Well VA;  so do American workers want to feed theirs. 

    Wonder why 20 million undocumented workers were able to sneak across?

    Could it be because; The government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations  wanted to circumvent the Union pressured, immigration laws, to further break up the Unions, just as they tried to do at the turn off the century. 

    Giving the illegal immigrants amnesty, is what the corporations want.

    Corporations know, it'll drive down wages. Do you?

    Is that really what you want, because I don't  and I am not alone.

    Middle class America is under attack, and the pawn in this battle, is the illegal immigrant. We should lose because of the pawn?  

    Remove the pawns, so we can get at the King (Corporate power) hiding behind the pawns  .......

    Checkmate, our side wins.

    What side are you on?  


    by Resistance on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:18pm

    Sure, remove the pawns! Then knock out the knights, they move crooked anyway, the rooks need to go, they just stand there, fuck the bishops and queens, too. Amirite?

    Sounds good, I suppose, until the only ones left standing are a couple of useless kings.


    by bwakfat on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:26am

    Here's a tip on how to avoid over-simplification: read the whole sentence rather than just half of a sentence.

    You'll note in that sentence you quote, I gave a solution to the problem you're fretting about. Maybe you sympathize too much with the 1% and not with the 99% to like my solution, but my solution helps the union workers (by disincentivizing corporations from hiring undocumented workers) without putting an undue burden on our criminal justice system or the undocumented workers. The solution you seem to love so much doesn't seem to be working, does it? Maybe that's OK with you because at least we get to see the people that the 1% want us to imagine are our enemies get humiliated. It's not OK with me. I want to actually help the 99%, including the union workers.

    Which side are you on, the 1% or the 99%?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:42am

    Of course you ignored the reason the American Worker had  pressured Congress to create a Department of Immigration and Customs.

    The illegals are uninvited guests.

    ----------------------------------------

    A lesson I learned along time ago.

    When you go to another mans table (American worker) to eat; don't take the chair at the head of the table. That chair is reserved for a special person (American Worker)

    If you do and you are asked to take another seat , YOU will be humiliated.

    Humiliation for the uninvited guest, whose caught taking the food from the table, set for our children. 

    -------------------------------------------------

    Our forefathers, (Union American workers) prepared for their families the ability to produce and to sustain for themselves, so they would no longer be dependent, upon the Master Class.

    A Master class who would do everything they could, to to reinstituted bondage, who would do everything they could to make sure the Slaves were dependent upon the Master Class  " How dare you serfs, think you can prepare your future, without us "

    It was the Master class that opened the door for the uninvited guests, so they could steal from our provisions.  


    by Resistance on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:53am

    Who's inviting the undocumented workers to the table? It's the corporations. Who's uninviting the American Worker? It's the corporations. Who should be blamed? It's the corporations.

    Which side are you on? The corporations?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:07am

    Which side are you on? The corporations?

    Only an idiot would conclude that I was on the side of corporations.

    I sure didn't invite an invasion of illegals.

    I didn't ask them to come to the table prepared for our family. Who invited them?

    If you did,  leave and take your uninvited guest with you.

    WE THE PEOPLE of The United States. have rules and only invited guests are allowed.  

    In case you've missed whats  happening or you're maybe too blind to notice;  the corporations have left

    Oh they'll return all right, when they've forced the Nation to do away or diminish  the clean air and water acts and they've got the American worker begging on bended knee for the Corporations to hire, and they'll hire alright. under their conditions. ie. No rules, no benefits.

    In the mean time they'll also be pushing Congress to give amnesty to the illegals, so when they do decide to come back or (are forced to comeback because we wont allow them to sell in our market, unless they make it here) they'll  want to make sure the Unions will not have a say. The Corporations are opposed to the objectives of the Unions, the corporations want cheap labor, they want to cut working class Americans wages.

    Two fold, maybe more, Lower labor costs =  more profit

    Lower or no rules and regulations = more profit

    They'll take both if we let them. .

    Don't let them import their slave manufactured goods, as they attempt to bypass the rules we place upon OUR OWN manufacturers  and don't let them reinstitute the economic conditions, that led to the Civil war. We can't allow Union States having to compete against cheap immigrant labor, States. 

    In recent days we've seen the corporate influence in Wisconsin and Ohio.

    Corporations have an agenda and it isn't for the benefit of American workers who'll have to compete with 20 million more workers for the crumbs.

    Take a lesson from Nature.

    More animals than food, weakens the whole herd.

    Corporate agenda:  More workers than jobs, weakens the working class.   If the nation cant produce more workers, import them.  

    That is how you lower labor costs. People will be begging for a job. hows a dollar/ hour sound to you. alright .50 more.

    How cheap will the hungry illegal work for? Is that the benchmark? Then screw the Unions  The corporations don't need Union workers anymore, they have illegal amnestied workers more than willing to work and cheap too. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 4:55pm

    It sounds like you've figured it out! So, you agree with me now that it's the corporations we should be focusing on? Do you understand that imposing stiff fines for them alleviates the problems you mentioned previously in your praise of Arpaio's illogical tactics that only serve to help the 1%? Here's something you might have missed: by focusing on the undocumented workers, you actually allow the 1% to hire them for even cheaper, because they get driven deeper underground! The solution is to focus on the corporations!

    (I have noticed how you love to focus on the word "illegal". I'm guessing you've never broken the law, that you've never gone faster than the posted speed limit, for example, so that you're well equipped to "throw the first stone". I'm afraid that I'm not so lily white, so I'm more focused on helping the 99% than on punishing those that break laws designed to keep down the 99%. As I've said before, those laws that focus on undocumented workers, also harm the unionized workers, because the focus should be on those doing the hiring.)


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:09pm

    What naivety?

    You have no clue do you, how the blue collar workers get screwed?

    Legal citizen Jose, maybe he's a tile setter, a roofer, a cement finisher,electrician, (Blue collar worker trades)   has a brother, a cousin and uncle who'll work real cheap under the table. never mind they're here illegally. Whose asking anyway, they work real cheap thats the important thing right?  

    How are American kids supposed to compete in the blue collar trades? 

    Hows a Union shop, supposed to complete against the underground economy, where individuals who admire Jose, saying poor Jose  "hes only trying to feed his family" (at the expense of American families)  and they trust him to be their contractor and why not he's cheaper than American contractors ?

    Individuals feeling sorry for Joses family and as a side benefit these cut throat Americans save a lot of money, because they don't have to pay an American worker.

    WIN/LOSE

     Joses got plenty of family and friends he's looking out for (20 million) . Of course they work cheaper; they take no withholding, they pay no taxes, they have no workers comp.

    Geez get a clue VA;  American small businesses cant compete against that? Impossible   

    Its not only large companies or corporations, if the illegal wasn't here, he couldn't steal our jobs.  

    Out of sight out of mind, you'll just have to hire an American plumber or landscaper, or pool cleaner or maid  A legal  worker who supports this America and it's people.      


    by Resistance on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:22pm

    I find it amazing how well you oscillate between playing the victim when you feel slighted for not having a good education to calling other people naïve.

    I've explained to you, multiple times now, how to keep undocumented workers from taking jobs from legal citizens. You do it by prosecuting the 1% and not by attacking the 99%. When you go after the 99% you just allow the 1% to prosper more. They still hire the undocumented worker, they just convince that undocumented worker that if he makes any trouble, they'll make sure he gets arrested, thus depressing wages further, not just for the undocumented worker, but also for the legal residents and citizens. You also make it harder for the honest, small businessman to compete while paying fair wages. And you have the gall to call me naïve, while pursuing tactics that the 1% want you to pursue. Attack the 1%, not the 99%.

    Which side are you on?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:49pm

    I'd kind of like to hear a straight answer here.


    by Donal on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:57pm

    how to keep undocumented workers from taking jobs from legal citizens. You do it by prosecuting the 1% and not by attacking the 99%.

    ARE YOU AGAINST AMNESTY? 

    Because you are very confusing,  if we adopted your plan of prosecuting the  1% for hiring undocumented workers; wouldn't it become fairly simple for the 1% to avoid prosecution by legalizing the undocumented worker,  by giving them amnesty?  

    Not all of the 99% ers are that stupid, to fall for that trick.    

    It isnt only the 1% that is hiring the illegals in America. maybe the big AG corporations, maybe the chicken plucker corporations?   You think those type of industries hired all 20 million illegals? ( I've already discussed that above)

    The 1% have paid Congress to turn a blind eye, the Federal government on behalf of it's corporate donors, has failed in securing the border, not because they presently want to hire the illegal workers, there are laws against that.

    Their goal ......CHANGE THE LAWS;  MAKE ILLEGAL; LEGAL

    (Is that your plan VA?)  

    Then you'll have plenty of Legal workers, then of course they'll take advantage THEN 

    Not now though, the time is not ripe

    They're working on getting immigration reform first;  then they'll move in.   

    Besides where are the jobs the 1% have created ?

    The 1% don't give a crap, they've got theirs for NOW  They're a patient bunch, besides; they've got the finances to wait. They think the future looks brighter, if they can bust the peasant class to submission.  

    It's the agenda they work for, every incremental step they take, is an advancement towards their goal.

    They are allowing the conditions to occur and when the time is right; they'll come in and  reap the harvest. 

    Do they benefit from more workers than there are jobs. YES  ...(Too simple VA?)

    If corporations know that an environment of more workers than demand helps their bottom line.

    Well gee whiz, you think they would import more workers   would want as many to sneak across the border as possible, before laws are enacted to prevent the crossing?

    Give amnesty to the millions who did get across before the laws that prohibited the crossing are enforced. 

    Corporate industries: "Whew!  20 million made it across,  hallelujah! , now what do you have to say Union members? , Screw you union members we've found replacement workers. (20 million wow!  beyond our wildest dreams) Thank you Reagan and Bush, Thank you Barrack if you give them amnesty, we'll be forever grateful, Screw you, Unions. Finally we are in control again"      

    They dont care if the peasant class fights the invaders, for whatever crumbs are available. Tear themselves to pieces, see if they care.

    The master class will just come in and take over the chaos, or better yet don't fight, just submit, give the intruders amnesty

    Of course some members of the 99% will fall all over themselves, kissing the masters feet.

    Thank you, thank you we need you masters.

    =========================

    I've always thought the 99% label wasn't inappropriate.

    The part that irks me the most, is the dupes of the 1%      come from the ranks of the 99%

    The 1% couldn't win anything, if members of the 99%  wouldn't vote to serve their agenda.

    ======================

    How would you vote VA knowing full well, amnesty provides more workers than demand.......A corporations dream. 

    Amnesty YES  or NO?

    Ps did they tell you they also want to remove the safety net too? "Fight for the crumbs, peasants"

    It's not very smart of the  99%, to fight 20 million more previously illegal workers, for the crumbs  even if you do make them legal.  

    Are the 1% smarter than the 99%? ......It appears so.


    by Resistance on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:23pm

    if we adopted your plan of prosecuting the  1% for hiring undocumented workers; wouldn't it become fairly simple for the 1% to avoid prosecution by legalizing the undocumented worker,  by giving them amnesty?

    No, it wouldn't. If you were to make them legal residents, you would bring them within the system of laws, thus undermining their employer's ability to take advantage of them. Do you not realize that many undocumented workers get paid far below minimum wage? That they do not get paid overtime? That they can't join unions?

    That said, to answer you question briefly, I am most definitely not arguing for amnesty, at least not universal. I think a powerful tool in attacking the 1% is amnesty as a reward for employees willing to testify against their employers, but I'm not advocating 100% amnesty. It doesn't have to be either/or. I just think that our national focus in general and your focus in particular is on the wrong end of the stick. There are the undocumented workers (employees) and those employing them (employers).

    Let's examine a few facts:

    1. There are far fewer employers than employees. Thus, it requires fewer resources to pursue the employers.
    2. The employees are acting out of desperation. It costs us significant money to make their life worse. It costs money to arrest them. It costs money to to detain them. It costs money to deport them.
    3. The employers are acting out of greed, and/or because the practice is so wide spread in their field that they find it difficult to remain competitive without using undocumented workers. Imposing stiff fines on them is a source of revenue.

    So, to recap: it costs money to target employees, targeting employers is a source of revenue, and there are more employees than employers.

    Also, you're kidding yourself if you think it's just about there being more workers. It's about having access to desperate workers, and one way to keep them desperate is to keep them undocumented. Right now, the power structure is such that the exploiters (employers) have powerful weapons to keep their employees "in their place". It's time to invert the power structure, and one way to do that is to reward employees (or ex-employees) for ratting out their bosses.

    Similarly, unions should focus on bringing the undocumented workers into their folds. Why do employers even want undocumented workers? Is it because they're more qualified, or because they can exploit them and pay them less?

    If your focus is on penalizing the undocumented worker, than your focus is on penalizing part of the 99%. My focus is on penalizing the 1%.

    Which side are you on?


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 6:27am

    You and your bogeyman 

    Why do employers even want undocumented workers? Is it because they're more qualified, or because they can exploit them and pay them less?

    You keep implying that this blackmail of undocumented workers by unscrupulous employers is so rampant.  Wheres your evidence. Is it 99% of undocumented/employer relationships?  

    If you read anything I've written you would know

    Exploitation is definitely the plan 

    It  really doesn't matter if the undocumented are given legal status.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the net result. 

    MORE WORKERS THAN DEMAND.... benefits employers, It makes all of us American workers vulnerable to exploitation.

    More Labor than demand; drives down wages, benefit packages and worker rights   

    You as a worker better SHUT UP and kiss the masters feet or he'll replace you.

    "Don't even ask for anything serfs, live in fear of losing YOUR JOB "  instead of 100 people applying for an available job, an employer will have thousands to choose from.

    Thanks to the Amnesty of 20 million more people;  ALL will hunger for the crumbs of available jobs.

    Should I have to say it for the umpteenth  time, VA before it sinks into you skull;

    IT IS ALL ABOUT EXPLOITATION,  to exploit the whole American workforce until; Corporations can exploit American workers, they will remain offshore exploiting other source of cheap labor..

    Drive down the wages on every working American except for the 1%

    Side note

    You think we have a problem now providing a safety net, without running a huge deficit, wait till you legalize 20 million more workers, All needing assistance but the cupboard is bare

    How cheap will you work when there is no safety net  VA?

    You think Blue collar should make $5.00/Day, as we all fight one another for the jobs that are available? 

    Your plan would lead to the exploiting of ALL Americans?  Legal and newly legal.

    Do you think we could have a large enough Tax base, to do the things the 99% want their government to provide, when ALL AMERICANS will have just enough to scrape by?

    Evidently it escaped your attention, when the unemployment checks ran out, "Fight for the crumbs, allow yourself to be exploited if you want to eat. No more government assistance find a job even if it means you work cheaper" Do it now or do it later, that is the plan. 

    Exploiters: "There will be no more safety nets, fight it out amongst yourselves and heres another 20 million workers, hungry enough to fight for the crumbs"

    I do know what side your on VA.... Insanity...... your a pawn to be exploited.


    by Resistance on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 10:17am

    Continued below...


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 10:42am

    Actually, the student response was specifically addressing the fact that the graffiti was simply a culmination of incidents they experience on a daily basis.  Students should be seeking to improve any community they belong to...we all should.  But to call their current context "nearly perfect" or "paradise" is a major exaggeration and insult to the over 200 students that spoke about the discriminatory interactions they regularly face --and those voices were the only ones that fit into the 3 hour open mic session.  The purple bubble is not immune from the ugliness that surrounds it.  If anything, it's increased diversification, which is rare in the real world, serves as an amplifier of what exists in American society.  In other words, you got it exactly wrong.  Terribly wrong.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:05pm

    Hello anonymous. I didn't attend the assembly, so I didn't hear the stories of the students, and I haven't attended Williams for 15 years, but I find it very difficult to believe that racism at Williams remotely compares to what exists outside.

    Paradise is an exaggeration of course. I'm sure that discrimination does still exist at Williams, as it still exists everywhere, and we should continue to combat it. If the Chapin lawn assembly offered a forum to discuss lingering racism at Williams and elsewhere, then great.

    But the continued existence of racism and the value of discussing it do not rule out the possibility of overreaction to incidents like this. I suggest that the real threat of lingering racism at a place like Williams is not exemplified by the hatred scrawled on Prospect's wall but by a more subtle variety that is not so plainly written


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:32pm

    Genghis, I don't want to be too off topic, but are you going to live blog this next crazy Republican debate tonight, or must I go elsewhere for all the fun?


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:59pm

    Sorry, tmac. You're on your own. There are two many of these wacky debates. Maybe when the Republicans finally figure out who exactly they want to throw against Romney.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:14pm

    Thanks for reminding me. Otherwise I'd have to watch SNL to see what happened.


    by Donal on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:53pm

    I'm a current student at Williams, and I attended some of the events held yesterday. I'd like to echo the commenter above me in saying that the reaction to this weekend's event was far from just being about some words on a dorm wall. Williams is an institution with a long history- a history of catering to wealthy, white males from the Northeast. Huge strides have been made to change that in the last decade or so, but in many ways the culture here hasn't caught up with the reality of students here.

    After nearly four years at Williams, I feel like a large part of my education here has been learning how to be a "Williams student." My fifth class every semester has been learning how to act, dress, talk and socialize like a wealthy person from the Northeast, and it hasn't always been an easy lesson. Professors and administrators (and other students) often forget that not everyone comes from a classic Williams background, or that just because we go to a liberal arts college that we're all sufficiently advanced enough to laugh off casual stereotyping or simple ignorance. Talking about race or class or sexuality can feel awkward, because we're all supposed to be above all that in our journey away from where we came from and towards a perfect upper-upper middle class future.

    I think the emotion and anger I saw yesterday, coming from my fellow students, was more than enough to justify the response to this event. People here are trying to create real change in their community- if you're deriding those efforts as pointless or misguided, then you're part of the problem.


    by M (not verified) on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:56pm

    M, I'm very familiar with that feeling of awkwardness. All of us who arrived at Williams from some place other than a New England prep school encountered it. But the racist graffiti on Prospect's wall has little to do with Northeastern elitism, and I think bundling the two together creates a fundamental misunderstanding of both.

    For the record, I didn't write this piece to demonstrate that the reaction is misguided. I believe that the response is an overreaction, but that's more or less in the eye of the beholder, and arguing the point would not be very interesting to those of us outside the Purple Valley. I wrote the piece because I take it for granted that my readers, few of whom are in college, mostly see it as I do. My point, then, was to explain why a community like Williams is prone to overreact in this particular way--and what it says about our elite colleges.

    PS For appropriate attire, I recommend a gray sweatshirt with a purple W on it. You'll fit right in. But don't keep wearing it after graduation.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:09pm

    But, see, here's the thing...

    Pain is pain. There were students on Williams campus who were scared, students who were hurt. Does the fact that there are much WORSE things out in the world mean that their feelings aren't valid? That kind of "you can't complain about x because elsewhere people have to deal with y" argument is never useful.

    I'm not going to deny that Williams  has been improved by previous generations of students--that's actually one of the amazing things about this school. I hope that my generation improves Williams for tomorrow's students. But does the fact that we've fixed a lot of larger problems mean that we're then supposed to let the other ugly stuff slide, because if we don't then we're....what? no longer being realistic? I don't see the logic there. It sounds like the alternative is to mandate equality...to a point. But if you kick up a fuss past that point, then you're past some kind of arcane limit on what we're allowed to care about. Aren't we allowed to care about all of it? I don't think there are or should be limits on fighting hate crimes, whether they're a burning cross or writing on the wall.

    And yeah, this isn't simply a heinous message. It is illegal. It is classified, legally, as a hate crime. Quite frankly, it hasn't been that long since Virginia Tech. Ignoring this kind of message is allowing the kind of environment that allows deeper nastiness to fester. Is this an overreaction? Yeah, I really, really hope so. But fuck it, I'd rather overreact than let it roll.


    by Current William... (not verified) on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:13pm

    I hope you guys from Williams, and your peers from anywhere else too, stick around. We can use some fresh perspectives and I think/hope that you could occasionally take something of value with you from here. Thanks for your responses.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:09pm

    Thanks, I'll second that, Lulu. And anyone who wants to blog about the incident from an alternative perspective is welcome to register and click Blog Now!

    Not that I will pull any punches though. ;)


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:17pm

    I hardly suggested that anyone let it roll or that the incident is not disturbing. But Virginia Tech it is not, and the choice of such a comparison underscores my point.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 7:11pm

    But you did. Not in explicit terms but by suggesting that there was an overreaction and that the "righteous" are somehow enjoying this. Racism isn't something you can quantify on a scale and say, "Well, this was not *that* bad, it doesn't merit 'x' response." Racist, bigot actions perpetuate racism and they point-blank deserve the response the College ultimately gave in terms of a open and honest conversation about what happened, why it's not okay, as well as the support it gave affected students. Just because there isn't widespread condemnation on a comparable scale of the racism of Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh in the "real world" doesn't mean that the Williams administration overreacted. If you were a student on campus, maybe you'd know that students had to push the College to seriously investigate and divulge all the information of the incident to the student body so that the peers of students of color at Williams would know the severity of what was done.

    Also, people aren't bringing up Virginia Tech to say it's anywhere on par to the violence there (I lived near Blacksburg when it happened and lost a high school friend of mine) but, instead, are offering a reminder that violent threats need to be taken seriously and investigated in case there is a legitimate threat to someone's life. Even if this turns out to be a prank, the motivation behind the words do not make it any less threatening or offensive to me as a black student at Williams. I view the College's response as one for the victims instead of the perpetrator but that's likely because, unlike you, I don't think the answer to attention-seeking bigots (and whoever did this is a genuine bigot, bottom line) is not responding to them and letting their actions slide.


    by Another Current... (not verified) on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:12pm

    So are you suggesting that canceling classes would serve to deter a possible serial killer? Or that the administration cannot be trusted to seriously investigate racist graffiti on college property? Or that an assembly will teach people not to write death threats with the N-word on dorm walls?

    What exactly was the public response meant to accomplish?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:50pm

    I think that we make a mistake if we see this as having to choose between responding and not responding, but rather the choice about the nature of that response.  As a white male in this society, I am not really in a position to say too much about how those who are being actively discriminated in any community like Williams College choose to address that discrimination.

    But one op-ed piece read many moons comes to mind.  The author was African-American who was writing about a while male student on some American campus who was expelled for shouting racial slurs outside a dorm.  The author's point was that while the white male should suffer some consequences for his actions, the consequence chosen sent him back to the very place where he developed his racial attitude.  The consequence also removed him from the one place where there was a possibility that he would confront his racism and learn a new way of thinking and feeling about those who were not exactly like him.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:51pm

    Meanwhile back on planet Earth:

    Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives alike say I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

     


    by fredJames (not verified) on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:54am

    It is time for you to be courageous and face your fears. Mass migrations are part of the human experience. Perhaps if our multi-national corporations weren't financially raping these countries, their populations would, and would choose to, stay home. Do you think they like the thought of having to mingle with such as you? Highly unlikely.


    by bwakfat on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:07am

    Forget it, bwak. There's no point in arguing with racists.

    I plan to remove this comment soon but will leave it up temporarily for edification. You don't see the N-word much these days, not even on the interwebs, let alone elite college campuses. But this kind of "save the white race" shit is rampant. We've got commentators on network television who spout it. Europe has political parties that endorse it. The pretense/rationalization of opposing racism (against white people) makes the proponents believe it's OK to say out loud in public, that they're not being intolerant or bigoted. That's why it's so insidious.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:34am

    Wow Genghis, Pat Buchanan is posting right here at DAG! Who knew.  Cause right up there is the entire premise of Buchanan's newest Tome of Paranoia.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:19am

    Um, that's the entire premise of every Pat Buchanan book of the past ten years. Can you spot the theme?

    • 2002: The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization
    • 2006: State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America
    • 2011: Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:15am

    OMG, I need to bleach my brain after reading that list!

    The theme is: OMG White People should be ruling the world they are God's Chosen People and are being eclipsed by the Browns, who will destroy everything and everyone we love! ON NOES, Panic in the streets!

    Amiright?


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:48am

    Sounds even more like Tom Buchanan than Pat. Pat does a poor imitation of Tom, he doesn't have the fear thing as much, he's also not a WASP.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:17pm

    Nice, at first I was thinking to myself, Tom Buchanan, that must be some radio host I've never heard of... hahahaha.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:36pm

    I noticed he left off the problematic Americas and native Americans, but I didn't think it was worth responding to him as he obviously doesn't know his history...


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:35am

    Wife's cousin's an African American graduate of Williams.  He was there in the 90s and  now I have to find out how he felt back in the day. In any event, I would find the kid who wrote the racist filth and tar and feather him or her. . .and then effect an expulsion and referral to the authorities.

    I just think it's goofy that the school canceled classes.  Heck, if I'm a parent of a Genghis, who didn't go to a fancy-pants prep-school, I'm going to question why the school--which at least in the past was the most expensive school in the nation--shuts down classes because of some maggot's racist antics.

    Aren't the students supposed to shut down the school on their own if that is what is indicated?  Isn't that the point?  

     


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:32am

    Classes were canceled because ​students demanded it. If the faculty had not acceded to the demand, students were planning a walk-out.

     

    I think you're also implying that it's strange that students "asked permission" or something for classes to be canceled. I understand what you mean, but I think there might be a generational difference in how current youth and say, our parents' generation think about activism/protesting. What mattered to me (and I think a lot of other students here) was that our campus had the opportunity to come together and both talk and listen to each other. Whether we achieved that by working with the powers that be (a.k.a. the administration) or by using more disruptive action (like organizing/acting independently of the administration) seems a little besides the point to me. The administration and faculty weren't the perpetrators of this incident.

    - Yet another current Williams student


    by Sarah (not verified) on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:32pm

    Well, thanks for your gracious clarification Sarah.  If only we geezers were as polite as you were in our exchanges.  But, of course that wouldn't make it as exciting, etc.

    In any event, I guess I'm a bit confused about what happened.  I know one poster from Williams wrote above that this was sort of like the straw that broke the camel's back.  And I haven't heard about anything else besides this incident.  So I guess if this was occasion to demand cancelation of classes, I'm not sure what the predicate is.

    The fact of the matter is that I'm willing to bet that Williams is not unlike a Northwestern, where once my son graduates in May--assuming he does! :))--I will have put three kids through school there.  It's expensive and I borrowed quite a bit of money to send them there.  And, you know, having sent them there, one of the most embarrassing things about it is that African Americans, in a school right outside of Chicago, make up just around 4 percent of the student body.  I wrote a blog about how I found that out a few years ago--my son took me to a speech on campus by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

    So I guess that's the real problem in the long-term, i.e. equal opportunity.  Hopefully, after you tar and feather the criminal who performed the racist act, perhaps the students should focus on how the lack of a diverse student body might cause people to act--now and in the future.

    And, finally, the real test is what happens in the future.  What do we do with what we've learned at college--both inside and out of the classroom?  What will graduating seniors at Williams do to make things better?   What percentage of students at Williams will replace their red flags and stuff for the Barclays of the world?   We need more teachers and fewer bankers.   Perhaps that's the biggest test.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:40pm

    Genghis, as a guy who dismissed our recent Republican President scaring, lying and selling the country into an illegal bloody war as a kind of 'business as usual' for America, (every President lies, have to try every President, it's like Vietnam...)  your tedious and acrimonious dissection of the 'exclusive', 'rank-obsessed', and 'righteous' liberals at Williams College rings somewhat hollow.


    by NCD on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:58am

    You're the only one who truly gets me, NCD. It's as if you have x-ray vision into the empty void that is my soul.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:09pm

    First dibs on the empty void that was G's soul.

    It'll be nice to be cozy this Winter.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:19pm

    Oh Q, just as an aside. It is 23 and there is snow on the ground and it will drop to 12 tonite and that fat old squirrel I have not seen in two years is back on my window sill.

    Five more months until I do not have to walk like a duck! ha


    by Richard Day on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 5:16pm

    Are you saying it is some form of weather related winter malaise that has Genghis ranting on liberals, from some obscure college us elite Ivy Leaguers have never heard of?


    by NCD on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:59pm

    I'll come out and say it, since it's so obvious to all of us regulars. Clearly, Genghis is a Republican operative who co-started dagblog just to brainwash the liberals. Granted, it's been a slow, drawn out game, but he's finally shown himself!


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:12pm

    hahahahaha

    I do not know how come this comment is so funny to me! hahahahah

    Yeah, Genghis lures all of us liberals here so he can bring us into the fold.

    hahahahahaaahaha

    I DON'T THINK SO.

    But I cannot stop laughing.

    Oh I have been getting these emails from repub fronts lately and this comment just made me laugh.

    Well Done!


    by Richard Day on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:24pm

    A bit odd - why should you assume the scribbler should be expelled?

    Don't universities educate?

    Isn't there a better way than just push the problem somewhere else?

    Punishment isn't the only tool in the toolchest.

    It's funny to watch liberals resort to strident conservative reactions when a case doesn't fit their mold.

    We're all flawed. Our solutions and world view should take account of that.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 2:11am

    [Reply to Resistance]

    I don't think you read what I underlined, bolded, and italicized, so let me reiterate in a style you might be able to understand:

    I am most definitely not arguing for amnesty

    Got it?

    What am I arguing for? As simply as possible, putting the burden on the 1% with fines, instead of on the 99% with taxes for incarcerating undocumented workers.

    Whose side are you on?


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 10:42am

     in a style you might be able to understand:

    The 1% are not the ones presently hiring

    They'll be hiring AFTER they get Amnesty passed.

    I am most definitely not arguing for amnesty

    A tricky one you are?  

    You may not be arguing for amnesty, but do you oppose it; will you? 

    I oppose it, because I have seen what the opposition of labor has done to our Southern neighbors. The Capitalists by design,  created the environment for Southern migration

    Having forced refugees North, to burden the labor movement in America, who now have to tend, to address the issue of refugees

    The cunning capitalists don't care about who they've made refugees, they only have one objective;  How to capitalize on the situation they created.  

    I see how they have now, set their sights on the Labor movement in the North.

    The objective of Corporatism, is clear and always has been, the plans to accomplish their goals are more sinister and hidden.  

    We are at war, an economic war, because the capitalist wish to vanquish the labor movement in America once and for all. 

    The undocumented workers are the pawns, they are the wounded on the battlefield, tying up labors resources. While the Nation of bleeding hearts, tends to the wounded; the Capitalists are trying to out maneuver labor. 

    Corporate plan:  Be patient; let the bleeding hearts take in the refugees, giving them amnesty. Causing them to tax their resources, let them focus on one another as they fight each other for the crumbs. They will be too distracted, to know they have been outflanked, outmaneuvered.

    Cunning Capitalism


    by Resistance on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 3:33pm

    The 1% might not be hiring new employees, but they are already employing undocumented workers. What happens to those jobs if the 1% are fined for employing those undocumented workers? I'm glad that we agree that the undocumented workers are the pawns.

    To answer your question about amnesty, it's not high on my list of concerns. I don't champion it, but I don't rage against it either. If it were to happen, it would have to happen in the correct environment. I.e., one where their employment doesn't drive down median wages.

    Here's a question for you which you might have missed: why are undocumented workers attractive to employers?

    Think about that. Now, think about this: how can we make using undocumented workers unattractive? If we make it unattractive to employers, does that not accomplish the same goal as incarcerating the undocumented workers? Isn't it better to impose a fine (revenue!) on the 1% than incarcerate (costs!) members of the 99%? (In this case, both are committing a crime, so being "illegal" doesn't allow you to discriminate between those two groups.)

    Please try to answer these questions without invoking grand flourishes such as "bleeding hearts", "war", "slavery", "refugees", "wounded", or similar turns of phrase. I.e., as you like to say, keep it simple.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 3:35pm

    Here's a question for you which you might have missed: why are undocumented workers attractive to employers?

    I already answered that upstream, you chose to ignore it.

    I don't champion it, but I don't rage against it either. If it were to happen, it would have to happen in the correct environment.

    Is that a fence straddle or a gutless response?

    The correct environment........ for which side? 

    We are already in the environment, where Corporatism wants to drive the stake into the heart of Labor.  

    It will be an issue in the 2012 election, just as it was an issue at the Republican Primary shows. We know Rick Perry wants to give school loans and assistance. Mitt Romney has stated his position.

    Where is Obama on that issue? Where are the Democrats on the issue, who are seeking American Labors vote? They will be pressed for an answer, before the vote is cast.  

    Let us know now, fence straddler; because if we wait to long, it will not be the correct environment to find out to late, that Obama's position, is not what the majority of Americans will accept.

    Working class Americans will recognize it, as a sell out to Corporatism, for the very reasons I have stated upstream.    

    Will you back Obama if he panders for the Latino votes, by trying to pass amnesty? You know that will be the accusation by the Right ? 

    As a person who leans to the left, I will not ever vote for someone who wishes to further undermine the American Labor movement and enslave us to serve Corporatism. For I recognize that is the environment now. 

    Corporatism or Labor that is the paramount issue to me and others.

    We've had enough of corporate shills.  

    ========================

    What's with the attempted censorship of the words I choose? 

    You elites, don't understand peasant speak?

    Maybe you could provide a link to Orwell's preferred list of words?   

     


    by Resistance on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:25pm

    Are you deliberately misrepresenting me, or have I really not made myself clear? As for the "censorship", I was trying to let you know how to communicate effectively to me, since we seem to have a hard time understanding each other. Specifically, rather than speaking in metaphors, I find it easier to understand when precise terminology is used. That's not to say there's no place for metaphor, just that since you and I have such a hard time understanding each other, I thought it would help if we avoided them.

    The correct environment........ for which side? 

    I thought I made that quite clear. What did you think I meant when I referenced median wages? (If you don't understand "median" from that article, it's a type of average - specifically, it's the point at which there are just as many values below the median as above it. With respect to wages, this is very important, as mean wages can go up while median wages can go down if the rich get richer faster than the poor get poorer, but if median wages go up, that means that most people are getting richer.)


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:35pm

    Good luck selling that BS to someone else.  

    BYE

     


    by Resistance on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:57pm

    Dude. It's math.


    by bwakfat on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 12:14am

    No Bwak it's not about the math.

    The average voter doesn't want to hear wonk talk.

    Maybe you get giddy, that the rich wont get richer as quick, but its little consolation to those who have nothing and know, they have a long ways to go, before there is hope

    This generation has had it's future stolen..

    Can you peddle VAs median and means information, in a thirty second sound bite?

    Explain to people how increasing the labor pool with low wage earners is going to keep them in their underwater mortgaged homes or put their kids through college.

    Tell them look on the bright side the median and the means prove you're going to benefit in the future. 

    What future?  

    I'm not buying VAs statistics and I suspect most peopl won't either

    This is what the average voter will see in VAs argument

    There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics

    Figures don't lie, but liars figure. 


    by Resistance on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 6:35am

    The median and mean are two of the simplest statistics out there. If you're saying that the average voter can't understand the difference, then you're basically saying that the average voter is stupid. Right now, there's a vibrant discussion going on involving a slightly more complicated statistic - percentiles. As in, the 1% vs. the 99%. Most people seem to understand that statistic. The median point is the line separating the top 50% from the bottom 50%, with just as many people above it as below it.

    You want a short lesson? Take the following series of numbers: 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6. That series has a mean (arithmetic average) of 4, a median of 4 (there are just as many numbers less than 4 as there are greater than to 4), and a mode (most common element) of 4. Now, consider these numbers: 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10. That series also has a mean of 4, but its median is 3, and its mode is 2. Those aren't complicated statistics, and I'm quite convinced that you're capable of understanding it.

    Your pithy statements at the end are humorous, but they apply most to those least familiar with statistics. Remove yourself from that group by educating yourself on statistics. It does not require a formal education. There are plenty of good on-line sources. If you Google "learning statistics", you'll find several options. Additionally, the software package R can be downloaded for free, and one can even view its source code if one is so inclined.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 6:48am

    then you're basically saying that the average voter is stupid.

    I've read plenty of Richards blogs to know; .....YES they are...... Richard and and I know them as Republicans. Which side are you on?  smiley

    I read your link, and found it unpersuasive.  

    It was time to drop this thread, when Donal interjected his misleading inquiry and you continually being supercilioussad


    by Resistance on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:49am

    You know, it's OK to not know things. It's even OK to not know what a median is (although that's easy to fix). However, when you start questioning whether 2+2 is 4 and assert that anyone who says that it is must be a liar, the only one you're insulting is yourself. (PS. Which link did you find unpersuasive? The one that explained what a median was or the one providing a link for to the R software package? Neither one was meant to be persuasive. They were meant to be helpful. It's never even occurred to me before that I'd actually have to persuade someone to believe in a median.)


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 9:49am

    "You know, it's OK to not know things. by Verified Atheist 11/18/2011 - 9:49 am

    "What did you think I meant when I referenced median wages? (If you don't understand "median" from that article, it's a type of average by Verified Atheist 11/17/2011 - 4:35 pm

    "Those aren't complicated statistics, and I'm quite convinced that you're capable of understanding it…….. but they apply most to those least familiar with statistics. Remove yourself from that group by educating yourself on statistics. It does not require a formal education. by Verified Atheist 11/18/2011 - 6:48 am

    Really VA?  …I’m convinced VA, that your quite capable of understanding the word supercilious. But in the event you're not.

    So you can remove yourself from that group, (1)  I have included a link, so you can educate yourself, so you could rid yourself of a very undesirable trait. Hopefully you will be persuaded, to make the necessary changes  

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=supercilious

    (1) The group has been known to include

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assholes


    by Resistance on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:27am

    You do realize that my disdain for you usually starts with you showing disdain for me, right? We can both be stubborn people, there's no doubt about it. What's funny is that you actually seem to be unaware of just how supercilious you yourself can be:

    where would you look for illegal Latinos?  In Chinatown? 

    Do the Crime...... Do the time..... thats what I was taught in the schools.

    What side are you on?

    What naivety?

    So, why are you complaining about me being supercilious? I know the answer, do you?

    Anyways, it's clear to me we're not making any progress.

    Peace, Resistance. I'll avoid responding to any of your comments for a while, as it seems to get us both worked up.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:28am

    So you think that people who hire coyotes to bring them workers from Mexico and South America are doing nothing wrong because they aren't in the 1%?


    by Donal on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 3:37pm

    So you want to be a spreader of lies?


    by Resistance on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:54pm

    Your refusal to answer the question tells me that you have nothing to offer here.


    by Donal on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 7:57pm

    No, its not that I have nothing to offer, its just that I want you to remain ignorant.


    by Resistance on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 12:49am

    please see http://censoredbywilliams.com re recent events at Williams College which were overlooked due to the focus on the Penn State mess


    by Michael Lissack (not verified) on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 3:43pm

    All in all, I think I like this guy.

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


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 4:43pm

    I've been receiving emails from Lissack for a couple of years--a bizarre mix of political issues and Florida real estate opportunities. I never knew who he was or why I was chosen to benefit from his wisdom until he started sending emails about the racist graffiti. I assume that he must have somehow gotten hold of an alumni mailing list. While he seems like an interesting character, I'm not into unsolicited email.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 6:43pm

    Thanks for the response, but you have said nothing here that I can confidently take as reason to modify or somehow add nuance to my thinking about what made  me state what I said above. Is it the mix of issues that is bizarre? Are the  real estate  opportunities bizarre? Is he selling a bridge to the Bahamas? Does he hold bizarre political positions? Is it hard to get hold of an alumni mailing list? Is it weird or unusual to target an audience?
     Maybe all of my questions could be answered  with a "yes".  Maybe,... I honestly do not know because I never heard of the guy before today. You, apparently, could be more specific.  
     As to unsolicited emails, the very nature of the beast is that you will receive some that you are not interested in, or, in your word, "into", just as is the case with hosting a blog site and putting up with the blogs and responses which come into it. Saying, as you do, that you got unsolicited emails from him for a couple of years seems to be a pointless point here unless you are using it as a  jumping off point to imply that the sender of those emails has somehow lessened his credibility because he has, for a few years, been reaching out with both/either his business ideas and/or his political views, both of which might be bizarre, and you did not know, before, why they came to you.  Now that you know why you were on his mailing list is anything new and significant revealed about his positions?


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 8:13pm

    I agree with the writer 100%. As a person-of-color (this week being called African American) I think the closing of the school was a mistake. The college should have the guts to raise a reward of at least $5,000 to anyone who gives information leading to the arrest of those responsible. If the college doesn't do it, the money and reward should come from the alumni and the community.


    by Dr. O (not verified) on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 2:30pm

    Do you have an actual goal in this, and does arresting someone actually achieve it?

    Once upon a time, people thought that arresting 1-3 million black men would stop America's drug problems. Do we have to keep looking for over-simplistic and caustic solutions?

    Our could there be a better way to deal with the graffiti-ish uninspired?

    If we hadn't let 9/11 derail our cultural values, wouldn't we be better off?

    If we didn't go into a big tizzy because someone wrote some stupid scrawling, wouldn't it send a message of self-confidence and control?

    Really, the best thing you can do to support terrorism is act terrorized.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 4:50pm

    Latest Comments