posted on February 25, 2003 05:30:59 PM new
Use your head.
Picture a company that asks all the job applicants if they are Democrat or Republican.
How long do you think that would last?
posted on February 25, 2003 05:40:41 PM new
Bones21
“I have lived here all of my life and have NEVER SEEN A STARVING PERSON, HEALTHCARE IS AVAILABLE FOR THE MIDDLE-CLASS (insurance, etc), THE RICH, AND THE POOR GET IT FREE, AND MENTAL & PHYSICAL TORTURE IS CERTAINLY A BIG PROBLEM HERE (NOT!).”
So people that eat food out of rubbish bins are not starving.
What would you cal them? … ‘bohemian epicurians’
The poor get HealthCare free?
The woman from Texas I read about didn’t qualify because she was considered too asset rich because her truck was valued at over $2000. Also, isn’t there a ‘limit’ to how many times a year a ‘poor’ person in America can get free medical care.
Ask the mentally and physically ill if they feel ‘tortured’. Consider suiside rates.
The reason I’m asking about Sean Penn is to give me an insight into the degree of ‘red peril’ paranoia that exists in the US psyche.
Or if the comment or action was related to Iraq, in either case I’m assuming that the ‘blacklisting’ will confirm my belief that public pressure is overly moulded/manipulated by US leadership to advance their political agenda.
They can throw up their hands and plead innocence when accused of ‘blacklisting’ but the effect is the same, they ‘train’ the public to do their ‘dirty work’ ie ‘social & political oppression.
posted on February 25, 2003 06:03:43 PM new
Interesting thread.I believe McCarthyism will be increasingly discussed in the US as the present administration presses it's agenda of "with us or against us". The far right needs a boogey man, as I've said before. It will be easy for them to equate the far right's definition of "liberal" with "communist" before long. It'll be a good weapon against many who are on the fence about speaking out. They'll decide to keep their mouths closed, because although communism has been irrelevant for almost a generation, nobody wants to risk being called one. Even if it's patently obvious that the charge is untrue...what a cheap, dirty trick.
posted on February 25, 2003 06:21:17 PM new
AustBounty, be real.
As Jesus said, and this might be paraphrased, "The poor will always be with us". You
take extreme examples and act like it's the norm. I bet there are people getting a few
calories out of the dumpsters in Australia, and in Ireland, in China, and in Timbuktu, too.
I didn't say healthcare was FREE here. Actually it's not free ANYWHERE. We have
saying over here that "there's no free lunch". Someone, somewhere, has to be pay the bill.
The others may see it as free, but it's not. But, there is a LOT of money paid to social
programs here.
I still don't understand your statement about mentally and physically ill people feeling
"tortured". Is the government making them feel that way? Show me some proof. What
do you do differently down in Australia to keep them from feeling "tortured"?
There is no such thing as Utopia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, don't worry about the degree of paranoia in the U.S. psyche over the "Red Peril".
Most of us know that we have a superior system and that Communism is a failed one. It is
on its last legs, but unfortunately in some areas of the world it still has its adherents and
they refuse to admit it.
[ edited by bones21 on Feb 25, 2003 06:22 PM ]
[ edited by bones21 on Feb 25, 2003 06:25 PM ]
posted on February 25, 2003 07:02:23 PM new
Yes we eat out of dumpsters too. Does that make it more acceptable for you?
Extreme case??? bones21
25% of Australians are apparently worth under AU$7,000.
What’s the net worth of the bottom 25% or so of Americans.
Sure, its known that USA has a “superior system and that Communism is a failed one”.
Well, that says a lot. (some of) you are doing better than Russia.
“There is no such thing as Utopia.”
Well, why don’t we just give up on the idea.
Through McCarthyism, institutionalised oppression of communist idealists has it’s home in USA.
It has made USA, the bastion of the ‘thought police’.
The only ‘wrong’ I can see with communism, as I understand it, is that people can not accumulate wealth.
But in our capitalist system, there is nothing to prevent ALL the wealth going into the hands of just a few or only one person.
That’s uncapped greed.
As it stands ‘money can buy democracy’.
posted on February 25, 2003 08:37:36 PM new
mlecher- Nice effort, but your example just doesn't apply. Your example is of the government taking punitive employment action against an employee, and does not apply to a private employer. If you have read my posts I have made it abundantly clear that I am speaking of private employers.
Now find a case where it was ruled discriminanation to fire/hire an employee in the private sector for their political affiliation and you can not.
Free speech only applies as against actions by the government, it does not apply as against private employers, such as movie studios.
For those of you that assume the constitution applies to every action in the private sector and you're not a member of a protected class, you're in for a rude awakening. The Billof Rights spells out prohibitions that the GOVERNMENT is not allowed to do, and rarely has applies to anything in the private sector.
Free speech applies to government action that mutes pre-emptively or otherwise your ability to communicate freely. IT DOES NOT PROTECT YOU FROM PRIVATE SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COSTS DUE TO YOUR EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
posted on February 25, 2003 09:54:57 PM new
AustBounty,
Touche', you made some good points.
And kept me busy doing research....
Of course, anything can be proven with statistics, and I'm quite sure of the point here, but here's what I found.
-------------------------------------------
Regarding Net Worth in U.S. It appears that the median net worth is about $40,000 (per household). So I would say that the bottom 25% of household net worth is $20,000. Divide that by a factor of say 2.5 to get the individual net worth (there are over 100,000,000 households in the U.S.)and I would guess the figure would be somewhere around $8000. Doesn't sound like much, but I guess it would seem like a fortune in some countries.
Not So Poor National Review Oct 25, 1999
p. 28 Robert Rector (Heritage Foundation)
35 million or 13% of Americans are poor, but that person probably has a car, air
conditioniing, regrigerator, stove, VCR, microsave, stereo, color TV overeats, does not live in overcrowded conditions. Adjusted for inflation, the average poor person spends as much now as the average person in the 1970s. 41% of the poor own their own homes, 3 bedrooms with 1 1/2 baths, median value of $65,000, 70% of the value of all homes.
1/4 of poor minority students in Central Harlem obese, 1/2 of these "super" obese.
Total personal income in 1996 was $6.8 trillion, but census only counted $4.8 trillion. The net worth (a household's assets--houses, cars, investments, bank accounts minus its debts) of a median household, in inflation-adjusted 1998 dollars:
1995 1998
Whites 81,243 95,610
All races 60,534 72,100
Other 32,710 42,800
Latinos 12,170 9,200
Blacks 10,620 15,000
Suggested citations: Census 2000; Bilingual Education. Migration News. April 2000. Vol.
7. No 4. http://migration.ucdavis.edu or Migration News. 2000. Census 2000; Bilingual
Education. April. Vol 7. No 4.
---------------------------------------------
Maybe I am a little over-zealous about capitalism being a superior type of economy, but I think if you tax people to death you take away any incentive they may have to risk their money or working harder. For me there better be at least the chance for that pot at the end of the rainbow (without the government taking too big a share), or I'll quit working that hard. I think most Americans feel that way. To me that's basic human nature, maybe I'm wrong. If you add up all our taxes over they probably total more than 50% of income. I would say we are (and have been) a kind of Social Democracy for a long time here without our having the guts to call it that. But I still don't believe in the Communist model.
And deep down, I do long for a Utopia for the world...not totally attainable, but we always have to strive to improve things, granted.
But I still think dictator/tyrants like Sadaam must go. If the world thinks that we
have become one (in Iraq) once he's gone, well maybe they can (and should) gang up on us. I don't believe that's what happened in Japan or Germany after WWII. We helped them rebuild and they run their own governments.
(I know, I know, we still have bases there...well nothing's perfect...in the future Utopian world we will bring all our troops home and the world will be at peace and all the birds will chirp and the sun will have a smile....)
posted on February 25, 2003 10:31:51 PM new
>"I have already listed a case where it was declared unconstitutional to use political affiliation for hiring and firing. The Supreme Court ruled on it. It was among HUNDREDS of other cases with the same ruling. Took me 10 seconds to find. But some refuse to put forth even that much effort to find the truth, which makes all their other opinions suspect." -mlecher-
Thank you for the contribution, mlecher. Several other people than myself know about the history of blacklisting in this coutry and its ill effects. A good discussion that clarifies it for others is handy and REAMOND gave that chance. I hope that many lurkers here followed REAMOND and my discussion and then your links and remarks, because as noted, in the coming days, political pursuasion may very well mean living your life in fear or being taken away secretly into the night, never to be seen from or heard from again.
posted on February 25, 2003 11:10:24 PM new
reamond, you seem to restrict your definition of blacklisting to apply only in specific cases when in fact it is a seperate concept, much like conpiracy, making it illegal for ANY entity to deliberately act to restrict or prevent the employment of any person. As used during the McCarthy era it was a mechanism used against those deemed to be communists or affiliated but the term did not originate during that era and it survives even today as a criminal charge. As such it transcends the dicrimination laws, or rather, exists on it's own aside those restrictions. It's different.
Bush has recently threatened to remove the application of federal restrictions against blacklisting but I haven't seen whether he has in fact carried it out by executive order.
posted on February 25, 2003 11:59:00 PM new
I only restrict blacklisting to where it is applicable- and that is in the private sector. THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW NOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION THAT STATES A PRIVATE EMPLOYER CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE FOR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. There is not now and there never has been. The idea is absurd.
Consiracy would apply to every case of blacklisting in any company where two or more people discuss and plan the hiring/firing. BUT THER MUST BE A CRIMINAL ELEMENT TO THE ACTIVITY AND THERE IS NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN DENYING EMPLOYMENT OR FIRING SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
As far as conspiracy to deny employment, there is no such thing regarding political affiliation.
posted on February 26, 2003 02:46:57 AM new
Insofar as political affiliation could define integrity or even whether a prospect is law abiding (COMMUNISM IS ILLEGAL , the practice of interfering with a person's prospects by inclusion of such factors in a review process.
That's what screwed up so many lives during the Mcarthy time.
Today we have other controversial law that does restrict to governmental action specifically and I guess that that's the rut you're stuck in like this
http://216.70.54.91/news/15_21/federal/15169-1.html
posted on February 26, 2003 06:13:40 AM new
Bones21 “Social Democracy” my ass.
More like the best Democracy money can buy.
“If you add up all our taxes over they probably total more than 50% of income.”
I’m sure you are not so ignorant as to expect us to believe that the rich fat cats pay that much.
If you pay 50% tax, then you are clearly NOT in the UPPER CLASS.
The middle classes carry the burden of the lower, and the upper class rich get richer.
And apparently the ‘bona-fide’ republican voters should be real happy with dumya’s new tax cuts.
USA Poverty as a % in 1994
Hispanic origin........................... 30.7 of
Black...................................... 30.6 of
White (Not of Hispanic origin)............... 9.4 of
“median net worth is about $40,000 (per household). So I would say that the bottom 25% of household net worth is $20,000. “
This assumption of the wealth of the bottom 25% being 20K based on the median worth of 40K, demonstrates an ignorance of statistics.
Mean household worth being 40K has ‘NO’ reflection on the bottom 25% of population, other than it being worth under 40K.
Mean Median & Mode are all statistical types of average.
‘Mean’ wealth is calculated by the sum total of wealth divided by the number of subjects.
‘Median’ wealth is calculated by putting all subjects into evenly spaced ‘ranges’ and identifying the central group.
‘Mode’ wealth is the most ‘frequently occurring’ wealth group.
Back to topic.
Is one with a social conscience, concerned for the lower classes, still considered a communist in America.
McCarthyism is still alive and well, but now you’re an idiot not a commie.
Fox news, tongue in cheek, reckons the US government doesn’t have a policy for idiots. Idiots being those opposed to this war.
Bush’s dogs are trained well, he doesn’t even need a whip any more for them to yield to his wishes.
Americans are still being bluffed on a huge scale, the BIAST radical right media are doing an outstanding job.
posted on February 26, 2003 07:37:10 AM new
AustBounty,
I'm not going to argue statistics with you. You can make any point you want to with them, I'm sure.
It does look like Australia has its own "problems" and is getting its own Billionaires (what are you doing wrong down there?) Why doesn't Australia go ahead and try Communism and show the world how it's supposed to work. You'd have to have a Revolution first, I believe that's the way it works.
"They say Australia has never been an equal society and the rich are getting richer while the rest of us are living in a "worried" and "disappointed" country. There were eight billionaires in Australia by 2000, but the overall incidence of poverty has increased dramatically during the past two to three decades."
posted on February 26, 2003 08:13:59 AM new
mlecher,
Very witty, I'll bet it took you a while to think up.
Confession? Why would you need confession? Your perfect. No need for penitence and you have my absolution. But please remember, If you aren't remorseful, you may be damned to be you for the rest of your life.
"....and perhaps a few Indulgences?" I have no idea just what your trying to say here. Must be one of those witty Liberal barbs. After all what indulgences would a saintly person ask for?
posted on February 26, 2003 08:51:11 AM new
Austbound,
Here's an article about Communism You should read:
The Real Reason for the Fall of Communism
by Dr. Slavi Pachovski, Ambassador of Bulgaria to the United Nations (1992-1997)
for Global Voice, May 2000.
posted on February 26, 2003 10:11:47 AM new
Any introductory economics course coupled with insights into human nature will clue you in as to why communism failed.
A basic premise of communism is that man is basically good. A basic premise of free enterprise is that man will look out for his own self-interest. That creates a EXTREMELY efficient market economy with a nation's goods and services flowing to where they will be the most productive.
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Feb 26, 2003 10:13 AM ]
posted on February 26, 2003 10:25:57 AM new
mlecher- I have researched the issue and there is NO Equal Employment Opportunity act that applies political affiliation in private employment situations.
If there are "hundreds" of these cases, then why haven't you found one case that deals with the actions of a private employer denying employment based on political affiliation ? There is a reason you can not find such a case - because it is not against the law to discriminate against an employee for political affiliations in the private sector.
Every case you will find on the issue of political affiliation will be based on an action by a government entity.
posted on February 26, 2003 10:47:34 AM new
There are many jobs which your political affiliation is checked, an dit is not just employment with a political party.
It is easy to check party affiliation through a political party.
If a company wishes a prospective employee to a a democrat, they need only contact the democrat party in the area where the person lives and look for their party registration. The same applies to republicans.
It is somewhat unusual for this to happen with hourly employees, but not impossible.
Didn't it ever strike you as odd that nearly all corporate management is republican and the top management is all republican, except in companies that prefer democrats? Do you think that they hire democrats and communists and they all become republicans after they are hired ?
Law firms check political affiliations, as do many other private entities.
They don't tell applicants they do this. There is no reason to. And the ones that do not get hired or even an interview aren't told why.
This especially goes on in smaller towns across the nation.
If I owned a company, and all other things being equal I would use political affiliation in hiring. It helps your party and creates party loyalty.
posted on February 26, 2003 11:54:01 AM new
Reamond
I have done the research. I have shown you the proof. The courts have ruled that it is a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.
You just say things you believe, unsupported without one iota of support or reseach.
We are done with you. Your unsupported opinions are moot and inconsequential. Try learning something and THEN come back.
You are just plain WRONG!
I became a Nudist not because of the Sun, Fresh Air and Freedom, but because I got tired of people making fun of the way I dressed
posted on February 26, 2003 12:37:06 PM new
mlecher- You have shown absolutely NO proof of a private employer being criminally prosecuted for discrimination due to political affiliation. If you would read the case you have presented, it deals with a government employer, not a private one.
You don't understand the constitution or how it is applied.
There is no language in any federal staute or constitutional question case that prevailed dealing with private discrimination for political affiliation.
You're just plain wrong and lack the gray matter to even understand why.
, the practice of interfering with a person's prospects by inclusion of such factors in a review process.