Friday, December 18, 2015

Still Not Socialist Enough For the UN Shrews

The U.N. Sent 3 Foreign Women To The U.S. To Assess Gender Equality. They Were Horrified.

"A delegation of human rights experts from Poland, the United Kingdom and Costa Rica spent 10 days this month touring the United States so they can prepare a report on the nation's overall treatment of women. The three women, who lead a United Nations working group on discrimination against women, visited Alabama, Texas and Oregon to evaluate a wide range of U.S. policies and attitudes, as well as school, health and prison systems.

The delegates were appalled by the lack of gender equality in America. They found the U.S. to be lagging far behind international human rights standards in a number of areas, including its 23 percent gender pay gap, maternity leave, affordable child care and the treatment of female migrants in detention centers."
Not to mention, of course, insufficient abortion opportunities, gun control and too many men doing stuff

Doesn't matter who pays for all this, or why American women are not as unhappy as they should be:
"While the delegates were shocked by many things they saw in the U.S., perhaps the biggest surprise of their trip, they said, was learning that women in the country don't seem to know what they're missing.

"So many people really believe that U.S. women are way better off with respect to rights than any woman in the world," Raday said. "They would say, 'Prove it! What do you mean other people have paid maternity leave?'"
.Well, of course Illegals who are pregnant and on welfare do. They're producing another Democrat. And since when is access to unearned income from other people's labor a Right? Wait it's the UN.

As Milo says:
Great News! Freedom-Hating Lesbianic Socialist Harpies From The UN Still Hate America

19 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

Isn't that an example of exaggeration from 2 opposite camps? On the one hand, women in the US are not living in atrocious conditions at all, on average, but it's also true that some are less paid than men for the same job, and that maternity leaves is ridiculously low.

Talking about financing; Quebec started an interesting program maybe 10-15 years ago where we get a specific deduction on our pay check to finance a parental leave program, so it's very transparent with no burden on the employers other than the temporary loss of an employee. The way it works is that both parents get something like 5 weeks off around the kid's birth, and then have 1 year of paid leave to share among themselves, father or mother, with a reducing % of salary as time goes, such that the last 6 months are something like 60% of the original salary. (I am probably wrong on the exact numbers but you get the idea...) Since people also contribute based on how much they make, they get back a relative paid leave.

When I discuss this with my American colleagues, especially women who came back to work 2 weeks after giving birth, they are quite jealous to say the least... but then we also have people like my parents who have to pay for this program and never had it for themselves... nothing is perfect.

Stan said...

That is discrimination, most blatantly. Single men can never benefit, nor can several other classes, such as those who cannot bear children for medical reasons, lesbians and homosexuals, transsexuals, those who merely choose not to reproduce, etc. But the favored (targeted) class, i.e. previously known as the Victim class, becomes privileged. The more that Political Correction is enacted by the Messiah Class, the more discrimination is produced.

It's virtually always true. I'm sure you're aware that Asians are highly discriminated against by Affirmative Action, which produces failure-prone students out of one class at the expense of highly qualified students who are denied access.

Social engineering is always done by elitists who think that they have the moral Right and duty to meddle in the affairs of other people, because it is their Right and duty as superior beings to make class corrections for what they see as moral wrongs. So they create class advantages for one class, which translates into discrimination for other, non-favored classes. That is an unavoidable consequence of arrogant governmental Class prejudice and misdirected power.

Stan said...

In the USA, women are Senators, Congressmen, CEOs, and military Generals. There are women astronauts, cops, firemen, engineers, scientists and lawyers. There is no barrier to a woman to be sent to the UN to carp about other people's actions, beliefs and customs. Many, if not most, corporations do, in fact, pay women the same as men, including the corporation I worked for. It has been revealed that the worst offenders of pay equality include Barack Obama's White House Staff, and Hillary's staff. But they assert that women aren't paid the overall same, but by the hour (or job) they are paid the same. The difference is the amount of time that women don't work, vs. the men.

My opinion is that the UN should be kicked offshore from the US, and should be funded by the US at the same rate as the miserliest third world country. That would be equality of countries. Without US funding (and EU maybe) the UN would be just a sad club of Leftist crackpots and Muslims. That's pretty much what it is WITH our massive funding.

Stan said...

Here's what the Left actually hates: pay based of value produced by the employee (merit pay). That's strictly against Class Distinction Theory.

Hugo Pelland said...

Again Stan, you present lots of good points but also some exaggerated positions and over-simplifications or generalizations:

. Yes, pro parental-leave measures favor people who want to have kids over those who don't; call it discrimination if you eant. But the goal IS to encourage reproduction, and it applies to people who adopt too, so it's really excluding only those who wish not to have kids. Is investment in infrastructure such as highways a discrimination against people who don't want to ever move from their neighborhood?

.Affirmative actions are debatable I think; it's ridiculous to label their supporters (I am not one of them btw) as some sort of evil elitists who think they have moral authority to do anything they want. But I understand their motives and objectives; do you? What you describe never seem to indicate so... it's basically attacking strawmen.

. Yes, women access lots of great jobs, yes they are usually paid the same for exactly the same job. But again, it's not that simple and, even if again I think I generally agree with you that it's far from atrocious, women are obviously the better judge... I had a strong argument with my wife yesterday about that; there are more subtle things than just salary for the same job or number of hours as it can relate to promotions, hiring, reputation, work environment, etc... And if you list Obama and Hillary as worst offenders, then you do recognize that some problems exist.

. Leftists don't hate pay based of value produced. I, and many others, are in favor of a big government, of a strong social safety nets, of some form of leftist/socialist government basically, yet this is not at all a support for your generalized view of Leftists and the caricature you painted. Capitalism, pay based on effort, a race to be the best, hard work, ambitions, are not necessarily contradicting this. I worked my ass off to get where I am, to get the benefits and responsibilities of a management position. I don't think everyone deseve the same. But they at least deserve to have a good shot at it, and that's almost impossible if you are born in a poor American family in the US in 2015.

Stan said...

Good conversation; a chance to hone our differences.

Hugo said,
” But the goal IS to encourage reproduction”

Social engineering. Why are there not enough humans right now? Is it taxes that need a boost? Is it votes? Is it class competition? Who decides? And why are they allowed to make such decisions? Are they superior humans? If so, who says so?

”Affirmative actions are debatable I think; it's ridiculous to label their supporters (I am not one of them btw) as some sort of evil elitists who think they have moral authority to do anything they want. But I understand their motives and objectives; do you?”

Yes, I think I do. They think that they:
a) have superior morals due to:
b) their self-anointing of moral authority over others, which:
c) imbues them with powers to force class distinctions, which:
d) enables them to class engineer, which:
e) allows them to control masses of other people, which:
f) becomes a permanent class war situation, because:
g) class war and social engineering are degenerate pursuits, because:
h) Victimhood classes are required for c) to continue, so that:
I) in order to maintain the conditions of c), class maintenance is required, not class destruction, because:
j) it’s actually all about a), so that the destruction they create is obviated by the need to maintain their superiority in their own minds.

This is a circular, ungrounded, self-absorbed and self-focused emotion-based worldview and objective set. The above is empirically observable in Blue Model sub-states, such as Detroit, Baltimore, California, DC, etc. It is also observable on the macro (nation) level, with the longest recession recovery (ever?), and a large new class of unemployed who have left the workforce for government sustainment with welfare packages. The government confiscates from producers to support non-producers until it cannot; it borrows from our enemies (China); then it prints its own money to cover the difference (concealed inflation).

Stan said...

The current US government is class-war oriented, with HUGE government being installed and increased every year (see the Omnibus Spending Bill). And of course that puts the nation further into debt in an increasing spiral toward financial and economic collapse. See the Obama video on the right side bar, where he declares debt to be “unpatriotic”(!)

” Yes, women access lots of great jobs, yes they are usually paid the same for exactly the same job. But again, it's not that simple and, even if again I think I generally agree with you that it's far from atrocious, women are obviously the better judge...”

Why are women the better judge? Men have to grapple with power plays, office politics, offensive bosses, affirmative action competition, overworking, lack of recognition, promotion of idiots, etc. just as do women. Women can’t see it from men’s perspective either, under the “only women know” scenario.

And if you list Obama and Hillary as worst offenders, then you do recognize that some problems exist.””

What I recognize is Leftist hypocrisy.

” Leftists don't hate pay based of value produced.”

Any form of “equal pay” agitation is based purely on wage numbers vs class. There is no possible way to distinguish merit or contribution from the outside. That means that merit/value-based pay is chucked out the window. I have seen Leftist arguments that violently disparage merit/value-based pay as sexist, racist, just as entry tests are sexist and racist. All outcomes (in cash value) must be the same, or parity has not been achieved; the measurement is not merit, it is purely outcome.

” of a strong social safety nets, of some form of leftist/socialist government basically, yet this is not at all a support for your generalized view of Leftists and the caricature you painted.”

Really? Why not? Look at the results of that sort of objective in the Chavez government; the Castro government; there are so many failures to examine. Why is your plan better? Why is it not an invitation to sack the economy, as Chavez and crew did? Why do Cubans still flee Cuba? Why did central planning fail in China, Russia, essentially everywhere it is done?

Who is the infinitely wise, moral and compassionate overlord who will prevent those failures? How will he prevent the fraud that exists in our moderately socialist government from increasing to the levels of fraud in existing socialist governments – where the top 0.1% continually siphon off the economy into their personal Swiss accounts?

”I don't think everyone deseve the same. But they at least deserve to have a good shot at it, and that's almost impossible if you are born in a poor American family in the US in 2015.”

I agree with this statement. But answer this: why is that? Why has the class barrier increased so drastically under Obama’s socialism? Why do the poor get poorer (given that they have cars, flat screen TVs, smart phones, affirmative action, central heat and air, running water, toilets, etc., are they really deserving of the “poverty” designation?) Under affirmative action they have better opportunities than other classes, so why are they still in ghettos? Why is that?

Let me give one perspective. They live under the Blue Model, and most of them have lived there for several generations. Now we can discuss the Blue Model and its empirically obvious destruction if you wish, and that’s an interesting topic. However, I gotta go for now.

Stan said...

Oh, one final observation: by my standards, you are not a classical liberal at all; you are a Leftist Progressive Socialist. But that is based on similar claims of those who self-designate as Leftist Progressive Socialists.

Classical liberals believe in equal opportunity to get up off your butt, work two jobs if necessary, increase your capacity to contribute, compete for recognition, work your way into whatever your dream involves... if you can. If you cannot, recognize your limitations and develop more realistic objectives.

Dependence upon government largesse from confiscatory taxation and inflation is not part of it. Personal reliance for the capable; help for the needy via voluntary contribution. (Salvation Army likely does more beneficial social work than does the federal government.)

Hugo Pelland said...

Hello Stan,

I agree; it's interesting to find out exactly where the differences in our worldviews are. However, I am left wondering where our true differences are, quite often. There are 2 examples; first, you said:

"Social engineering. Why are there not enough humans right now? Is it taxes that need a boost? Is it votes? Is it class competition? Who decides? And why are they allowed to make such decisions? Are they superior humans? If so, who says so?"

Why do you slap the label of 'social engineering' on such measure; and does it imply that it's necessarily bad, why? Same as above, when I asked why you were labeling these same measures as 'discriminatory': Is investment in infrastructure such as highways a discrimination against people who don't want to ever move from their neighborhood?

Let me put it this way: if you disagree with a certain social measure, it must be because there are some reasons for the disagreement. But simply labeling them as 'discriminatory' and 'Social engineering' does not mean much. Why are they bad measures?

The questions you asked are valid, and should be evaluated to make sure the measures are fair and sound, but the questions don't tell me why you think that it is, indeed, a bad measure.

Next, I asked whether you whether you "understand their motives and objectives", when talking about affirmative actions' proponents. You answered with 10 points, A to J, but did exactly the opposite of what I asked.

What you gave is only your interpretation, your views, your opinion of these proponents, not what they actually say nor what they actually want to accomplish. I don't know what you disagree with, only what you think of them.

In other words, don't you think it's only fair to critique ideas based on what they actually are, instead of just labelling the proponents as having "self-anointing of moral authority over others" ?

Hugo Pelland said...

Moving on to another point, which were not raise before, so I am not sure what the link was. But it's interesting nonetheless:

" HUGE government being installed and increased every year [...] that puts the nation further into debt in an increasing spiral toward financial and economic collapse. See the Obama video..."

The Obama administration got a horrible deficit because of the economic crash of 2007-2008, and actually managed to keep the deficit on the downward trend. So what's the problem? And note that I am not even blaming Bush's administration, which I think can be partially blamed, but mostly just the bad economy. That 1 graph might be the most telling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:U.S._Total_Deficits_vs._National_Debt_Increases_2001-2010.png

"Why are women the better judge?"
Because even if both men and women have to deal with the same kind of issues, which you correctly listed, there are simply a lot more men in positions of power; this creates a vicious circle where just a small fraction of sexist men in power can have a huge impact on a lot of women. This is not to say that women have it tougher at 'everything', far from it. This point relates only to women in the work place... I watched a video recently of a lesbian-looking woman, surprisingly, who argues that men have it tougher in general; on average, men have lower lifespan, dangerous jobs, more social pressure, less family support, no man-specific health care, etc...


"And if you list Obama and Hillary as worst offenders, then you do recognize that some problems exist.””
What I recognize is Leftist hypocrisy.
"

You replied to that sentence, yet avoided the point: you accuse them of being the worst offenders of something you think is not a problem.

"I have seen Leftist arguments that violently disparage merit/value-based pay as sexist, racist, just as entry tests are sexist and racist. All outcomes (in cash value) must be the same, or parity has not been achieved; the measurement is not merit, it is purely outcome."

Ok, you might have heard some people say that, but that sounds like communism, or some form of extreme left-wing talk where everyone should make the same amount of money regardless of their job. I am not aware of a single person who thinks like that, be it well-known public figure or friends and family who are either further to the left than me, or similar. So, I must repeat: Leftists don't hate pay based of value produced.

Hugo Pelland said...

So this, in turn, is the answer to these questions:

"Really? Why not? Look at the results of that sort of objective in the Chavez government; the Castro government; there are so many failures to examine. Why is your plan better? Why is it not an invitation to sack the economy, as Chavez and crew did? Why do Cubans still flee Cuba? Why did central planning fail in China, Russia, essentially everywhere it is done?"

None of this explains why 'specific' leftist ideas are bad. I told you I am from Québec, Canada, originally. You gave me examples of countries I know little about... Look at rankings of countries around the world in terms of health care, poverty, access to education, lifespan, general happiness, crime, etc... and you won't find any correlation where the more to the right the better it is. Each country is a giant mix of tons of ideas. Some labeled as more 'leftist' or 'socialists' and others as more 'right-wing' or 'capitalist' or 'libertarian'.

"...where the top 0.1% continually siphon off the economy into their personal Swiss accounts?"
Reducing regulations, a clear 'right-wing' or 'capitalist' or 'libertarian' idea makes that possible.

Regarding this:
”I don't think everyone deseve the same. But they at least deserve to have a good shot at it, and that's almost impossible if you are born in a poor American family in the US in 2015.” You said:
"I agree with this statement. But answer this: why is that? Why has the class barrier increased so drastically under Obama’s socialism?"

It's not that new, and Obama is so far from being a socialist. I am only 31 years old so I graduated college in 2007, before Obama was even elected. If I had been in the US, I would have probably graduated the same year; but from a much worse college, because in Québec they are all publically funded so my good grades got me in the best university. In the US, my family and I (I still had to work unlike kids from richer families...) could never have afforded it.

"Why do the poor get poorer (given that they have cars, flat screen TVs, smart phones, affirmative action, central heat and air, running water, toilets, etc., are they really deserving of the “poverty” designation?)"

Are you laughing at the poor? I am talking about people who can barely eat... I go volunteering every Monday morning at my local food bank and, even if we are in one of the richest part of the country, 1 family in 5 uses our services. That food bank helps hundreds of organization give produce to people, especially in low income neighborhood, where quite often the only source of food is the crappy corner store with sodas and chips. All the legislation that can help the food bank do its job, or even better, stop doing its job (because people would be able to get food...) is seen as big-government leftist actions...
http://www.accfb.org/advocacy/
And if you want to give, you're more than welcome :-) Each dollar buys roughly $5 of food because of volume discount!

"Under affirmative action they have better opportunities than other classes, so why are they still in ghettos? Why is that?"

Is it really that simply to you Stan? Poor people include veterans, handicaps, sick, elderly, etc... Please explain to me how affirmative actions are benefiting them exactly...

Hugo Pelland said...

"Let me give one perspective. They live under the Blue Model, and most of them have lived there for several generations. Now we can discuss the Blue Model and its empirically obvious destruction if you wish, and that’s an interesting topic. However, I gotta go for now."

If could be specifc on what the 'Blue Model' is it would be interesting, yes, instead of just labeling it as, well, whatever bad adjective you wish to use ;-)

"you are not a classical liberal at all; you are a Leftist Progressive Socialist"

Maybe; it's confusing because there are liberal/conservatice socially and then left/right-wing economically. Have you ever done this test yourself?
https://www.politicalcompass.org/
Last time I did it I was close to the middle, in the lower-left quadrant. None of the US politicians are there...
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
(probably Bernie Sanders actually...)

"Classical liberals believe in equal opportunity to get up off your butt, work two jobs if necessary, increase your capacity to contribute, compete for recognition, work your way into whatever your dream involves... if you can. If you cannot, recognize your limitations and develop more realistic objectives. "

I agree completely, up until the very end, where it seems to me that you imply the very opposite of what you claim: class distinction if acceptable! You just stated that people need to recognize their limitations; this is the very definition of putting them into a class and telling them: stick to objectives that fit your class and stop whining.

Sorry for the length... might actually be my last comment for a while. Vacations! :)

Stan said...

Hugo,
” Let me put it this way: if you disagree with a certain social measure, it must be because there are some reasons for the disagreement. But simply labeling them as 'discriminatory' and 'Social engineering' does not mean much. Why are they bad measures?”

I point out discrimination as a demonstration of discrimination in standard processes which the “anti-discrimination” Left accepts, while pontificating about discrimination in general – Leftist hypocrisy. From my point of view discrimination is a value of rational thought, and is a necessary process in the pursuit of truth. Perhaps I should be more clear in pointing to the hypocrisy of the Leftist blanket use of the charge of “discrimination” against their enemies.

” but the questions don't tell me why you think that it is, indeed, a bad measure.”

With the fall of the Northern European quasi-socialist states under multiculturalism, it is again a completely unified and coherent property of social engineering that unanticipated consequences arise which invalidate the intended objective. Social engineering presuspposes that some human or group of humans is possessed of impeccable wisdom and moral authority to force other people into a different paradigm, that new paradigm which is designed by this group of ultra-wise and ultra-moral superbeings.

In every socialist state the human condition is resolved to a mean, which is far below a meaningful existence in the original western conception. Must I list Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, much of Africa, etc.? No, I wouldn’t do that.

”In other words, don't you think it's only fair to critique ideas based on what they actually are, instead of just labelling the proponents as having "self-anointing of moral authority over others" ?”

That IS exactly what they are; why will you not admit it?

It is the fundamental concept, the meta-narrative, which is wrong. The details do not matter, except that they have unintended consequences which are more onerous than the condition which the elites want to correct.

” And note that I am not even blaming Bush's administration, which I think can be partially blamed, but mostly just the bad economy. That 1 graph might be the most telling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:U.S._Total_Deficits_vs._National_Debt_Increases_2001-2010.png”


That graph shows exactly my point. The US government under Obama created a parasitic banking system which absorbed government largesse and did not pass it on into the economy. Note that the scale is “debt increase” every year. It does not show cumulative debt, and in fact it conceals it. The government propping up of the system, without any adjusting action for the cause, is basically evil.

Stan said...

” a vicious circle where just a small fraction of sexist men in power can have a huge impact on a lot of women.”

Yet on the whole, women are paid equally when considering “by the hour worked”; they take off much more time, and work fewer hours/week than men (in general). And it still doesn’t address merit, which is opaque to outside viewpoints, and cannot be a factor in judgments even though it should be the primary factor to a corporation. And your conception of “sexist men” needs to be backed up with data, rather than a scare factor injected as a necessity for external reform.

” I watched a video recently of a lesbian-looking woman, surprisingly, who argues that men have it tougher in general; on average, men have lower lifespan, dangerous jobs, more social pressure, less family support, no man-specific health care, etc...”

Paglia?

” You replied to that sentence, yet avoided the point: you accuse them of being the worst offenders of something you think is not a problem.”

It is not a problem in a merit based society, which the Left, hypocritically, is not. They should right themselves before attacking what is likely not a problem in general society. They obviously need a Victimhood Class to attack, and Victimhood Classes NEVER go away under Leftist programs - instead they are rewarded and coddled.

” Ok, you might have heard some people say that, but that sounds like communism, or some form of extreme left-wing talk where everyone should make the same amount of money regardless of their job. I am not aware of a single person who thinks like that, be it well-known public figure or friends and family who are either further to the left than me, or similar. So, I must repeat: Leftists don't hate pay based of value produced.”

Did you watch the Democrat debate Saturday night? Except for governor whatshisname, they are advocates of living wages and free stuff for everyone. Apparently they believe that their polls justify that.

” None of this explains why 'specific' leftist ideas are bad. I told you I am from Québec, Canada, originally. You gave me examples of countries I know little about...”

Then you should rectify that. Being from Quebec is not an excuse. I don't mean that to be offensive, I mean it as a fact, not an insult.

Stan said...

” Look at rankings of countries around the world in terms of health care, poverty, access to education, lifespan, general happiness, crime, etc... and you won't find any correlation where the more to the right the better it is. Each country is a giant mix of tons of ideas. Some labeled as more 'leftist' or 'socialists' and others as more 'right-wing' or 'capitalist' or 'libertarian'.”

Data source please. I do not consider the US to be right wing or capitalist or libertarian; it is a government-dominated, crony-leftist, oligarchic monopoly based, billionaire-politician melded (i.e. opaquely fascist), faux republic, where public input is as phony as it is in China. That came from the Left.

The deterioration of the USA into approaching third world class dichotomy of poor vs wealthy/government is both a Leftist and fascist phenomenon, and yes some of came from RINO dupes. It is a specific objective of Obama’s (non-specific) “Change” program.

” "...where the top 0.1% continually siphon off the economy into their personal Swiss accounts?"
Reducing regulations, a clear 'right-wing' or 'capitalist' or 'libertarian' idea makes that possible.”


That’s absolutely not the case. Increased regulations which are written by lobbyists for the benefit of corporate interests, not the people, and which are passed into law with even reading them are the problem. That is what happened with ObamaCare, and it is specifically a Leftist-Corporatist power and wealth grab. Insurance prices did NOT go down; You cannot keep your Dr.; the funding is far insufficient without increasing the punishment of those who choose not to join up because they are healthy. You should note that very few of the billionaires are “right wing”; they are corporatist-cronies.

Stan said...

” Look at rankings of countries around the world in terms of health care, poverty, access to education, lifespan, general happiness, crime, etc... and you won't find any correlation where the more to the right the better it is. Each country is a giant mix of tons of ideas. Some labeled as more 'leftist' or 'socialists' and others as more 'right-wing' or 'capitalist' or 'libertarian'.”

Data source please. I do not consider the US to be right wing or capitalist or libertarian; it is a government-dominated, crony-leftist, oligarchic monopoly based, billionaire-politician melded (i.e. opaquely fascist), faux republic, where public input is as phony as it is in China. That came from the Left.

The deterioration of the USA into approaching third world class dichotomy of poor vs wealthy/government is both a Leftist and fascist phenomenon, and yes some of came from RINO dupes. It is a specific objective of Obama’s (non-specific) “Change” program.

” "...where the top 0.1% continually siphon off the economy into their personal Swiss accounts?"
Reducing regulations, a clear 'right-wing' or 'capitalist' or 'libertarian' idea makes that possible.”


That’s absolutely not the case. Increased regulations which are written by lobbyists for the benefit of corporate interests, not the people, and which are passed into law with even reading them are the problem. That is what happened with ObamaCare, and it is specifically a Leftist-Corporatist power and wealth grab. Insurance prices did NOT go down; You cannot keep your Dr.; the funding is far insufficient without increasing the punishment of those who choose not to join up because they are healthy. You should note that very few of the billionaires are “right wing”; they are corporatist-cronies.

Stan said...

” In the US, my family and I (I still had to work unlike kids from richer families...) could never have afforded it.”

OK, I’ll answer that, then. (I worked my way through, too, back before the government got involved). The situation is this: the government lends money to students. The university raise costs to meet the new money flow. Students borrow more money to cover costs. The universities raise costs more, add bogus features and staff, but don’t pay more to actual teaching personnel. Students borrow still more money to cover increased costs. The universities raise prices, students borrow even more, etc. Students now bear a lifetime of debt to benefit university-government parasitism.

The situation is caused by the government interference which produced unintended (?) consequences. Note that universities donate primarily to Leftist Congresspersons.

” Are you laughing at the poor? I am talking about people who can barely eat... I go volunteering every Monday morning at my local food bank and, even if we are in one of the richest part of the country, 1 family in 5 uses our services. That food bank helps hundreds of organization give produce to people, especially in low income neighborhood, where quite often the only source of food is the crappy corner store with sodas and chips.”

That’s highly moral of you, and yes, we contribute to food banks in several ways. However, you have not answered the question: why are these people poor and needy? What is the underlying cause?

As for the advocacy group, yes, families need to be stabilized. Black families were, in fact stable until the Leftist War on Poverty rewarded single mothers for every child they produced.

As for “living wage” there is no such thing. Every increase in minimum wage has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in prices to cover the cost. It’s simple math: if the increased cost is not covered, then the business fails. A great many businesses depend upon labor which was once dominated by teens who learned how to work. I worked in a grocery store, which had a minimum staff of full timers, and a rotating staff of teens working part time. It was great, I loved it, and I learned a lot… at minimum wage, from which I got merit raises.

Stan said...

” Under affirmative action they have better opportunities than other classes, so why are they still in ghettos? Why is that?"

Is it really that simply to you Stan? Poor people include veterans, handicaps, sick, elderly, etc... Please explain to me how affirmative actions are benefiting them exactly..”


Each of your list already has government support, in the form of Medicaid, Social Security, Hospitals mandated to give free care to the indigent, veteran’s benefits of medical care, education, post shopping, which I don’t get, etc. Affirmative action is directed at specific classes, many of which remain in the ghettos, so you have not answered the question, you have Red Herringed off into the weeds.

” If could be specifc on what the 'Blue Model' is it would be interesting, yes, instead of just labeling it as, well, whatever bad adjective you wish to use ;-)”

The Blue Model refers to areas which are controlled, and have been for decades, under Leftist Democrat sole control. They include Detroit, Baltimore, and other enclaves of complete Leftist control. And the result is economic, cultural and physical deterioration, while those in power are magically enriched somehow.


"you are not a classical liberal at all; you are a Leftist Progressive Socialist"

Maybe; it's confusing because there are liberal/conservatice socially and then left/right-wing economically. Have you ever done this test yourself?
https://www.politicalcompass.org/”


No, but I’m not confused, I know where I stand: I am a constitutionalist, who is intellectually Enlightenment-rational focused, morally theist.

” Last time I did it I was close to the middle, in the lower-left quadrant. None of the US politicians are there...
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
(probably Bernie Sanders actually…”


OK. I’m dubious. Hillary, and Obama are both labeled Right Wing, slightly authoritarian. That doesn’t have a good smell to it.

” You just stated that people need to recognize their limitations; this is the very definition of putting them into a class and telling them: stick to objectives that fit your class and stop whining.”

That does not fit what I said at all. What I said is pursue your dream; modify your dream if it turns out to be unrealistic. Not everyone is going to be an astronaut. That is not Class War, it is reality.

” Sorry for the length... might actually be my last comment for a while. Vacations! :)”

Length is not a problem…. So far. See you later, have a good Christmas, or secular holiday if that’s your bent.

But do come back, OK?

Hugo Pelland said...

Thanks, Merry Christmas to you and your family as well!