> > > > You never read Alice in Wonderland, did you?
> > >
> > > Yes I have. So?> >
> >
> > "Off with your head!"
>
> You two are making about as much sense as Dubya's tax breaks. Been
sniffing
> mercury again?
"Off with their heads!" is an Alice in Wonderland reference...aw, nevermind.
You wouldn't get it.
-c
<osote@no-spam> wrote in message news:GX9Ja.99623$YZ2.268509@no-spam
> off with the heads of congress and corporate whores. why? Go read this
for
> entertaining and informative answer that you really already know and I'm
> tired of repeating.
They said today (on CNN!) that the salary gap between corporate CEOs and
employees is now approaching that between the aristocracy and peasantry
right before the French revolution.
Off with their heads! (But Bill Gates' salary is allegedly only $500,000
nowadays.)
-c
<osote@no-spam>
> I don't see
> why I even have to explain this, racism is so pervasive this should just
be
> self evident to the average person in America. If you don't know this you
> are not paying attention.
It goes both ways and it's very insideous. For example, a white female
friend of mine went to a movie with a black man in Baton Rouge and a carload
of blacks drove by yelling "Uncle Tom" at him. When she went to report about
a visit by Maya Angelou at LSU and tried to ask a question, she got attacked
by people around her who told her she didn't even belong there. Angelou
herself spoke in the girl's defense.
If you work at a restaurant in the south and you're one color or the other,
you're not going to make tips off customers of the other color. For
example, when my wife worked at TGIF she said that the black waiters tried
to help the black customers and the same for whites because if you were the
opposite race they wouldn't tip you enough to cover the minimum you had to
claim on your taxes. In one instance, they helped a family of maybe 10
people and the change from the bill was five dollars and a quarter. The guy
who paid the bill for all ten people left the change on the table but, right
in front of the waiter, the grandmother snatched the five and said "I don't
think so." Doesn't matter which side was black or white in this instance;
it's just the kind of thing that happened all the time that you couldn't
talk about or you'd get accused of racism.
-c
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:J5dMa.5635$Fl5.4779@no-spam
>
> <osote@no-spam> wrote in message
news:GX9Ja.99623$YZ2.268509@no-spam
>
> > off with the heads of congress and corporate whores. why? Go read this
> for
> > entertaining and informative answer that you really already know and I'm
> > tired of repeating.
>
> They said today (on CNN!) that the salary gap between corporate CEOs and
> employees is now approaching that between the aristocracy and peasantry
> right before the French revolution.
>
> Off with their heads! (But Bill Gates' salary is allegedly only $500,000
> nowadays.)
>
> -c
Just to piss you off even more, the AFL-CIO maintains data on the salary of
CEO's here:
http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm
just click on the name of the corporation and see who the rich, white male
is that is living high on the hog while the rest of us "eat cake!"
Even worse, after you see how much "they" make, you can click a button to
see how "you" compare. There you enter your own pitiful salary, then how
much you get in perks such as Bonus and Stock Compensation, Free Country
Club Memberships, Luxury Company Car or Chauffeur Service, Use of the
Company Resort Home or Penthouse Suite... are you laughing or crying, those
tears are hard to interpret! Then with a click of a button it calculates
just how many years it would take you to work to earn what the CEO earns in
just one year.
In 2002, William Gates raked in $753,310 in total compensation including
stock option grants from Microsoft Corp. It would take me pretty much my
whole life unless I get a really good last minute education... LOL.
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:XWkMa.6390$JY1.173@no-spam
> <osote@no-spam>
>
> > I don't see
> > why I even have to explain this, racism is so pervasive this should just
> be
> > self evident to the average person in America. If you don't know this
you
> > are not paying attention.
> It goes both ways and it's very insideous. For example, a white female
> friend of mine went to a movie with a black man in Baton Rouge and a
carload
> of blacks drove by yelling "Uncle Tom" at him. When she went to report
about
> a visit by Maya Angelou at LSU and tried to ask a question, she got
attacked
> by people around her who told her she didn't even belong there. Angelou
> herself spoke in the girl's defense.
> If you work at a restaurant in the south and you're one color or the
other,
> you're not going to make tips off customers of the other color. For
> example, when my wife worked at TGIF she said that the black waiters tried
> to help the black customers and the same for whites because if you were
the
> opposite race they wouldn't tip you enough to cover the minimum you had to
> claim on your taxes. In one instance, they helped a family of maybe 10
> people and the change from the bill was five dollars and a quarter. The
guy
> who paid the bill for all ten people left the change on the table but,
right
> in front of the waiter, the grandmother snatched the five and said "I
don't
> think so." Doesn't matter which side was black or white in this instance;
> it's just the kind of thing that happened all the time that you couldn't
> talk about or you'd get accused of racism.
>
> -c
Yes, I can see your examples of blacks lashing out against whites is a form
of racism but it is not the same thing as white on black racism because
blacks do not have the social power behind them of the white dominated
world, the very long history of institutionalized white against black
racism, and all of the attitudes and mores that still make up racism against
people of color that keep whites in power over them today. It is not equal
in both directions although it certainly does exist in both directions. And
people of color do have more power in areas where they are more highly
concentrated, that is their "territory" whether it be in "the projects" or
the south or just the soul food restaurant that C. Thomas Howell wasn't
allowed into when he was married to Rae Dawn Chong. (Remember the movie
"Soul Man" where he pretended to be black to take advantage of an
affirmative action scholarship she would have gotten at Harvard... well,
they got married in real life.) But the real power is in the hegemony that
rich, mostly white, mostly men have over everyone else in the world.
And we should talk about this, so we get accused of racism, I have faith in
your intelligence enough to call you on what didn't sound like the true you
and others here respect you as well. Talking about painful social issues is
the only way to lasting peace. That is why the black community was willing
to risk further insult and injury (sounds like they got it too,
unfortunately, I bet they keep trying) to have the community forum with law
enforcement and the mayor.
Lorian
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil,
but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<osote@no-spam> wrote in message
news:l1HNa.15636$NW6.11393@no-spam
>
> "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:J5dMa.5635$Fl5.4779@no-spam
> >
> > <osote@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:GX9Ja.99623$YZ2.268509@no-spam
> >
> > > off with the heads of congress and corporate whores. why? Go read
this
> > for
> > > entertaining and informative answer that you really already know and
I'm
> > > tired of repeating.
> >
> > They said today (on CNN!) that the salary gap between corporate CEOs and
> > employees is now approaching that between the aristocracy and peasantry
> > right before the French revolution.
> >
> > Off with their heads! (But Bill Gates' salary is allegedly only
$500,000
> > nowadays.)
> >
> > -c
>
> Just to piss you off even more, the AFL-CIO maintains data on the salary
of
> CEO's here:
>
> http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm
>
> just click on the name of the corporation and see who the rich, white male
> is that is living high on the hog while the rest of us "eat cake!"
>
> Even worse, after you see how much "they" make, you can click a button to
> see how "you" compare. There you enter your own pitiful salary, then how
> much you get in perks such as Bonus and Stock Compensation, Free Country
> Club Memberships, Luxury Company Car or Chauffeur Service, Use of the
> Company Resort Home or Penthouse Suite... are you laughing or crying,
those
> tears are hard to interpret! Then with a click of a button it calculates
> just how many years it would take you to work to earn what the CEO earns
in
> just one year.
> In 2002, William Gates raked in $753,310 in total compensation including
> stock option grants from Microsoft Corp. It would take me pretty much my
> whole life unless I get a really good last minute education... LOL.
>
Actually, Bill Gates didn't complete his degree before founding Microsoft.
<osote@no-spam> wrote in message
news:l1HNa.15636$NW6.11393@no-spam
> Just to piss you off even more, the AFL-CIO maintains data on the salary
of
> CEO's here:
>
> http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm
>
> In 2002, William Gates raked in $753,310 in total compensation including
> stock option grants from Microsoft Corp. It would take me pretty much my
> whole life unless I get a really good last minute education... LOL.
Indeed.
But, to be fair (I'm not a BG apologist), that's pretty low compensation
considering he runs one of the most powerful corporations in the world.
Compare that the the salaries of other CEOs and, were it not for the fact
that he's the richest guy in the world, it makes him look pretty humble by
comparison.
-c
<osote@no-spam> wrote in message
news:fiHNa.15146$Ey6.6610@no-spam
> Yes, I can see your examples of blacks lashing out against whites is a
form
> of racism but it is not the same thing as white on black racism because
Racism is racism, period, and the reasons it continues to exist--especially
in the south--are ignorance and continued racism. So long as it continues in
either direction, it will exist and it is the existence of racism, not the
direction it flows, that causes trouble.
You can't eliminate one form of racism without addressing the other. An eye
for an eye makes the world blind and all that. Beyond that, I do understand
your argument; black racism against whites has at least never been
succesfully institutionalized.
> But the real power is in the hegemony that rich, mostly white, mostly men
have over everyone else in the <world.
I would say the "power" wielded by white men pales in comparsion to the
power wielded by middle eastern men on every level. In our region of the
world, it is not the white man but money that rules supreme, and it turns
out that a very small percentage of white men have most of the money, so it
follows that they rule all races including their own. But that money means
little in the parts of the world controlled by men who aren't white, where
you can be tortured our executed without trial or due process.
And, here, women--regardless of their race--can drive, get jobs, become
independently wealthy, show their faces in public and they're not stoned to
death for adultry. They can fly fighter planes, work in government, have
their own TV shows and magazines and run for office. I'm only pointing this
out as a matter of perspective. Western women have had to fight for pretty
much everything they had, but previous to that, so did western men. I can
elaborate on that though if it's unclear.
-c
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:aljOa.53160$n%5.48910@no-spam
> Racism is racism, period, and the reasons it continues to
exist--especially
> in the south--are ignorance and continued racism. So long as it continues
in
> either direction, it will exist and it is the existence of racism, not the
> direction it flows, that causes trouble.
You are not getting my point and I don't know how else to explain it to you.
> You can't eliminate one form of racism without addressing the other. An
eye
> for an eye makes the world blind and all that.
Yeah, Ghandi had it going on, and more to the point "Injustice anywhere is
injustice everywhere" which is why Maya Angelou stood up for the white girl
against the blacks in your example. I'm saying historical, institutional
domination of whites over people of color is not anywhere near the same as
the backlash of individual incidents of some people of color against whites.
Even when many people of color are organized in areas of concentration such
as soul food restaurants that don't allow whites, ghettoes that are hostile
to whites, etc.
Beyond that, I do understand
> your argument; black racism against whites has at least never been
> succesfully institutionalized.
Why do you think that is? There are so many black people after all, and
more than half the world are Asians. Most of the world are people of color
yet white men with money and power are the ones who control the wealth and
resources (and control the rest of us)and have for centuries, why is that?
> > But the real power is in the hegemony that rich, mostly white, mostly
men
> have over everyone else in the <world.
> I would say the "power" wielded by white men pales in comparsion to the
> power wielded by middle eastern men on every level. In our region of the
> world, it is not the white man but money that rules supreme, and it turns
> out that a very small percentage of white men have most of the money, so
it
> follows that they rule all races including their own. But that money
means
> little in the parts of the world controlled by men who aren't white, where
> you can be tortured our executed without trial or due process.
Ah, but again it is rich, white men who's hegemony controls these hideous
conditions in these parts of the world, it is simply done remotely.
> And, here, women--regardless of their race--can drive, get jobs, become
> independently wealthy, show their faces in public and they're not stoned
to
> death for adultry. They can fly fighter planes, work in government, have
> their own TV shows and magazines and run for office. I'm only pointing
this
> out as a matter of perspective. Western women have had to fight for pretty
> much everything they had, but previous to that, so did western men. I can
> elaborate on that though if it's unclear.
Compared to women of developing countries, Western women have it peachy
keen. Compared to Western men, women have a long way to go to obtain
parity. To put it succinctly: We've come a short way, and don't call me
baby. LOL.
<osote@no-spam> wrote in message
news:b_rOa.2664$wk6.1917@no-spam
> Beyond that, I do understand your argument; black racism against whites
has at least never been
> > succesfully institutionalized.
>
> Why do you think that is? There are so many black people after all, and
> more than half the world are Asians. Most of the world are people of
color
> yet white men with money and power are the ones who control the wealth and
> resources (and control the rest of us)and have for centuries, why is that?
Well, it's a matter of western ethnocentrism, actually. In the part of the
world dominated by white men, most people think that the whole world is
dominated by white men.
China isn't. Pakistan isn't. India isn't. The middle east and most of Africa
isn't. That's well over half the world population.
In the book Tombee, it's pointed out that african slaves were often provided
to traders by rival african tribes, making black africans accomplices to the
slave trade. By and large that was a small percentage of the slave shipping,
but it's significant nonetheless.
We're so used to believing that white men rule that we accept it without
question. If Bill Gates were to walk down the streets of Baghdad without
armed escort, he'd likely be killed on the spot. You would be imprisoned for
driving a vehicle in Saudi Arabia.
What I'm saying is, from the isolation of our white world, we see white
man's rule from horizon to horizon but that doesn't mean there isn't much
more going on beyond the horizons. Pol Pot, etc. Africa has an AIDS
epidemic that we didn't start and we're fortunate to have the highest
standard of living in the history of the world. But we can't cure AIDS, we
can't get them to stop hacking each other up with machetes or blowing each
other up at night clubs and in public plazas. If we didn't intervene with
regard to Israel, they'd all die. Again. More directly, if we didn't
intervene in Israel the Democrats and Republicans would lose incalculable
amounts of campaign contributions and other support, which is in my
estimation why we continue to support Israel. So, you could say that the
middle east runs us. We just make cars and software and buy their oil and
exploit their children in factories. But it ain't just white men exploiting
them because we all own stuff that was made in a third world nation.
> Ah, but again it is rich, white men who's hegemony controls these hideous
> conditions in these parts of the world, it is simply done remotely.
How so? In what way do we remote-control China?
-c
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:AExOa.64360$n%5.8915@no-spam
>
> <osote@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:b_rOa.2664$wk6.1917@no-spam
>
> > Beyond that, I do understand your argument; black racism against whites
> has at least never been
> > > succesfully institutionalized.
> >
> > Why do you think that is? There are so many black people after all, and
> > more than half the world are Asians. Most of the world are people of
> color
> > yet white men with money and power are the ones who control the wealth
and
> > resources (and control the rest of us)and have for centuries, why is
that?
>
> Well, it's a matter of western ethnocentrism, actually. In the part of
the
> world dominated by white men, most people think that the whole world is
> dominated by white men.
>
> China isn't. Pakistan isn't. India isn't. The middle east and most of
Africa
> isn't. That's well over half the world population.
>
> In the book Tombee, it's pointed out that african slaves were often
provided
> to traders by rival african tribes, making black africans accomplices to
the
> slave trade. By and large that was a small percentage of the slave
shipping,
> but it's significant nonetheless.
I knew about that. I learned it in history at UWisconsin and in a women's
studies class taught by a black woman, actually at the same school and in an
English class at that school. It's a pretty radical school.
> We're so used to believing that white men rule that we accept it without
> question. If Bill Gates were to walk down the streets of Baghdad without
> armed escort, he'd likely be killed on the spot. You would be imprisoned
for
> driving a vehicle in Saudi Arabia.
I am aware of that. You still can't convince me that the USA does not have
more military and economic power than any other country on earth and that we
exploit other countries accordingly. Which is why Bill Gates has plenty of
protection but I'll NEVER be able to drive a car in Saudi Arabia.
> What I'm saying is, from the isolation of our white world, we see white
> man's rule from horizon to horizon but that doesn't mean there isn't much
> more going on beyond the horizons. Pol Pot, etc.
I have my suspicions about US involvement in that ugliness, I know men who
were *not* there but sure do remember an awful lot about Cambodia, hmm...
> Africa has an AIDS
> epidemic that we didn't start
don't be so sure...
> and we're fortunate to have the highest
> standard of living in the history of the world. But we can't cure AIDS, we
> can't get them to stop hacking each other up with machetes or blowing each
> other up at night clubs and in public plazas. If we didn't intervene with
> regard to Israel, they'd all die. Again. More directly, if we didn't
> intervene in Israel the Democrats and Republicans would lose incalculable
> amounts of campaign contributions and other support, which is in my
> estimation why we continue to support Israel. So, you could say that the
> middle east runs us. We just make cars and software and buy their oil and
> exploit their children in factories. But it ain't just white men
exploiting
> them because we all own stuff that was made in a third world nation.
Yeah, I shop at Wal-Mart, I'm guilty of perpetuating it all, I know.
> > Ah, but again it is rich, white men who's hegemony controls these
hideous
> > conditions in these parts of the world, it is simply done remotely.
> How so? In what way do we remote-control China?
I wasn't thinking of China, I was thinking of Central and South America,
Malaysia, and parts of Africa and I don't think I have to explain it to you
Chris...
<osote@no-spam> wrote in message
> I am aware of that. You still can't convince me that the USA does not
have
> more military and economic power than any other country on earth and that
we
> exploit other countries accordingly.
To an extent that they allow themselves to be exploited, sure. What I mean
is, if Malaysia is the victim of predatory child labor exploitation, it
should create child labor laws like those that developed in America at the
beginning of the 20th century. Some libertarian would probably tell you
that it's a matter of supply and demand. We have a demand for cheap labor
and they willingly supply our corporations with it. Our military is not
involved nearly so much as our consumerism. I find it difficult to blame
the American government of something that we are all guilty of, facilitated
not by our government which prohibits slave labor but by the corporations
that will go elsewhere to find it.
> Which is why Bill Gates has plenty of protection but I'll NEVER be able to
drive a car in Saudi Arabia.
Well, yes. That's partly my point. In the "white man's world", you don't
have to be white or male to operate a vehicle, get a job, commit adultry,
get a divorce or show your face in public. It took awhile, but we've gotten
at least that far.
> > Africa has an AIDS epidemic that we didn't start
>
> don't be so sure...
I've yet to see rational evidence to suggest that America is in any way
responsibly for spreading AIDS in Africa. Rather, we've spent billions of
dollars trying to deal with it. I had relatives that believed that AIDS was
created by the Russians (or the CIA, or God, or...) I'm not willing to
extend that sort of faith when it's contrary to research by the CDC and
other organizations.
-c