en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/771082 Comments by yesec9 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-people-who-can-only-afford-hard-work__trashed/#IDComment70980148 I'm not sure I understand your question in the way it's being phrased. I also don't think we discussed the legal immigration process in class, what people have to go through to get legal status, the money (if any) required, etc. I hear a common theme of people who say "well the legal process is too difficult." I believe that the legal process should be streamlined. However, we can't let just anyone in, however, it should not have to be based on socioeconomic status. There need to be venues for workers to immigrate and be able to work (as a documented worker) to earn legal residency status. I also believe that part of the fact that workers must be undocumented to be able to work for wages and benefits below the minimum regulations. I am one of those people who believes that the minimum wage laws cause black markets for labor and should be reformed. I know that sounds like a cold statement, but minimum labor prevents some types of labor from being able to be legal, and labor laws like this should be relaxed. Unfortunately the legal labor pool is not suitable for many unskilled immigration laborers. The government through its regulations and taxes has effectively legislated away many types of low skill, low wage employment from the legal labor pool. There are millions of unemployed Americans who would be happy to take low wage low benefit jobs, including some of the jobs that have been off-shored; especially recently with the recession. I happen to believe that when the government creates black markets like this, there will be all kinds of unintended consequences. For example, drug prohibition may cause less people to use the drug but drives the market underground, forcing people to take incredible risks in a market that does not abide by the rule of law. Similarly, immigrants are forced to sneak in and risk being deported because low wage jobs such as this are illegal, and face intense, often violent competition for underground low wage jobs. Immigrants are faced with a conundrum; they need legitimate, legal jobs that they can work in order to gain legal status, but don't have much available to them. Unless the immigrant has a marketable skill that they can enter the United States' higher education system or skilled labor pool, they are pretty much forced to work illegal jobs under constant threat of deportation. The problem is that the low skill legal jobs have effectively been legislated away. In addition, I believe that the public should become more educated about the legal immigration process, why it is so cumbersome, and how it can be reformed to be more fair and give poor immigrants a chance to move up and succeed; though I suspect that the basic underlying cause is the patchwork of restrictive wage and benefit laws that discourage hiring. Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:13:44 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-people-who-can-only-afford-hard-work__trashed/#IDComment70980148 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-occupied-territories__trashed/#IDComment68438607 **they only have the most powerful army because we send them money and weapons** Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:39:29 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-occupied-territories__trashed/#IDComment68438607 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-occupied-territories__trashed/#IDComment68438095 First of all, you have opened up a can of worms with this issue, and many in the class would be offended by what you said. Nevertheless, my opinion on the whole thing is that our country can no longer to afford to geopolitically and economically dominate the world. So much capital has been poured into defense, finance, and other unproductive industries that the rest of the country's economy is crumbling and produces little of value any more. So, my opinion is that if the U.S. is to renounce its global empire, it should start with pulling out of the Middle East. That includes stopping the transfer of weapons and money to Israel. It will require significant belt-tightening on the part of Americans but I for one think that there is a lot of belt-tightening that can be done in America (by the wealthy and politically connected socioeconomic classes that is, not the growing underclass that is increasingly including whites). Our budget would have money for manufacturing, education, healthcare, and infrastructure (i.e. a REAL economy, not a FIRE economy) if our money stops going to the military, the banking system, the mortgage industry, and to foreign governments such as Taiwan and Israel. Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:35:16 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-the-occupied-territories__trashed/#IDComment68438095 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68436994 How can one not expect this? Our media puts out propaganda about the extremist Muslims, portraying them as if every Muslim is like that, and claiming that the Muslim world has declared war on America and Israel. Only when Sam asked us to envision ourselves in Middle Eastern shoes, the Christian Invaders propaganda seemed much more real. Of course it is still propaganda but the effects are much more real to them and hit home in the way it most definitely doesn't in America. I think the reason for that is...voila...it IS much more real!! Arab extremists have caused, what, 5000 American civilian deaths? Most of whom were in the WTC? Compare that to the US troops in Iraq (the Gulf Wars and the Iraq War) and Afghanistan, and the numbers don't even compare. Our invasion and occupation is on a order of magnitude bigger than any coalition of Arab nations or extremist groups could muster up. When Sam asked in class whether I'd take up arms or support the insurgents, my answer is an emphatic YES. If you are in MY land killing MY people, I WILL shoot back. NO questions asked. Think about it. If America were invaded and occupied by China, I would muster up as much weaponry as me and my friends could find. No joke. If I went over to the Middle East as a citizen, it would not surprise me in the least bit if I were looked at funny or met with hostility from Arab citizens. We all say this war must end, but how can us ordinary Americans end it if the people at the top in the banking and defense industries benefit from making loans to governments to finance wars, and manufacture weapons for lucrative sums of money? Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:25:32 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68436994 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-are-all-of-you-thinking-about-asians__trashed/#IDComment64281892 "Asian" is a HUGE group. Bigger than black people I believe. But yes, the stigma holds true for Asians too. For example, in my fraternity there is one Asian guy and one black guy. If I were to tell someone, "Talk to Josh about that", and they would ask, "Whose Josh", I can see myself saying, "He's the short Asian guy." If you are in the minority people will use that to describe you. I have had the same thing happen to me. As for the Asian American/Asian difference, it reminds me of the time when Sam said how he and his wife could pick out Americans from a distance just from the way they walked and acted. I usually would like to think that I don't have to hear their accent to know that they are American. When I'm walking around and an Asian guy passes by me I usually tell myself whether I think he is American or if he's an immigrant. I don't really think about it but I subconsciously notice. Usually I am right. I can't really describe it, but I think I can tell before they open their mouth and say something. Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:50:39 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-are-all-of-you-thinking-about-asians__trashed/#IDComment64281892 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/flip-the-script-for-a-moment__trashed/#IDComment64281161 Both men and women believe that the bleeding thing is an issue that shouldn't be talked about. I am personally very apprehensive about talking to a girl about her cycle. I would assume that she wouldn't want me to bring it up. But then turn it around. If I were a girl I would be apprehensive about talking about it, because I would think that a guy I'm talking to wouldn't want me to bring it up. It is one of those stigma, like the black and white thing, that runs deep among everyone no matter their gender. And yes, it is very much a man's world. Although there are forces today that seem to indicate that the gender division is shrinking (like for example the unemployment rate for men is higher than the unemployment rate for women), but men still hold the position of power. Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:42:12 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/flip-the-script-for-a-moment__trashed/#IDComment64281161 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment64280481 I like many others here got teary-eyed when I saw this. It goes to show the notion that runs deep in society; that white people are good, superior, and somehow better than everyone else. When black kids show this so early on, it really means that this notion runs deeply in our society, from the elites all the way down to young minority children. I thought for a second that one of the factors may have been the idea that the color black symbolizes darkness, evil, and ugliness, while the color white symbolizes purity, goodness, beauty. Hell is dark and heaven is bright, the darkness is dangerous and the daytime is safe, etc. Then I thought about it again, and wondered how can symbolism like that be extended to children of such age. And then again, it's not just a black and white thing. It's a white and minority thing; like for example, how some of the posters above explained situations with not wanting to even play with Asian or Hispanic-looking dolls. I would also imagine that most white kids would pick the white doll. You could also say that hey, that's a given, but is it really? I am curious; does this happen in other countries besides the US? Do young children born and raised in China also pick the white doll over the Asian doll? Do young black children born and raised in sub-Saharan Africa also pick the white doll over the black doll? I would hope not, but it also wouldn't surprise me in the least. Young children pick up on things like this. When everybody plays the race card so much, it must be hard to avoid as a minority child. Being brought up in an environment where black and white people alike play the race card all the time, especially as a minority child, practically guarantees that we will have issues like this. Take the tea party protests in Washington for example. The left points out people at the rallies who make racist signs and yell racial epithets to stigmatize an entire half of the US populace as racist. And the people involved in the Tea Parties on the right blame the idea of infiltrators from the left sneaking in and trying to frame the tea partiers as racist. I don't know what to believe, given the partisan nature of the mainstream media. I suspect that there are both infiltrators AND tea partiers that are truly racist. And I can't help but believe that both sides are using the situation to their advantage and to try to exonerate themselves from being racists, when the truth is, deep down, there is a great deal of hatred among everyone involved. There is as much hate as ever in this country and I don't know whether to blame the people at the top, the people at the bottom, or both. But partisan politics and the mainstream media doesn't help the situation at all, and keep everyone hateful and divided. I can just picture African American parents sitting their children in front of the TV and saying, "See that? Those white people spat on the black man at the rally." At a young age I would imagine that children would think to themselves that maybe the white people are right and maybe the entire black race is bad or inferior. Parents teach their children at a very young age. And unfortunately this translates into a stubborn belief system later in life that traverses generations upon generations. Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:34:10 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment64280481 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/is-anyone-else-getting-this-stuff__trashed/#IDComment63040037 The closed environment is the first step for many people who wouldn't dare come out of their shell in real life and consider even facilitated discussion a step forward. Being in the facilitated discussion, there is at least an agreement that the members will try to have an open mind. There is no expectation about that out in the world. The fact is that even if you are comfortable about talking about race, others aren't. Being comfortable about talking means that you are prepared for whatever consequences may come your way should you say such things. And if you are inexperienced or reserved about it, it probably means that you overemphasize that risk to yourself considerably or are unwilling to have to deal with it. If you are capable of talking about these things, some will look at it and think it's racist. I feel like many people are not comfortable with those risks that come along with coming out of their shell. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:33:34 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/is-anyone-else-getting-this-stuff__trashed/#IDComment63040037 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/this-is-getting-to-be-too-much__trashed/#IDComment63036313 No, she was asking if it made any "difference". Yes, it does make a difference. No it doesn't make it "better" or "worse" It just has different (but both) implications for race relations. When a black person does it, it is not the historical deep-seated hatred that whites had, it is his newly empowered sense that blacks now have the power and influence and return the fire from past actions and not only that, believe that it is okay. Apparently the racism is coming from all parties, not just blacks, in SoCal. None of it is okay. I am frankly not surprised at the incident though. I disagree with a lot of what the people in the video were saying, by the way, if that isn't already clear. Though I do agree that education is needed (I wasn't aware of all of the issues until this year, and I owe it to PL SC 110 and SOC), if it is a one-sided viewpoint from a majority of ANY race then it will be biased. Obviously people wouldn't be getting all fired up if there was no issue here. The fact is that there ARE racial issues at that campus. Not sure if I am phrasing all this correctly, forgive me if I'm not making sense. The explanation behind it and the implications it would have...are surely different but the harm is there just the same. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:11:54 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/this-is-getting-to-be-too-much__trashed/#IDComment63036313 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-to-do-about-white-guilt__trashed/#IDComment63027203 Much of the institutional racism in the past in the South came from individuals in the community and local governments harboring deep-seated oppression and hatred. And until the public perception changed (along with greater communication and transportation that exposed the South to the world during WWII), there was very little that governments at the federal and state level did or could do. The gradual decline in white on black violence was a long process that were caused by an improvement in local race relations. Government throughout that time (Post Reconstruction) was often used (by local forces) as leverage to entrench and solidify segregation, racism, and oppression. National policy did not cause this, it followed it. Speaking of WWII, much of the civil rights movement stemmed from political embarrassment from the fact that the entire world saw America fighting fascism and oppression overseas with all of the problems within our borders and the atrocities that took place during the Jim Crow era up until the Civil Rights movement. I think we are making a mistake in yet expanding the unprecedented size and scope of the federal government. Time after time there are allegations of regulatory agencies not doing their job and being ineffective with comparison with informed consumers and businesses. It just doesn't strike me that the Department of Education will carry out their regulatory duty properly. It seems more likely to me that education oversight will look more like the way the SEC and the Federal Reserve regulate banks. Which is very poorly. National mandates involve lots of political power and involves the most powerful unions and corporations into the legislation and often neglects ordinary people. This time around, it would be the largest teachers' unions. Not to mention that there is not a one-size-fits-all strategy for all neighborhoods, their schools, and their racial demographic breakdowns. Change comes from the grassroots and the general attitude of society. If parents and educators are unwilling to participate in their childrens' education process then no progress can be made. All too often schools do get the funding they need; funding is an issue but after all, some of the problems come from unionization issues or misappropriation that involve the city government and local politicians; in addition the local community and parents all too often don't care about going to school and getting an education, or there are family or poverty issues. It is bad politics to misrepresent one's own constituency, even if it were the right thing to do. This is why you don't have politicians coming out and admitting that there is seriously wrong if the status quo benefits them. Cases in point: Southern congressmen during Slavery representing plantation slave owner jurisdictions, and representatives of highly racist communities, who in both cases will continue the status quo of oppression. It is bad politics to say that many fundamentals of your constituency are based on lies. The only way that the history books will ever become "truthful", and properly represent Native Americans, is if all politicians, local, state, and federal, were to join a "tell the people the truth instead of what they want to hear" campaign. Only then would any legislation that requires the full truth to be told in education be enforced effectively and efficiently. Highly unlikely. If only politics wasn't a game for self interest and lobbyist money and was instead an honest, beneficial service for the common good. Ah, human nature. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:06:20 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-to-do-about-white-guilt__trashed/#IDComment63027203 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-one__trashed/#IDComment58912478 Frankly I don't think it is possible to integrate the genocide of Native Americans into the public school system. Whether or not it is the right thing to do is moot, because I think that myself and many others would agree that educating and spreading the word is the "right" thing to do at an early age. American History, as taught in public school in America, is required to paint a picture of the mainstream view, because if it were otherwise, then the vision of genocide would be implanted in enough peoples' brains to cause a widespread dismissal of the traditional viewpoint (Manifest Destiny) of how America was created. Of course, this will never happen. This isn't even an issue of special interests in DC. I can honestly say that I thought I knew all the details but it turns out that I didn't know the half of it. I know that, to fit in to "our" (society's) collective view on things, the genocide is something to not mention. But if this is learned at a younger age, it would be more implanted into kids' brains that it was a horrible tragedy and they may not know better but to be vocal about it. So as long as people find out the truth later in life, the system can continue. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:32:25 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-one__trashed/#IDComment58912478 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/inequality-class-question-one__trashed/#IDComment58911247 The vast majority of violent crime is concentrated in the worst neighborhoods with consistent poverty. Therefore, I think it is an oversimplication if you say that crimes are more easily apprehended with higher population density. It is true. But it doesn't even paint half of the picture. The worst neighborhoods with drug dealing and crime are often crawling with cops. Compare poor black or Latino areas of North Philly with white areas like Port Richmond or University City for example, and you will see the population density is the same, but there are much more cops in the minority, drug infested areas. (Some of the poorer areas are actually LESS dense. They have been hit hard by depopulation and abandonment.) When you go to the more well-off city neighborhoods with the same (or even denser) populations, you don't have the cops and sirens. And since there is more poverty in latino and black communities, cops spend their time patrolling these areas. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:20:19 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/inequality-class-question-one__trashed/#IDComment58911247 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/inequality-class-question-four__trashed/#IDComment58909650 Depends on the drug. Heroin, cocaine, and other narcotics like that usually come from countries in South America, Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, etc. Increasingly these days it comes from the U.S in the south and rural areas. (most marijuana is now domestic, as is, unfortunately, meth.) For the boys in the hood selling heroin on the corner, yeah, it's more often than not being made somewhere else. The guys on the corner, by the way, call it "work". Imagine that. When heavy industry left the inner cities of the Northeast and Midwest, the "work" that they talk about is all that's left. Most guys I've met, actually, who do that sort of thing are just trying to have a livelihood and don't do the drugs themselves. It's not their fault. Usually the profit margins for the lowly corner boys is only a couple of bucks per bag of dope; this is pretty meager considering the risk of getting spotted by the five-oh. Oh, and just to mix things up a bit, those areas are usually CRAWLING with cops. The TRAFFICKERS aren't necessarily white, and they run a big risk of getting in trouble. However, the FINANCIERS (those who provide capital for boats and other investments) are more often than not white with high up connections in financial services and the likes of the CIA, and they never get in trouble. Of course the corner guys are the ones taking the heat from the cops 99% of the time as well as subjecting themselves to the crazy junkies coming from the burbs trying to buy dope day in and day out. I don't think it's a race thing so much as a class thing, but then again I may be wrong. But judging by the millions of white Americans being laid off across the U.S., working class whites are increasingly being shoved into the poor category with the blacks and Latinos by offshoring and other factors. I also think suburban sprawl is another factor. In the burbs, where more white people live, everything is so much more spread out that cops can't possibly hope to cover every block during their day. In the city, the cops can cover tens of thousands of people over the much shorter blocks and row houses. And in the burbs, dealing is more concealed and done behind closed doors whereas in the city, it's mostly open-air (you either walk up to a corner or call a guy and sit in your car. Very risky by the way.) I come from Philly, just so we're clear and we can put it into perspective. I am speaking for what I know about certain parts of North Philly and the Northeast. I don't know South or West very well, and apparently, it's more concealed than it is in the "badlands". Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:02:39 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/inequality-class-question-four__trashed/#IDComment58909650 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-four__trashed/#IDComment57176965 Since we supposedly live in a country where we are free to practice the religion we want, if you are tolerant of other religions, then how is it possible to not tolerate sexuality? Gay people may seem weird sometimes, but you don't see these totalitarians running around trying to ban anime and manga just because they think that's also wierd. I would assume that the vast majority of the SOC 119 class agrees with me. Fear of "being raped or molested" is not justifiable for pre-emptive prejudice. I say that if you're prejudiced, I guess nothing can change that. You can choose to not be cool with gay people or you can avoid them if you want. But try not to act on that prejudice when it can hurt other people; don't try to impose your ideals and lifestyle choices on them. Let the gay people get married and do what they want. I'm not sure how else to say it then that. If they love each other, they should have the same rights (by law and by the tax code) as heterosexual couples. It is discrimination when hetero couples can adopt children and get more benefits from the government than homosexual couples doing the same thing. Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:03:24 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-four__trashed/#IDComment57176965 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-two__trashed/#IDComment57175161 I remember being in class today, and noticing everyone's reaction to the two girls together vs. the two guys together. I kinda expected the reaction, but it only reinforced my perception of the stigma towards gays being more than the stigma of being lesbian. I'm not sure what I think is weirder. I think one of the things reasons is that girls are more willing to be touchy-feely towards each other and express their love (Not sexual attraction). A guy can love another guy and not be gay just like a woman can. I love my best friend to death. But straight guys don't express this "love" in a overt manner nearly as much as straight girls do, perhaps because of the macho factor, or perhaps it is something else. The result of this is that love and sexuality get lumped together, in a manner such that girls expressing homosexuality is not as shocking as guys expressing homosexuality. This is just the perception of a straight guy; therefore, a straight girl, a gay, or a lesbian may all have different points of view than I do. Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:49:02 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-two__trashed/#IDComment57175161 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/swinging-past-the-other-end-of-the-ideological-spectrum-on-the-way-to-the-intellectual-gray__trashed/#IDComment57172111 I was raised in a so-to-speak Democratic household that believes full well that the government should be there to correct for the factors and forces that cause inequality. For example, they say things like "It's inconceivable that 1/6th of the population is not covered by health insurance," often repeating the very words Democratic politicians speak. Now my opinion on this is that we must be wary of letting our politicians sign a massive new costly bill into law, given our government's track record (on both sides of the aisle, and at all levels including local, state, and federal) in terms of making false promises. For example, the housing debacle and Fannie/Freddie are a shining example of this. They have now morphed into the largest holders of defaulted and junk mortgages from the housing bubble. I have become very skeptical of politicians thinking they can engage in social engineering. More often than not, they have the ability to cause huge problems down the road. I, like many others, am being forced to the middle and being alienated by partisan politics. Neither side can explain the whole story. The way it seems today, the Democrats have focused all of their efforts at expanding government on the front of fostering equality, and the Republicans have focused all of their efforts at expanding government on the front of fostering security and order. Both are expansions of government and both serve to diminish liberty. Instead, the two parties could be focused on setting our country on the right track by focusing on the liberty issues: being more tolerant of peoples' personal life choices such as gay marriage and drug use (Democrats), and creating a more business-friendly economic environment and making the tax code simpler (Republicans). In addition, since we are broke as a nation, the time has come to pay back our debts, most likely through higher taxes (Yes, it will suck and yes, it will probably be necessary) and rebuilding our personal savings. This all might make me a libertarian, though I do diverge in some policy areas. As for the health care issue, it is a huge mess, and government involvement at many levels is partly to blame. The subsidies for industrial monoculture crops as well as the subsidized oil transportation distribution system creates artificially cheap high-calorie (obesity inducing) foods. There are many other factors. But the way I see it, there are so many unintended consequences in politics that creating massive new legislation in the age of Wall Street-level corporate influence in politics, is much more dangerous to the American people than the perceived terrorist threat. Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:26:52 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/swinging-past-the-other-end-of-the-ideological-spectrum-on-the-way-to-the-intellectual-gray__trashed/#IDComment57172111 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/racism-looks-pretty-good-on-this-side-of-the-atlantic__trashed/#IDComment55564948 This makes me think of Green Street Hooligans for some reason. The soccer (football) teams in England have "firms" who associate themselves with the team, acting as an organized group of fans (constituting groups of hooligans who in some cases rival the size of criminal gangs) who pick fights with firms of other teams. Of course the football teams do not endorse this, but fans will organize themselves regardless. These fights usually end up becoming brawls involving 20, 30, 40, or even more, people. These rumbles get so violent that rival hooligans, as well as bystanders and riot police, are often hospitalized or killed. Organized groups like this are much more widespread in Europe than in America, especially involving soccer. The drunk fans chanting racist words would never do such a thing standing by themselves in the stands, but when the group mentality takes over, they go crazy. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 03:09:28 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/racism-looks-pretty-good-on-this-side-of-the-atlantic__trashed/#IDComment55564948 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/voters-and-their-senseless-stories__trashed/#IDComment55563717 This problem, as are most other problems with our current system of government, is not Democratic or Republican. It is systemic. It is our political system itself that is so corrupt. In the broadest sense, I guess you could say that I support health reform, if done right. But when the bill is written by the staffers and lobbyists who pay politicians to get their agenda on the drawing table, the legislation is garbage and the republic has effectively been dismantled. This writer of this article clearly supports the legislation, because it is basically saying that these voters should accept something because it is for their own good. Well, the voters fear the introduction of a massively expensive new piece of legislation, with plenty of things that could potentially go wrong such as cost overruns or the need for massive new borrowing and levels of debt, especially in economic times as difficult as today and ESPECIALLY considering the level of indebtedness in America on all levels from consumer debt to the national debt. They also don't expect that they will be benefited by this as much as the perceived potential harm. And judging by governments at all levels' track record of creating unintended consequences, people are more scared than ever. Not only that, but when politicians dumb down their speeches they make to the public, they are belittling their constituency and simultaneously withholding critical information that the public should know about. Given the fact that Social Security and Medicare are unfunded to the tune of trillions of dollars, these people have lost faith in the ability of government to serve their constituencies. They have every right to be scared. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:53:38 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/voters-and-their-senseless-stories__trashed/#IDComment55563717 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/the-enlightened-west-knows-best__trashed/#IDComment55560629 "The pair says they will willingly show their faces for identification purposes, but if it comes to it they will break any law that runs contrary to their religious beliefs." Good to see that there are at least some sane people left on this planet. I guess it says something when those who follow the same religious ideology that the West frequently denounces often are the ones speaking the truth or making more sense, rather than the either ill-informed or out of touch Western governments. This makes me think of all of the propaganda about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden has told the West multiple times that if they would simply cease supporting Israel and deploying military bases and air drones in their home countries, the terrorism would stop. I would postulate that most ordinary Americans are also ill-informed about some of the consequences of our actions overseas. What is the motivation for this? Is it national security? If it truly is national security, then the Western world has slid downwards quite far in terms of liberty, so to speak. Laws that are created out of fear, like this one, serve to divide the populace and instill more fear in them. If the importance of the surveillance state is such that anyone would need to be readily identifiable in this way, the French sure must not have much of a concern for civil liberties. If an when this does pass, it will definitely create a precedent for establishing a myriad of other laws that are also restrictive to individual liberties...all in the name of national security. What's going to stop them from then banning masks and sunglasses? You know, those things cover your eyes anyways so you can't be readily identified by a law enforcement officer! It's a national security threat. But seriously, if they were serious about keeping peoples' faces exposed in public then there's nothing stopping the French government from going on and creating a few more restrictive laws like the one I mentioned above. Is it money? The $1000 fine is pretty hefty for having your face covered in public. We've all heard that governments tend to increase the price of traffic tickets and other fines during a recession (It's happening in America today.) Not many people can afford a $1000 ticket. But, creating new fines and penalties during difficult economic times is not only counterproductive, but helps line the pockets of the local police unions who then channel their newfound wealth towards lobbying for more pay and benefits. (At least in America that's how it would work. Not sure if the French have it divided into local/state/federal governments) Oh, and did I mention that it would be highly discriminatory in terms of peoples' religions? Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:23:58 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/the-enlightened-west-knows-best__trashed/#IDComment55560629 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-c__trashed/#IDComment55558063 Elliott Cummings Sat, 6 Feb 2010 01:56:48 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-c__trashed/#IDComment55558063