Western Civilization is in Decline. Western Europe, and America can no longer function, without the importation of large numbers of people from the third world. This is happening at the same time that the institutions that gave the west, leadership and economic dominance are disapearing. The family, our educational system, and civil society based on literacy and reasoned discourse, are disapearing, never to return.

They are being replaced by belief systems that are largely religious in nature, fundamentalist systems that pose an every increasing threat to the lives of each and every member of our society.

Whys is this happening, why is our culutre our society, disapearing?

This is happening to the west, primarly because, as our population ages, there aren’t enough children of the West to replace it’s ageing population, this is a result of the Wests historical afluence, and the destruction of the famiy. 

More affluent, cultures and ones with single parent homes, tend to produce less children.

As a result America has been forced to turn to mercenaries, in rescent wars because, it does not have a pool of able bodied young men, to fill it’s military needs. At some point America’s corporate Army - Blackwater, may represent a threat to the civil authority of America’s government.

There has been a social war against male children in the United States for the last several decades, largely as a result of the myths of feminism, and the greed of pharmaceutical companies that have drugged male children with ritalin, while “screwing” with their heads. This has happened to male whites much more than any other ethnic group.

As a result America as produced at least two generations of men, extremely damaged psychologically, unable to assume the responbiities of adulthood, and prevented from acting as fathers to their own children, by a family court system dominated by feminists and the belif that children are better off without a father in the home.

The destruction of the family in the west, is a direct result of the myth’s of feminists, and their paranoid belief in a network of “white devils” who oppress and deny equality to all.

The effects of their irrational beliefs, can be seen everywhere from the increasingly impoverished lives children face without fathers,to an impotent castrated government in Washington, vaciliting betwen the left and the right, unable to find the center.

“As to the education of males over females , this references a cultural phenomenon well known to have existed for centuries and still going strong. It doesnt refer to an article that may or may not exists.”

Source?  You have none in other words.  You made it up.  And don’t make me repeat myself.

#76339 by Skruff on 6/08 at 9:57 am
(Unregistered commenter)

76327 by ardee on 6/08 at 9:12 am

As to “prefernential (sic) treatment” you seem to fail to see that , if you are a white middle class male, you are a beneficiary of some pretty helpful benefits already. The chances that you fail to note the greater emphasis on schooling for white males, the better treatment by society in general to white males are discriminatory factors built into our culture.”

Oh Pleeeze! One thing about a “good line” it sticks “White middleclass males”

Skruff, why hurt your self leaping to conclusion?

Why posit that I was targetting white males? Would you please engage your fucking brain before firing off angry shit at me. You are not like Dik or PT in that you actually have a fucking brain...USE IT.

Fact:
whites get, in general, a better education here in America
Fact:
there is an old boy network that is far more comfortable with white males than with any other category.
Fact:
the examples you chose in your angry bullshit above were rural and lower class areas, with less money to spend on education, naturally they will produce poorer results, that doesnt prove anything but that you used testosterone rather than intelligence in response.

Fiction:
That I was “targetting anybody but PT for lying thorugh his teeth. Grow the fuck up or dont bother responding to me. I am sick of knee jerk morons.

#76528 by P. T. on 6/08 at 11:12 pm

I will not continue to bore the others with your insistence upon sophomoric self defense. You posted an opinion based upon what increasingly appears to be a blatant lie. That you refuse to spend the three minutes on a search engine in corroboration or self defense says volumes about your style and your believability.

If you hold beliefs they should be based upon genuine research and reflection, they should never be advanced by making shit up to support a contention, never ever.

You were given an opportunity to prove what you claimed and chose to act like a high school sophomore, so be it.

“As to the education of males over females , this references a cultural phenomenon well known to have existed for centuries and still going strong. It doesnt refer to an article that may or may not exists.”

Now that’s some reference!  lol.  As I said, Do your own research.

#76369 by P. T. on 6/08 at 12:44 pm
(26 comments total)

Do your own research.  I found the AP article on a number of websites--the San Jose Mercury News being one.
......
As you posted the fucking reference you might hold yourself responsible for validation of it. This is known as intellectual dishonesty, or sheer arrogance and quite possibly making up crap to prove your point...How would I or anyone else know.

As to the education of males over females , this references a cultural phenomenon well known to have existed for centuries and still going strong. It doesnt refer to an article that may or may not exists. You are guilty of dishonesty in debate, at the very least.

Do your own research.  I found the AP article on a number of websites--the San Jose Mercury News being one.

And, of course, Japanese-Americans get all sorts of special benefits by society--hence their high average income.  lol

P.S.  “The chances that you fail to note the greater emphasis on schooling for white males” Source?

#76141 by P. T. on 6/07 at 1:50 pm
(25 comments total)

The poor performance stuff is in an AP article (as I said) on the Internet.  Of course Marie Cocco is not going to bring it up.

And preferential treatment is discrimination (by definition).  However, it may be discrimination you happen to favor.

If you cite an authority it is generally more useful to provide the link. Saying that it is on the interent is unfullfilling at best.

As to “prefernential treatment” you seem to fail to see that , if you are a white middle class male, you are a beneficiary of some pretty helpful benefits already. The chances that you fail to note the greater emphasis on schooling for white males, the better treatment by society in general to white males are discriminatory factors built into our culture.

I think you dismiss, far too easily, the need for a level playing field. When there are no such things as inferior schools in poorer neighborhoods, when there are no longer ‘old boy” networks set up to further the sons of the haves and exclude those of the have nots then quotas will be left to wither on the vine. Until such time as that they are a great necesity to those of us concerned with issues of justice and equality.

The triangulator Clintons believe that the U.S. working class has no future--that it is finished (you saw that with NAFTA).  Therefore, Democrats should throw in their lot with corporate America because at least it has campaign money on offer.

Hillary Clinton’s pollster and chief strategist, Mark Penn, is a union buster.

Sometimes, I look at words like these with incredulity....That Hillary gets it, on Women’s issues, how ridiculous…

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a clue, neither does she represent all women, or understand Women’s issues, any more clearly than Phyllis Schlafely does. And at least Phyllis understands how Americans view amnesty for illegal aliens, Hillary does not.

Hillary’s willingenss to be victimized by her husband for years, and then offering it all up to “God”, should give pause to anyone with a grain of common sense…

Hillary’s election as president would do nothing for American women, but it might offer an historical moment for the corporations, she represents, to extend the hegemony they have had under Bush for at least another 4 years.

The poor performance stuff is in an AP article (as I said) on the Internet.  Of course Marie Cocco is not going to bring it up.

And preferential treatment is discrimination (by definition).  However, it may be discrimination you happen to favor.

Cyrena:  While I admire Senator Gravel for his openly stated challenge to the military-industrial complex, I think that if you went to the respective web sites of Ravel and Kucinich, you would find Kucinich to be the superior candidate--across the board--especially on the issues of healthcare reform and trade.  The Conyers-Kucinich single-payer plan is the only one which would eliminate a role for for-profit healthcare insurers.  For profit healthcare insurance is an unnecessary middle man which makes up 31% of the spiraling healthcare costs in this country--monies that flow to the pockets of healthcare insurer CEOs, and toward marketing and lobbying.  Kucinich is the “only” candidate who is openly advocating a repeal of NAFTA and the WTO.

One big problem I have with Gravel involves the first debate.  The moderator asked for a show of hands as to who would stand with Kucinich in calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney.  Gravel stood there like a frozen statue.  One of the core issues that makes Mr. Kucinich stand head and shoulders above all of the other candidates is his willingness to stand up for the rule of law--an essential component if the next occupant of the White House is to repair the remants of our Constitutional democracy and a restoration of the principle that ours is a government of laws.

Finally, on the subject of Iraq.  Kucinich is the only current member of Congress running for President who has consistently opposed the war from the outset and voted against “every” war funding bill.  Sadly, the so-called Democratic “leadership” has placed politics before principle.  Just as they failed to filibuster the Military Commissions Act of 2006--an act that strips away a right that dates back to the Magna Carta (habeas corpus) and which provided a retroactive immunity for any war crimes committed by the Bush administration in service of the so-called “war on terror” because they wanted “to eliminate the amount of daylight” on national security in the 2006 mid-term, they have now chosen to enable Bush to continue the war to gain partisan advantage in 2008.

As noted by Mr. Kucinich, we are dealing with issues of war and peace; life and death--issues in which partisan politics should have no role. 

While Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton voted against the latest funding measure, they voted for the previous one, claiming that they did not have the votes to force a cut off of funds.  That was a bald-faced lie!  It only takes a bare majority in the House, or just 41 votes in the Senate to block a war funding bill (via a Senate filibuster). 

And with each bill, Mr. Kucinich was the only member of Congress to step forward to expose the sham of the so-called “benchmarks” which includes an effort to force the Iraqis to pass a new “Hydrocarbon law” that would, in essense, turn most of Iraq’s known oil reserves to the likes of Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and BP--the real reason for this occupation.  The effort to utilize this illegal occupation as a basis for wresting control of Iraq’s oil is a war crime.  On that issue, the so-called Democratic leadership is as guilty as the Bush administration.

PT offers:

If she was an unqualified quota hire, she should have to return the money.

.........
I cannot help but wonder why you assume that this manager was a so-called quota hire, the article certainly makes no mention thereof, and it also sounds a bit like you have a prejudicial bent about such hiring practices. Calling someone unqualified because they may have been given a leg up by an existing “quota” is a reach, in my opinion.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions regarding quotas but certainly not entitled to make up facts that do not exist. If you have information regarding Ms. Ledbetter being such a one would you share it?

Of course the stuff about poor job performance was in another article.  I believe it was Associated Press.  And the law does not require private companies to give cost of living wage increases.

If she was an unqualified quota hire, she should have to return the money.

Ernest, I wanted to thank you for the excellent essay on the Wal-Mart connection. I needed this information 2 years ago for a course paper, and I had to do the work myself. NAFTA and the WTO have brought much misery and further imbalance to the world. And, I always knew that Hillary was connected to it all at the hip.

And everything you said about her voting record is true and significant, and all pretty much why I knew even before she entered the “race”, that she wouldn’t be my choice, for all of the reasons that you’ve so accurately pointed out. And that was even before we knew who her “competition” would be.

Now I didn’t know about Mrs. Obama being on the board of directors for Wal-Mart. So, that’s kind of a surprise. But somehow, I don’t find that nearly as offensive as Condi Rice having been joined at the hip to Chevron Oil all of her life, and I get downright pissed off every time I see that gigantic oil tank sitting right off the Alabama Gulf coast, with her ENTIRE name spelled on it in 3 foot high letters. It just really annoys me, although I suppose I should get over it.

Still, it’s kind of sad to think of Barack as being that quickly drawn into the corporate connection, because he seemed pretty independent of that for a while, and I might quibble a bit with you on the source of his donations. No doubt some of them are “corporate”, but not to the degree that Hillary’s are. Not even close. Barack doesn’t have Murdoch type connections. His are more small donors.

But, I admit that he has been very much courted by the Main Stream Corporate Media, and by the Hollywood crowd, and that has been OK, but we need to know more about the other candidates as well, and what their positions are. The main stream media isn’t allowing that to happen, and that’s bad.

Kucinich is good...his record speaks for that. We need some guts. But then, Mr. Gravel really impressed me as well, but only because of the interview that he did on this site. It’s worth checking out. He addresses issues far more important than whether or not the US should adopt English as it’s “Official Language”, after 300 years without one.

P.T....I’m inclined to agree with you that the employee in this case, Lilly Ledbetter, was probably a “quota hire”, back in the time when even Alabama had to recognize the civil rights legislation. She may even be an African American woman, which would satisfy two criteria in one.

If that is the case, it is that much MORE evidence, (based on what I know about the private sector in that area of the country) that she was consistently underpaid. (docked for being a female, and docked for being black or brown at the same time.)

There is nothing in this particular story, that would suggest that she consistently received poor performance evaluations,(though that may in fact be the case, I’d have to look for it and read it) nor is there anything to indicate that her “raises” were performance related. It sounds like her “raises” over an 18 year period of time could have amounted to nothing more than the bare minimum “cost of living” increases that this particular Company may have been required by law, to give ALL of their employees.

It’s difficult for me to believe that she would have lasted through 18 years at a supervisory position if she had consistently poor performance evaluations. Doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but I don’t find it likely. Not in Alabama. I’m more inclined to guess that she got an 18 year shaft, and it took her a long time to realize she was getting shafted, OR...she couldn’t do anything about it. (other than quit, and starve, or get the hell out of Alabama...she may not have had many options)

The complaining employee seems to have been a quota hire.  And she got pay raises despite poor job performance evaluations.

Actually, the U.S. pay gap between men and women is much less than that between Japanese-Americans and Hispanics, Jews and blacks, etc.

Nothing like a corporate prostitute sycophant, married to the financial elites and promoting their interests. That is the Hillary Clinton I know.
How would any thinking person who is not of her social “class” and who examined her record ever think that she would represent their interests. How do we like Bill’s NAFTA today???
She doesn’t get diddly squat and she will never be the president no matter what promotion her MSM buddies put forth.

Actually, I agree (and appreciate) that Hillary “got this much” at least, because it’s overwhelmingly important. My own experiences are erily similar to the victim in this legislation. There are perhaps millions of us who have unfortunately worked for years at less pay, for the same (and in most cases higher performance)work. And, it can and does leaves hundreds of thousands of women impoverished when they can no longer work. In reality, this wasn’t nearly as much of a problem back in the days of unions, before they became corporatized as well.

Still, the years since the gap has widened, and there are a whole bunch of women and other minorities that don’t even KNOW how much less they’re being paid. They don’t find out until 30 or 40 years down the road, when they have to start trying to collect all of these “benefits” that have some how evaporated along the way, and social security is based on those much lower wages that they’ve been paid all along. It’s quite a shocker. You’ve been working right along side the same men for years, doing the same work, and they wind up with double the pensions. (not to mention the huge cummulative gap.)

So yes, it’s extremely important that she Hillary did in fact put this legislation in the works, and that she kept the statistics collection going, because these are the humdrum bits of boring legal stuff that SOMEBODY has to do, on behalf of those of us who have no singular power to acomplish...at least not within the dictatorship that we have set up now as our form of government.

So, this is something that I would EXPECT any of our leaders or other representatives to do. That’s why we send them to Congress. And, it’s obvious that nobody other than her has done anything like this recently.

That’s not to suggest that this alone should be a reason for putting her in the oval office. And there’s no denying that she is a corporate candidate, and all of that. And, while it would be great to finally have a woman as president, (or an African American, or any other person of color) we don’t wanna elect anybody based on that alone, anymore than we want to REJECT them based on that alone.

You’re gonna be hard pressed to find somebody that doesn’t have ANY corporate ties. It’s not realistic, unless you wanna elect me, and I’m not running.

Seven years ago, I would have been perfectly OK with Hillary as President, because I believe she HAS done good work. But, things have drastically changed since then, and we need other strengths from a President now, and I think the corporate link is still too strong. There’s too much damage to repair. So, we just have to keep talking to them all, to figure out who’s got what we need, before we hire them.

And shame on whomever suggested that we might have Nancy Pelosi, particularly after she just sold us all down the damn river,(and into a constantly fueled ball of fire) and used our blood and money to do it.

Shame on Reid as well. Shame on any member of Congress who voted to give the Mob a single solitary dime more, to finace a blood bath and the permanent occupation of a soverign nation.

And this “troops on the ground” rational is stupid. We are only putting that many more of them IN the ground, UNDER it, when the fact of the matter is that a few million dollars will pay to get them back home, and they can spend the rest of those billions on taking care of them when they get back.

Let’s examine Hillary Clinton’s qualifications:

Millionaire wife of a former pseudo-Democratic president who joined with Reagan & Bush I to ram NAFTA & the WTO through on the fast-track--devices that not only permitted a wealthy elite to outsource America’s manufacturing base in a never ending search for ever cheaper foreign labor.  (Recent example, 12/05 GM, a mainstay of middle-class wages, announced it was laying off 30,000 U.S. workers, then separately announced it intended to triple production in India). 

Like Obama’s wife, Mrs. Clinton is a former member of Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors.  Before 1991, Wal Mart did not have a single store outside the continental U.S.  Thanks to NAFTA and the WTO, by 2003, with 4,400 stores world-wide, Wal Mart became the world’s largest corporation.  It’s “Always low prices” translates to “Always huge profits,” some $7 billion per year, profits that have placed five members of the Walton family amonst the world’s top ten richest people, with a combined personal worth in excess of $100 billion.  This enormous wealth is punctuated by poverty level wages of Wal-Mart (US) employees, the more fortunate of whom receive $15,000/year.  But for 70% of its workforce, the company defines “full-time” as 28 hours/week--$11,000 per year.  Even that wasn’t enough for the Scrooges at Mrs. Clinton’s former company.  Wal-Mart then devised off-the-clock schemes in which it instructed workers to clock out, then do tasks for free.  They are a major source of sweatshop labor over seas, producing a free flow of Chinese items previously manufactured here at home.  As noted by Jim Hightower, “is now the world’s most powerful private force for lowering labor standards and stifling the middle-class aspirations of workers everywhere.”

As a U.S. Senator, Mrs. Clinton voted to authorize the President’s use of force in Iraq then voted for every funding bill until this most recent one.  While pandering to AIPAC she uttered statements about Iran that were as bellicose as anything coming from the Bush White House. 

She, Obama & Edwards all offer sham “universal healthcare” that amount to varying subsidy schemes to enrich the healthcare insurers. 

So MaryinNC, while I agree the time is long overdue for the election of a woman, an hispanic, an African American, a Native American as president, you have to ask yourself:  Other than being female, what do you and Mrs. Clinton really have in common?  If your last name isn’t Walton, I doubt very much. Ask yourself, why is so much corporate money filling the campaign coffers of Clinton-Obama-Edwards?  Why is the conglomerated corporate media doing its level best to limit the competition to those three?

There is only one candidate who stood on that stage proposing (a) a repeal of NAFTA & the WTO; (b) single-payer healthcare that would eliminate the parasitic role of the for-profit healthcare insurance industry, and (c) an immediate cut off of all further funds for the illegal occupation of Iraq.  His name is Dennis Kucinich.  I hope you won’t reject him simply because he is a man.

All Hillary “gets” is whatever she thinks will “get” her to the White House. She is not a leader, she is not a progressive, she is not honest and I don’t believe she will be elected if she gets the nomination. Do we really want another repub president through default by nominating her?  I admit that I don’t talk to every woman I see but the ones I have talked to for the last six months DO NOT LIKE HILLARY. They do not want to see her get the nomination in spite of the fact that, to a woman, they are all FEMINISTS! They have all had responsible careers and they would love to see a woman president. BUT NOT HILLARY. Check it out. Take your own straw poll.

Hillary gets it all right, she gets campaign contributions from Rupert Murdoch and many globalists.

That she falls on the right side of this particular issue is moot, how on earth would she not.

I would love to have a female president but not HC, she’s an authoritarian corporate shill, just like her husband.