City Hall Diary
It is the latest City of San Jose acronym. GFSDEPSG stands for the three-year General Fund Structural Deficit Elimination Plan Stakeholder Group. Whew! Try saying that fast even once.
This group is chaired by my colleague Pietro Constantino (Pete Constant in Italian). The GFSDEPSG includes city workers, unions, various city department directors, nonprofit executives, the Chamber of Commerce and San Jose residents. I have attended all six meetings the GFSDEPSG has had thus far and have enjoyed the arithmetic.
The group is charged with exploring new ideas and talking about touchy topics to solve the structural budget deficit. Sometimes their discussions will include “taboo” topics which are not discussed on the dais since these topics are “political dynamite.” However, this group speaks straight from the hip, which is refreshing.
Last Monday, July 7, the group talked about how the city chooses to pay a “living wage” even though it is not required by state law for contract work. “Prevailing wage” is required by state law for construction jobs but not for “charter” cities like San Jose. In 1988, the city voluntarily adopted the state of California prevailing wage law. Then, in 1989, the council increased the scope of the law to include service jobs like street sweeping, parking lot attendants, janitorial, etc., though the state did not require it.
Moving onward and forward, the city adopted a living wage policy in 1999 which included contract work. Living wage is $12.83 an hour with medical and $14.08 without medical. It is determined by the Federal poverty threshold for a family of three and then is adjusted each year for inflation. It has never decreased since 1999, even when there is a recession. The city of San Jose has ten fulltime employees to monitor contracts to make sure that contractors are paying their workers the correct city mandated wage.
Some group members spoke about the importance of a living wage and how it may prevent people from being dependent on state and federal welfare programs. Others spoke of its elimination, since it increases the cost to the city and, therefore, residents. The group requested more information in order for this topic to be discussed again at a future meeting.
No one from the public attended the meeting. By contrast, the General Plan 2040 meeting usually generates about 25 spectators. It is also televised. Unfortunately, the GFSDEPSG is not.
If you are looking for an air conditioned room to escape the heat, then consider attending the seventh meeting of GFSDEPSG on Monday, July 21, 6:00 PM, in the wing rooms at City Hall, 200 S. Santa Clara Street.
For more information, go to: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/stakeholdergroup08.asp
Prevailing wage benefits middle class contractors.
Living wage benefits lower class janitors and non-skilled workers.
Shouldn’t prevailing wage be on the table first?
# 1: Under your proposal, would those with no children get a credit of some kind from the city, or are you forced to subsidize those residents utilizing the full two child allotment? Would we ask those residents with three or more kids to “pick their least favorite child” to send away. Perhas we can develop a kid sharing program to evenly distribute the numbers between those exceeding the limit and those under the cap?
A brilliant idea you have offered up here….
I wish the committee the best. If they can successfully figure out how to undo some of the progressive, feel-good mistakes of two decades ago, then perhaps a couple of decades from now a similar committee will be allowed to undo some of the progressive, feel-good mistakes the council’s made in the last five years.
Who knows, perhaps from this we will uncover a natural law of municipal governance, that being the twenty year shelf-life of stupidity.
#1-Reginald,
I would like to see people stop having so many children period! Our planet is way too over crowded, and our resources all over the world are being drained at an alarming rate.
#3- Mark G.,
I think that was a bit uncalled for. I’m surprised your comment was posted given that attacking one another is against SJI rules. Let’s keep the exchange of ideas and responses respectful, so that people feel free to participate in discussions.
As to your comments about who are bearing the brunt of people exploding the earth with multiple children, that is a good question. Answer, ALL OF US! I think that people with kids get way too many advantages that we childless folks don’t. Reginal has a good point, and your suggestions that some kind of fair financial distribution should be addressed.
Why should I pay the same for water, sewer, and garbage if my neighbor has 2-3 kids and I have zero? Why should I pay the same sales tax to fix roads, or fund education etc. when I have no children in school, and there is only one of me using a road not 3-4 of me? I see lots of seniors with zero children bearing the brunt of high property taxes for schools, roads etc. So how is that fair to them? The lists of how people procreating and getting financial benefits from those of us who have no children are endless Mark. Think about it.
I love children, but I think people are being really selfish bringing them into a world that is over populated, polluted, gaining in violence and crime daily, and so on. It’s time to look at who is really footing the bill for procreation here because it isn’t just their parents.
Pier,
The reason no one attends these meetings is because we don’t know about them.
#3 I like that idea. My wife and I have no kids. Perhaps we can get kid credits and put them towards our carbon footprint or some family with 4 kids can pay us for our child allocation since we did not use it. We could put our two child quota up for bid on eBay.
Ah, the possibilities.
#3—I was thinking more that those who are over the cap can purchase an offset from those of us who are under.
Kathleen –
There was no personal attack intended in my post. It was an observation of just a few of the myriad of questions/possibilities that could come about should Reginald’s idea move forward. (some others raised recently about carbon offsets are good examples too) If I offended anyone however, my apologies.
As to your comments, while I do agree that there are some (many actually) in this world that should refrain from procreating, I don’t agree with your reasoning.
1: Water – You pay for what you use in the City of San Jose. Rates are based on hundred’s of cubic feet (HCF) quantities. If you use more water because you have three kids, you might pay more, but so would the single guy with a pool who waters his lawn twice daily.
2: Garbage- You pay for the can, not how much you put in it. If you are single or married with no kids, etc.., you probably pay for a smaller can than a family of three or more. If you pay the same, perhaps you should do a review of your own garbage/recycling practices.
3: Sewer – You win here. As outrageous as it may be, you pay the same $27 bucks a month as the family of three.
4: Transportation – Kids under the age of 16 don’t drive. Your one car driving down the road takes up the same space and causes the same wear and tear as the car with 3-4 people in it. (In fact, you could argue those cars with multiple occupants are more efficiently utilizing the roads…) Once a 16 year old get’s their license, there is a good chance they are already paying sales tax, at the very least gas tax, which is tied to transportation costs, thus paying for the roads.
4: Education – Depends on your point of view here I guess. If you are 100% self-reliant in this world, never eat out, never buy consumer goods, never have nor will have a need for qualified health care and do not care about the overall economic health of the region you live in, then by all means try to find a way to boycott your tax money going to education dollars. I would suggest however, that we all benefit from an educated youth and that we should all do our part to support the strongest education system available. (we do not have this currently by the way)
Final note: The State Legislature recently proposed the removal of the child dependent tax credit for income earners of $150k or above. I would suggest instead they look at removing the credit entirely. Why continue to incent procreation by those who can least afford it?
Is there a public list of every City job? I would like to see that list, who gets paid what, and what they do for that money.
As for these discussions about not having children I hope everyone is joking. I have a feeling some are not…
We’re into a rich vein here at SJI that really gets to the heart of what makes the bay area so ‘special’.
I’d like to see Kathleen, #7, #6, #5, etc get together, develop their “final solution” and report back.
We can then do a compare/contrast exercise to see how closely in spirit it resembles other “final solutions” as put forth by Hitler, Stalin, etc.
In regard to children and overpopulation I feel the government should be neutral on this issue, and stop rewarding individuals with children by giving tax breaks for each child. I believe at this time the IRS gives a $3500 tax credit per child, and I read in the paper that McCain suggested doubling it to $7000 per child.
If someone wants to have as many kids as they like then that is their decision, but they need to be the ones who pay for the children.
A fairer tax system than the current system would be to give a tax break ($7000) for one child, no tax break for a second child, and tax penalties ($1000) for each child after two. For example, instead of currently giving a tax break of $3500/child to a family with 3 kids ($10,500 total), under a child neutral system, the tax break would be $6000 ($7000 tax credit – $1000 tax penalty). The more kids you have, the lower the tax credit.
Hopefully, this would help encourage individuals to not have more children than they can afford. If not then it at least reduces the tax cost of children to the rest of the population.
A modification would be to allow a tax credit for every adopted child, while retaining the tax penalty for every natural child after the initial allowed two children. This would help to reduce overpopulation while encouraging adoption, and hopefully a better life for the adopted children.
#8- My apologies to you Mark. I misunderstood your meaning. Thank you for clarifying.
I guess I should have been more clear, as a renter not a homeowner, landlords charge us for water, garbage, sewer separate from our already huge rent. (A rent that is NOT based on how many people will live there, but by an across the board price set by landlords.) These calculations are not based fairly. If you have three folks in one apartment, and one or two in the other, you don’t get a bill based on actual usage of water, garbage, or sewer. They just use a blanket formula for ALL units whether they are one bedroom, two, or four.
I disagree that paying for city or state services for multi family folks is in any way fair. They get tax breaks, and many other things that people without children do not get. If people with children paid their fair share, I would still have an issue with the amount of procreating I see going on. We are overbuilding to meet the need for housing as our population grows. We are having to use up more and more water and resources to feed people, we are killing more and more animals by pushing them out of their habitats, and to slaughter for food. We are polluting the planet at alarming rates because we are over manufacturing everything!
Our planet’s resources are quickly dwindling and people pop out children like no tomorrow, with no regard for the kind of planet they are leaving their grandchildren. I read and heard that the teenage pregnancy rate is higher now than it has been in 18 years! If we keep abusing this planet the way we are, and redirecting rivers, and polluting our ocean, etc. what will be left for this kids? A home on Mars may be?
#9- Colin,
Sadly, I am not joking. Try working with children. May be then you’ll understand how much more is involved in having children, other than just a fun evening with that special someone.
#10-Novice,
Get a grip! Do you know how many unloved, uncared for children are living in orphanages here in the US, and overseas? People who want children ought to think about giving a home to one of these needy children instead of carrying on their family genes or name!
Population control is a responsible concept held by many people across the globe. Taking personal responsibility for how we destroy or maintain this planet and its resources has nothing to do with “forced population reduction.” Stop trying to reduce this concern to the likes of sick dictators who murdered innocent men, women, and children to create a pure breed of people, or power.
At a time when countries in Europe are facing demographic and cultural doom because their indigenous citizens are not having enough children, the last thing we need in this country is for our best and brightest to be brainwashed into foregoing reproduction. Our government should do everything possible to ease the burden on middle and high-income earners who want to buy a home, start a family, educate their children in good schools (public and private), and invest their earnings in college funds. These are the type of tax breaks—investments today, that will pay off in the future and give us a fighting chance to have the doctors and scientists and engineers necessary to maintain our standard of living and compete globally.
Anyone who thinks that that logjam of anchor babies and welfare bastards in today’s maternity wards is going to be able to staff the Lockheeds and Mayo Clinics and Lawrence Livermores of tomorrow is living in a fantasy world.
I would like to see each family in San Jose have no more than two children. There would be less demand on city services.
#13-Frustrated Finfan said,
“Anyone who thinks that that logjam of anchor babies and welfare bastards in today’s maternity wards is going to be able to staff the Lockheeds and Mayo Clinics and Lawrence Livermores of tomorrow is living in a fantasy world.”
I’m utterly shocked at this statement. So, before I blow my cool, I’d like to ask you to tell me what you meant by that because it sounds like the most racist, horrific thing I’ve read on here in a very, very long time.
Pierluigi,
What do you consider “taboo” subjects? The proposed city sales tax? All the “modernizing” of fees? The new fees? Increased taxes? The GFSDEPSG presentations are exactly what you would expect from a group of city employees and union bosses huddled together with very little scrutiny (too bad the Mercury News is too busy trimming pages, staff and articles). The GFSDEPSG group is seriously deluded if they really think 2/3’s of San Jose residents will support new taxes.
#13 – Frustrated Finfan –
While I agree with you that the Government should be helping the Middle Class, I find your comment about anchor and welfare babies not being able to staff the Lockheed’s of tomorrow insulting. Look at Lockheed, look at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte and Touche, or any one of a thousand companies here in Silicon Valley. They are VERY multi-cultural. You will find Aisan and Indian cultures, African American Cultures, Hispanic Cultures, Cultures from Europe, Russia and the Baltic States, and all over the world. These people have come from a very wide variety of socio-economic backgrounds and struggled to succeed in the positions they currently do. To place a judgement like you did upon babies that have just entered the world is wrong. One of them just might be the next Martin Luther King Jr., Bill Gates, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Kathleen,
Everyone is entitled to choose their own criteria when erecting a standard for racist, horrific statements. Yours apparently includes any statement that runs contrary to the popular notion that genetics plays no part in intelligence. You are entitled to that, but that is an opinion, one contradicted by all the evidence—scientific, anecdotal, or otherwise.
The odds that a child of laborers here illegally, or that of a poor, unwed teen, will grow-up with the cognitive ability required to master any of the hard sciences is markedly smaller than are the odds for a child of professionals. This does not mean that they are lesser humans, but it does mean that in a high tech world very few of them will be capable of participating at the highest levels. Were the world situation to change radically, say from one ruled by technology to one in which raw manpower became paramount, then the needs of our nation would change, but the realities of genetics would change not one iota.
Christian,
I singled out two very different groups that are breeding rapidly and producing children who will confront modern life with abilities very similar to those possessed by their parents. If you truly believe that genetics can be discounted in predicting their abilities, then you would have to agree that babies from these two hardship groups are equally likely to make it to the NBA. That is, of course, preposterous—as is the notion that DNA gives a damn about our foolish notions of political correctness.
Kathleen:
I have two children. I was working with both at 3 a.m., 4 a.m., and 6:30 a.m. this morning. They are a joy. I guess I’m an optimist and think that whatever problems my be created by so called overpopulation will be solved by those “overpopulating” it.
Can we get back on topic?
I would presuppose that a taboo subject is the huge employer that is the City of San Jose. Does anyone know if there is a publicly available list of all the jobs paid for by the city, and what each job responsibility is?
#17- Frustrated Finfan,
First let me say that the terms you used, “Anchor Babies, and Welfare Bastards,” are most certainly racist, and are horrific. A concept held by the majority, not a minority of intelligent and highly educated people. You have singled out a specific group to make some pretty ignorant and hateful comments about.
Further, these terms are considered Hate Speech and should never have appeared on SJI, as it violates the rules of racist comments not being allowed. But since you have maintained your stand on this issue, I’m going to respond.
I’m very much saddened by your comments, especially given how educated on most topics you seem to be. May be that is where the problem lies. You have forgotten that mere human beings, just through sheer will power, creativity, and loving one’s self have proven science wrong on many occasions. Scientific theories are ever changing, as nothing in this world is ever certain.
Genetics? There is no such thing as a superior race. Do you honestly think that genetics is the totality of what makes someone brilliant, teachable, successful, and allows him or her to make something great of his or her lives? If you do, you’d be very wrong about that. There are things like divine purpose, religion, spiritually, education, self-respect, certain environmental factors, family support systems, self-motivation, and a whole host of other things that have challenged the so-called absolutes of science and genetics, thus reminding us that we are not all knowing, and that we are not God, even though some are so full of themselves, and egocentric they think they are.
History shows us that people from all colors; financial backgrounds, cultures, religions etc. can do anything they put their hearts and minds to. Love, compassion, and free will FF are bigger motivators than science, or genetics. If they aren’t then explain a 100 lb. mother who lifts are car from her trapped baby’s body, or a cat or dog that walks cross country to find it’s family when it has never been there, or a man jumping from a burning building with a baby in their arms, and survives with just burses. I’m sure you can come up with all the scientific jargon about adrenalin rushes, etc. but it isn’t all that is to it. (At least not for some us who believe in a power greater than ourselves.)
I’ve known many people of color and whites that came from uneducated parents, criminal backgrounds, and poverty that have gone on and really made something of their lives. They became teachers, lawyers, nurses you name it they worked toward it. Yes, even illegals, and people who used Welfare to better themselves and their families have impressed me by their want to make their parents proud, or to give their children everything one of the opportunities they never had. Genetics? I think not.
#17:
Thanks for putting me in the position of supporting a small part of Kathleen/Christian’s position on this post. (For the record, I am still against the “China Rule” of procreation proposed earlier…)
Of course genetics can not be discounted. Genetics create the foundation for one’s ability to grow, learn and succeed in this world. Your argument however, assumes that anyone here illegaly or who becomes pregnant in their teen years is somehow genetically deficient. While there are obviously some judgement (or lack thereof) issues in many of these cases, I think that is an overly broad assessment.
To put it simply, you are absolutely right stating that DNA cares little for political correctness. Genetic limitations can frustrate a little finfan’s growth just as easily as the illegal worker’s tiny tot. The difference is that the little finfan has a better shot of overcoming his/her parent’s shortcomings due to the access to a better education, healthcare and the general benefits and provisions afforded one as a US citizen.
Socio-economic conditions provide a much more accurate predictor for future growth, but even then you have an amazing number of success stories where odds are stacked against such success from the start. (To use your example, look at a number of the NBA players out there who were born into low income/welfare lifestyles.)
Mark Gregory
#18-Colin,
I’m glad you love your children and enjoy them. And even though I disagree that we can salvage what we are doing to this earth by the time our children grow up, I agree that optimism is a good thing!
I think that overpopulation has everything to do with the topic above. It might seem easy to dismiss this as not related to how to control the budget, but you’d be wrong about that. One example would be this, if city employees have children, the city has to provide them with health care, housing, jobs, etc. Who do you think pays for that? You and me pay for it that is who. Just as illegal immigration applies to this topic. The more people who crowd into SJ, the more services and revenue we need.
Can some of you really look at all the topics on here in such a myopic way all the time? Are people really so blind to the contributing factors outside their scope of life that they can discount the needs of others? Wow.
#17
The odds that a child of laborers here illegally, or that of a poor, unwed teen, will grow-up with the cognitive ability required to master any of the hard sciences is markedly smaller than are the odds for a child of professionals.
This has nothing to do with genetics.
It certainly well might be true these children will not receive the same level of education as do more affluent children in better school districts. It also might be true that these children are raised in areas that expose them to higher lead levels, which will then negatively affect their “cognitive ability”.
But, at birth, the ability of these children to learn is equal to the children “of professionals”.
#20-Mark Gregory,
I think you have misunderstood my position on this issue. I do not support the China Rule, nor do I support China dumping baby girls into the trash so that little boys can live the life of Kings. I support personal choice, common sense, and personal accountability. Pumping out children because your religion prohibits birth control, or because you want a little boy to carry on your family name, even though you already have 5 daughters and can’t financially provide for those children is where I draw the line.
As to Frustrated Finfan’s attempts to use genetics to justify his racist remarks of the intellectually deficient members of the “Welfare Bastards, and Anchor Babies,” league, I say he needs a swift kick into reality. Some day, his racist ass just may need one of those uneducated “Welfare Bastards, or Anchor Babies,” who actually has defied his theory of genetics, and become a world famous surgeon. A surgeon who might just save his life. Hopefully, he’ll be “intelligent,” enough to keep his racist mouth closed under anesthetic!
Blue #11—do you think anyone who crawls into the sack with her/his significant other is thinking about whether they’ll get a tax credit if they don’t use birth control?
There’s Kathleen #14 using the “R” word, attacking FinFan personally when he never mentioned race in his post #13.
This is quite ironic in light of her petulant denunciation of Mark G #3 in her post #5, when Mark G said nothing at all about anyone in particular. Check your double standard at the door, Kathleen.
Christian #16—yes we have a diverse workforce; but I seriously doubt that there’s a very large contingent of anchor babaies and welfare babies at the companies you mentioned.
“Pumping out children because your religion prohibits birth control, or because you want a little boy to carry on your family name, even though you already have 5 daughters and can’t financially provide for those children is where I draw the line.”
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Like any true believing, green leftist worth their organic sea salt, Kathleen will be the arbiter and “draw the line” as to how many kids are too many, who can have them, who should be “spayed” and who should be “neutered”.
Welcome to the brave new world that the enviro-fascists have planned for us where the ends justify the final solution.
The leftist wet dream is that it’ll play out something like Soylent Green but with an Al Gore/climate change twist.
Those signing up are told that not only will they be saving the planet by immediately reducing their carbon footprint and consumption footprint to zero, the Soylent Green foundation will plant enough trees to offset the carbon they emitted during their time on earth.
The scary thing about all this? Given the Jim Jones level of lunacy around climate change – it doesn’t seem that far fetched
In fact, I bet if you randomly surveyed 100 bay area types, 25% or more would think it a good idea.
#24- JMO,
You are kidding right? Race was never mentioned in his post? What do you call “Welfare Bastards and Anchor Babies,” terms of endearment? Those are well known racist terms to define people of color JMO, and as an attorney I think you know it. I’m not surprised you support this concept as I’ve seen you say the same types of things, with regards to people you consider intellectually challenged, or less than.
Personally attacking him? I gave him a fair chance to clarify his position before I commented on his racist remarks. He has used the same position in his explanation to my request for clarification. I think calling a spade a spade is what I did. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck JMO.
As to Mark G., his original comments were rude. Mark clarified his comments for me. In return I womaned up and apologized for the misunderstanding we had, but I am not sorry for calling him on his rudeness. What more do you want JMO?
There is a double standard here alright JMO and it is that you guys think you can rattle off racist remarks, and somehow explain them a way intellectually, when someone points out how racist or sexist you are being. I don’t agree with you on your contention that Frustrated Finfan was being the least bit intellectual in his definition, or that his position on who should procreate and who shouldn’t is at all acceptable. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion Councilor.
Kathleen,
Your emotional reaction is understandable. I am apparently guilty of having tromped all over that egalitarian garden of your fantasy world, where everything is blossoming and beautiful—even the weeds. I understand that we all have our vulnerabilities, and I would’ve gladly avoided the whole topic except for my coming across those ridiculous posts, and the fact that the future of our nation is directly dependent upon our making good reproductive decisions today.
I would be a fool to deny the possibility that I may one day need the services of a world-famous surgeon, but I would be a bigger fool to bet my money on the likelihood of that surgeon being the fatherless child of a welfare mother or an all-grown-up-and-brilliant anchor baby. A much better bet would be that my need of surgery would be due to some horrific crime having been perpetrated against me by one of the hundreds of thousands of vicious thugs those two populations are today dumping onto our society.
And while we’re on the topic of odds, if you remember, my post addressed the odds of achievement for those groups—the rule, not the exception.
If it comforts you to brand me a racist, then comfort yourself. But if you reread my post you will notice that I did not mention any particular race. I used one term, “anchor babies,” to identify a particular subgroup that just happens to be predominantly Hispanic. But it is also a group that is predominately dirt poor and uneducated, with values that are distinctly foreign and a history of low economic success—even in its native culture. “Anchor babies” may be a subgroup of Hispanic-Americans, but it does not constitute a separate race.
The other term I used was “welfare bastards,” which I chose for two reasons: accuracy and bluntness. There may be nothing that an unmarried teen can do to better sabotage the future of her child than to have it fathered by an unfeeling, irresponsible scoundrel. A fatherless child is an emotional tragedy, a fatherless young man is a time-bomb that will either explode in violence or fizzle in apathy. That our feel-good society walks on eggshells to spare feelings—while the dead stack-up in morgues and the good as dead loiter on street corners—is a damn disgrace. Better to call them bastards, better to attach shame to teen pregnancy, than to spout a bunch of supportive crap and pretend not to notice entire cities being lost.
But again, FYI, I did not mention race, and if anyone doubts the existence of white welfare bastards I suggest a trip through the rural communities of California and Oregon.
As for the rest of you, your intimate familiarity with every other conceivable element of success, in light of your complete ignorance of the inescapable impact of genetics, stinks of politically-correct brainwashing. Do what you will with your hopes and encouragement and special programs, but a two-digit IQ does not a binary whiz-kid make and Intel can use only so many janitors.
If you want computers and reactors and missile defense systems to work for your kids; if you want more for them than just a future assembling toys for the Chinese, then you’ll need to leave this nation with more than just warm words and overworked rationalizations, you’ll need to provide it with brain power, and lots of it.
My apologies for the misunderstanding Kathleen. When you use the term “population control” the China version is the first thing that comes to mind. I don’t think you were suggesting dumping baby girls in the trash or anything of the sort, but in my mind, the whole concept is really the same moral conflict layered in different shades of grey.
I agree that there are people in this world that have no business having one child, let alone 4 or 5, but it is a slippery slope you start down when you introduce the idea of limiting anyone’s ability to have a child. Where is the appropriate line? Who among us deems themselves noble and just enough to make that determination? It certainly is not me.
As to the tax credit deal, JMOC is right. The basic reasoning behind any tax credit is to promote something that otherwise would not occur. I think it is safe to assume people will continue to have kids with or without the tax break. (and if someone’s only reason for having kids is to obtain the credit, they should see the earlier discussion about poor gene pool…)
#24 – JohnMichael:
“Christian #16—yes we have a diverse workforce; but I seriously doubt that there’s a very large contingent of anchor babaies and welfare babies at the companies you mentioned.”
Do you have proof? A study, some statistics? I would be interested in seeing any proof that will confirm your statement.
The statement about “Anchor Babies and welfare babies” assignes a judgement to that set class, without having any sort of proof to back it up, and is therefore a discriminatory statement. If, indeed, there is proof to back up what Frustrated Finfan said, then, I would like to see it.
Novice, you’re right about the Enviro-Nazi left and their determination to control our lives to further their agenda. The global warming scare has gotten completely out of hand. Everybody should read “Cool It – The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming” by Bjorn Lomborg. He feels humans are responsible for global warming but he’s no Al Gore alarmist.
http://www.lomborg.com/
Also read “An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming” by Nigel Lawson.
http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-Cool-Global-Warming/dp/1590200845/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216163470&sr=8-1
Pardon me if I am not completely caught up on my racist lingo, but wouldn’t a welfare bastard technically be any child on welfare without a father? Where is the race reference? Granted, I agree with Kathleen that it is not a term of endearment by any stretch of the imagination, but racist? I dunno.
Also, anchor babies? That one gets closer, I suppose, as it is a term used specifically for babies of illegal immigrants born in the US. Not race specific though. I know when you hear the term “illegal immigrant” we all think of our neighbors to the South, but illegal immigrants come from all over the world and drain the same resources. Again, not exactly a clear cut racist remark in my mind.
I’ll let finfan defend himself if he wants, but I am just curious if I am defining the terms too literally. Thanks.
#28 and JMO
As to the tax credit deal, JMOC is right. The basic reasoning behind any tax credit is to promote something that otherwise would not occur. I think it is safe to assume people will continue to have kids with or without the tax break.
Then you would not have any problem with completely abolishing the tax credit for children.
#27,Frustrated Finfan,
You may think you are of intellectual superiority in your world, but you are not in mine, hence the beauty of perspective and difference. As to your perspective that I need to feel comforted by knowing there are people like you roaming the planet, you can rest assured that, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. As a matter of fact it is rather disheartening.
By your own admission you have knowingly used the terms you chose to belittle illegal immigrants, Hispanics, and anyone else who doesn’t fit into your perception of perfection. You make zero allowances for human flaws, nor are you open to even the slightest possibility that you might, just might be a pompous racist. No one, and I mean no one on this planet is free of bias or racist views. The difference being that some of us are willing to admit to it, and change it, and clearly some of us think we are above imperfection. Have a good day FF.
Christian #24—Do YOU have proof, some statistics that there is any significant number of anchor babies or welfare kids working in corporate America in any professional position?
Do you read about the dropout rate of 50% plus in certain high schools and among certain ethnic backgrounds? Do you think they’ll ever work in corporate America except fast food locations and janitors?
#26 said:You are kidding right? Race was never mentioned in his post? What do you call “Welfare Bastards and Anchor Babies,”.
I guess that means you believe that all anchor babies and welfare bastards must be “people of color”. That sounds pretty racist to me.
#28- Mark,
No problem. I think the joy of misunderstanding is learning more about how to effectively communicate with one another! I agree that no one is noble enough to decide who should procreate and who should not. I feel it should be a personal choice, one made responsibly. Unfortunately, too many people live in the land of denial. In the end, only our planet, and our children suffer for our bad choices.
As to you question,” but I am just curious if I am defining the terms too literally.” In my opinion, you are. I work with hate crimes, and in prejudice reduction. Welfare Bastards is a term used to demean, and belittle people of color. While Frustrated Finfan is correct in that there are white people on Welfare, they are not usually the targets of these types of terms, people of color are. Anchor Babies originated in two ways, one way is obviously referring to people coming over here by boat and jumping on the Welfare system. The second reference is to illegal immigrants giving birth to children here in the US, thus making them legal. They are termed Anchor Babies because they are keeping illegals here, and, most importantly are qualified for Welfare benefits their parents are not. Also, it is a term used to express anger at illegals for using innocent children to keep them from being deported.
Now may be you can understand my anger at these terms being used so freely under the guise of intellectual discussion. It is out right racism because it is aimed at a specific race, period. If you really want an education on how sick these terms are, go to Craig’s List and read their, “Rants and Raves,” and Politics section. I think you’ll come a way understanding first hand, why these racist terms are so offensive to me. There are photos depicting these,”Anchor Babies and Welfare Bastards.” If it doesn’t make you sick, nothing will.
#30- Hugh,
If I’m understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I’m not, you seem to be saying that our planet is not suffering from global warming or pollution. I’d love for you to explain to me why you honestly think we are not. There is so much SCIENTIFIC evidence that our planet’s Ozone is disappearing, and a hundred other horrific things that I just cannot comprehend your comments on this topic.
Blue Fox #32:
Absolutely. If the tax man wants to eliminate the credit, eliminate it for all. I mentioned in my post above (#8) that the state legislature is seeking to eliminate the credit for those earning $150k or more. I suggest they should eliminate it entirely if they are going to do anything.
Kathleen:
Thanks again for clarifying. I understood the term anchor baby, which is why I was confused by the racist claim. Illegal immigrants come from all parts of the world, not just one particular race. I know we tend to jump to the immediate conclusion that the reference is to hispanics from our southern border, but isn’t that inherently biased as well? Just a thought. Anyway, thank you again for clarifying your opinion. As always, I enjoy and appreciate the debate.
Kathleen:
You need to read the books that I cited in a previous post. Both books are not long but are quite readable. The authors make the point quite eloquently, and I’m sure you’ll disagree. But you should read something besides the prevailing pseudo-religious nonsense coming from the Church of Global Warming.
Kathleen,
Reading your post (#27) has left me confused. Intellectual superiority? Your being comforted by people like me roaming the planet? My perception of perfection? What the hell are you talking about?
You suggest that I might be a pompous racist. I’d respond to that but I don’t know what that term means. However if it makes you feel good—and you should understand that your entire contribution to this discussion has been feeling-based, I’m okay with you considering me a pompous racist.
But what the hell does that have to do with the high-tech and professional skills America will need to compete in the future? My original post was in response to what I thought was an idiotic suggestion—that being that Americans stop having babies. And in that post I voiced my hope that professionals would start families, have babies, and supply America with the high IQ offspring needed in science and industry.
Somehow you and a number of others read “professional” and interpreted it as meaning “white.” Interesting.
I then further outraged you and some others by suggesting that our growing population of anchor babies and welfare bastards were statistically less likely than the children of professionals of having the cognitive abilities necessary for America’s future. This launched you into a dizzying orbit of accusations about racism and hate crimes and fantasies of world-famous-surgeons-of-color.
The problem here is simple: your first line is, as it is with a number of others posting here, to defend your beliefs by trying to silence the person with whom you disagree. This time, when the subject was something that is as critically important to America’s future as anything on the political table today, you screamed “hate” and “racist” at me for stating that two of the most rapidly procreating groups in America are the least likely to produce offspring capable of engaging the hard sciences.
Now, you obviously believe this is untrue, while I believe from study and professional experience it to be true. That is what is called a disagreement. But instead of reacting as one would to a disagreement, you reacted with great offense and indignity, made no attempt to offer anything in the way of evidence (of which there is none), and suggested that SanJoseInside should have censored my post. Thus, if we were to conduct public discourse your way, what you and the loudest others believe to be true would saturate the blogosphere and the culture, while those who disagree—regardless of the credibility of their position, would be silenced.
Kathleen, you and your kind are dangerous. You and your kind are the reason that a Christian minister in Canada has been publicly tried for voicing religious convictions that offend gays and why academics in Europe are in prison for disagreeing with one particular version of history.
There is an incredible body of scientific evidence that supports my position—despite the formidable career risk involved in researching it, and the stakes involved in this matter are huge… but you prefer to scream and censor. I guess we’ve found your cognitive ceiling.
Christian,
What is it that motivates you to equate my use of the word “professionals” with Hitler’s use of the word “Aryan?” Nowhere in my posts did I suggest that “professionals” meant anything other than educated, successful Americans. Your interpretation of this benign word suggests one of three things: racism exists within you, you’re prone to faulty analysis, or you are so terrified by the idea of a link between genes and intelligence that you react by trying to brand anyone who even broaches the subject a Nazi.
Whichever one it is, rest assured you have lots of company.
Successful Anchor Baby,
Thank you for your help in identifying another group (students who require algebra tutoring) that will provide America disproportionately few of the engineers, doctors, and scientists it will need. But answer me this, given the demographic changes you seem so pleased about, shouldn’t there be plenty of Hispanic adults available for algebra tutoring? Or are you going to tell me they’re all busy working in the many high-tech firms they’ve started-up?
#38-Hugh,
I have read extensively on this issue, and my opion remains the same. But thank you for clarifying your thoughts on the issue.
Apparently finfan is correct. More proof of the genetic superiority of rich kids.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9895828
#39- Frustrated Finfan,
Interesting summation of incorrect facts, and you have once again proven my point. Perhaps if you spent less time trying to be an authority on the motives of others, and actually made an effort to fact check before spouting out your unfounded conclusions, you might actually learn something. You don’t intimate me with all your babble Finfan.
I have worked in this field for decades now. I have studied this field extensively, and have had hands on experience with people like you who spend a lot of time deflecting, justifying, and twisting the facts, so that you can guise your racist views behind intellectual babble. It is people like you Finfan who are dangerous because you actually believe the tripe you are spouting.
You of course are entitled to your perception of others, the world, and me. You are of course entitled to speak your mind anytime you wish, but what you are not entitled to do is speak for me, or speak untruths without being challenged on it. Calling any one in the human race a Welfare Bastard, or Anchor Baby speaks volumes about who you really are, and how you view the world. It completely destroyed any credibility you might have had, had you only chosen a responsible manner in which to communicate your thoughts and views on the subject.
I put my real name on my post and will stand by my convictions any day, as I am not fearful of being judged for what I believe. What is your excuse?
You can continue on with this conversation alone Finfan because I find the way you have responded to myself and others who disagree with you unacceptable, and your method of conversing offensive, face saving, self-serving, and oh yes, racist.
Kathleen,
I’ve encountered women with your symptoms before. You’ll feel better if you relax, take two aspirin, and call me a racist in the morning.
After reading all the comments here, I stumbled upon this famous quote by Adolf Hilter:
“All the human culture, all the results of art, science and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan. This very fact admits of the not unfounded inference that he alone was the founder of all higher humanity, therefore representing the prototype of all that we understand by the word “man.” He is the Prometheus of mankind from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has sprung at all times, forever kindling anew that fire of knowledge which illuminated the night of silent mysteries and thus caused man to climb the path to mastery over the other beings of the earth . . . It was he who laid the foundations and erected the walls of every great structure in human culture.”
It seemed very similar to Frustrated Finfan’s comments that, “I voiced my hope that professionals would start families, have babies, and supply America with the high IQ offspring needed in science and industry.” And, “ Two of the most rapidly procreating groups in America are the least likely to produce offspring capable of engaging the hard sciences.”
As well as, “By suggesting that our growing population of anchor babies and welfare bastards were statistically less likely than the children of professionals of having the cognitive abilities necessary for America’s future.”
I was hard pressed to see much of a difference between the statements of both.
Christian:
As your gal said in post #12. “Stop trying to reduce this concern to the likes of sick dictators who murdered innocent men, women, and children to create a pure breed of people, or power.”
We all certainly have the right to disagree with one another, but labeling someone a racist or making someone’s actions analagous to Hitler is over the top. I realize people have their own definitions for words and terms used on this site. To some, “personal attack” could mean anyone disagreeing with your point of view without blowing sunshine up your rear at the same time. Others have interesting views of what paying “their fair share” of taxes means and what paying those taxes “entitles” you to. Labeling someone a racist on the other hand, should have no such room for interpretation. We seem to see that “brand” utilized quite freely by some on this site. I think there needs to be some measure of caution excercised before throwing out the racist card, otherwise it loses it’s value when truly heinous, deplorable acts of intentional racism occur.
#34 JMO
“Anchor baby” is Pat Buchanan, Michelle Malkin, vdare.com code for illegal immigrants from Mexico. I’m sure you know that JMO. And I am sure you are going to say that you had no idea.
#39 finfan.
If you are worried about a demographic shift in America, that ship has sailed. The median age for Non-Hispanic whites is 40.2. The median age for Hispanics is 27.2. 1/3 Hispanics nationwide are under the age of 18. Their future is America’s future. If you are so concerned with the future of our country, you should do something productive instead of disparaging large segments of our population from your computer. Perhaps you could volunteer your time tutoring youngsters? Maybe teach calculus at James Lick High School à la Jaime Escalante? I can see it now—Mr. finfan teaching algebra on the Eastside: “A negative times a negative is a positive!” Wouldn’t that be better than reading Richard Hernstein and blogging all day?
Just to clarify—anchor baby is a term used by many conservative commentators to disparage American citizens born to illegal immigrants. The term is usually reserved for the children of Mexican immigrants.
finfan
“shouldn’t there be plenty of Hispanic adults available for algebra tutoring?”
No, if you noticed the median age of Hispanics is 27 years old—they’re too busy working moving the economy forward. Yes finfan, some are even engineers, doctors, and high-tech entrepreneurs—not enough, but there are many. What we need is cranky old people with too much time on their hands to help the next generation of Americans become interested in pursuing careers in science and technology—not just Hispanics but all young people who are increasingly not choosing to pursue these career paths.
If tutoring Algebra is beneath you, perhaps teaching calculus would be more satisfying. That’s right, some anchor babies on the Eastside even take calculus.
Look finfan, we’re on the same team—like it or not.
No doubt that many young Hispanics need to do a better job and take responsibility for their education. But many have and are succeeding in attaining higher education and in their professional careers—as much as you would like to ignore and dismiss this fact.
In 1990, 1 in 5 Italian-Americans in New York dropped out of high-school (“20% Dropout Rate Found For Italian-Americans”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0D71330F932A35756C0A966958260
Finfan would you have said that because of the high dropout rate, Italian-Americans were incapable of being doctors and engineers? You probably would have, and of course you would have been wrong—just like you are wrong today about Hispanics.
By the way, after a concerted effort and programs from the public schools and the Italian-American community, the dropout rate for Italian-Americans in New York is now in the single digits. Could our public schools and community work to reduce the Hispanic dropout rate into the single digits in a decade, I don’t see why not.
#47 – Mark G: I never compared Finfan to Hitler – just the two statements. I did so to make a point; the statement made by Frustrated Finfan is racist, and if there is any doubt, go back and compare them.
I agree with #48 – Successful Anchor Baby in Earth. Wholeheartedly.
Mark G #47 wrote:“Labeling someone a racist on the other hand, should have no such room for interpretation. We seem to see that “brand” utilized quite freely by some on this site.” Mostly white liberals ridden with guilt about things they themselves didn’t do. You say something they don’t like, they label you, and you’re supposed to cringe and apologize.
Anchor baby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Anchor baby or jackpot baby are derogatory terms used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal immigrants or other non-citizens. The terms refer to the role of an illegal immigrant’s child, as a U.S. citizen, in facilitating chain migration under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. However, the actual ability of the infant citizen to assist his illegal immigrant parents in obtaining citizenship is very limited. Having a U.S. citizen child does not exempt immigrants from deportation if they entered or remained in the U.S. illegally. Once given deportation orders, the illegal immigrant parent either can abandon the infant to be adopted in the U.S.—the immigrant thereby losing parental status—or can take the infant home and petition for legal immigration from there. The infant citizen must turn 21 before he can file a petition on behalf of his parents. In most cases if the parent entered illegally they must also return to their native country for 10 years to wait out a 10 year ban in additon to waiting until the child turns 21 [1]
This is often considered a derogatory term as the child has no say in who their parents are or what their status in the U.S. might be, and little to no capability of regularizing their parents’ status. These terms have been characterized in the San Diego Union-Tribune as “pejorative”[1], in the New York Times as “derogatory”[2], and in the Chicago Tribune as dehumanizing.[3]
#51 Frustrated Finfan –
“Before even addressing the troubling rate of Hispanic failure in education, let me first point out how absolutely unfair it is to students that our cowardly educational professionals continue asserting that every student has college potential. Not only is that untrue of America’s minorities, it is untrue about every group and race in existence. “
Are you saying that some minority groups are genetically smarter than others? If not, please clarify.
That the rich have better access to things like education is something I would agree with you on.
Chrisitan –
I don’t think anyone here was attempting to claim that the term “anchor baby” was a term of endearment. That said, the reference you cite above even acknowledges that the term is used for children born to “illegal immigrants and other non-citizens”. As illegal immigrants come from all over the world, the term does not specifically single out any particulr race, and therefore can not be a racist remark on its own. If someone singled out specific ethincities when describing anchor babies, that would be one thing, but the racist card was pulled without anyone mentioning any specific race. I would suggest that if anyone here has race issues, it is the one that jumped to the immediate conclusion that the term was aimed at people of color.
BTW: Claiming that your comparisson of statements between finfan and Hitler was in no way comparing the two individuals is a crock and you probably know it. Furthermore, the criticism seemed appropriate enough for Kathleen to dish out to Novice when he compared her general idea of population control to other dictators. I realize you all probably draw the lines differently depending on the circumstance to suit your own needs, but what is the real difference here?
#54 – Mark G:
“As illegal immigrants come from all over the world, the term does not specifically single out any particulr race, and therefore can not be a racist remark on its own.”
Yes, except I do not see a large amount of Canadians, French, German, Russian, Finnish, etc., coming here illegally. We do see the Asian population and the Hispanic population increasing, though. And many of those are illegal. Ok, we disagree. I am reading in your post that you do agree that it was a derogatory comment, right, and discriminatory? My point here is that we, as a society, need to be careful of what we say. Statements like that are like poison; discriminatory, and where racism starts. I asked JMO for proof of that statement, and what I got back was political spin – he instead of answring, he demanded I prove my statement. Fine. Look at the American Dream – it is chocked FULL of examples of rags-to-riches and success stories. Pick one. Now do I get an answer to my question, or more spin?
Mark – I have spent a lot of time working in the area of discrimination, and have seen it come up in a wide varity of ways. I do not think that everyone who makes a racist statement is racist, as I stated above. I do agree with Finfan that one’s economic status has a huge effect on access to things like Higher education. But to say that any one group is BETTER than the other is how we got racism and discrimination in the first place.
#54 – Mark G:
“I realize you all probably draw the lines differently depending on the circumstance to suit your own needs, but what is the real difference here?”
To me, a big difference. Kathleen was talking about children in orphanages, and population control. At no time did Kathleen label one as less valuable than the other, nor did she ever talk about one group of people vs. another. She did put forth an idea that has been widely discussed on a global stage – population control.
Finfan stated, “Anyone who thinks that that logjam of anchor babies and welfare bastards in today’s maternity wards is going to be able to staff the Lockheeds and Mayo Clinics and Lawrence Livermores of tomorrow is living in a fantasy world.” This country’s history is full of rags-to-riches stories – to make a blanket statement like that is a put down to these two groups. Further, to use those statements is an insult to those groups. ‘Anchor Babies’ itself is a derogatory statement, and if you look at how it is used, and the population numbers at leas in California, a racist one. To refer to a baby as a ‘Bastard’ is a derogatory statement. To apply either to a baby is to judge them and their life before it has even started.
No, I won’t apologize. There is a big difference. Whatever his intentions, Finfan’s STATEMENTS were derogatory, defamatory, discriminatory, and racist.
Chrisitian #56 –
I apologize for the apparent miscommunication. I never asked for nor did I seek out any sort of apology for finfan. You are of course entitled to be wrong anytime you want. Thank you for proving my point about drawing the lines to suit your needs though….
I agree with you that finfan’s comments were not very nice. We can all go cry ourselves to sleep tonight over his insensitive comments. Shame on you finfan for not being nice. Shame on you Christian for not recognizing that for something to be considered a racist comment, the comment must actually be directed at a specific race. And finally, shame on me for continuing this debate when it is clear we will get nowhere…
Christian,
Please take note that I never asked you to apologize. I was intentionally derogatory in my post and not at all concerned that people might interpret my meaning according to their own social calibration and find it offensive. I was derogatory because I believe that harsh words are necessary to awaken people from their dreams. If you found racism in my comments, I’m okay with that. All I care about is that there were no untruths in what I said.
You seem to care a great deal about people’s sensitivities and apparently feel that the first step in achieving the equality you believe in is to silence the non-believers through whatever mechanism is handy. The problem here is that you are dueling armed with only a belief, while I am fighting back with beliefs grounded in fact. Your accusing me of racism, and your willingness to risk the future of our nation on groundless hopes, will improve our nation’s future not one iota, while my determination to state unpopular truths raises the possibility that our culture will benefit from the scientific evidence, all the while risking only my reputation on this site.
Today we all got another dose of the sad truth: that our school system has been “underreporting” the dropout rate to the folks paying the bills. Is there any wonder why they’ve been doing that? Is there any doubt that a system dedicated to achieving equal results has been forced to actively cover up the very unequal results. I might even pity the top officials, if I didn’t hold such a deep resentment toward them for their lying and willingness to bring down our once proud public school system with their horseshit agenda.
Charles Darwin resisted publication of his work for decades out of fear of the public’s reaction to an incontrovertible truth that contradicted their most cherished beliefs. Today there is an entire body of science that knows Darwin’s fears—thanks to people like you. So I think I’ll just continue on being a bastard, of sorts, and hope that along the way somebody starts to listen.
Anchor Baby,
You’re right, we’re probably on the same page, but the difference is that I refuse to sit quietly while political-correctness dooms our nation’s future. But let me repeat, the idea to which I initially responded—that being that Americans should forego childbearing in favor of adoption, is ignorant, politically-correct, and dangerous.
Before even addressing the troubling rate of Hispanic failure in education, let me first point out how absolutely unfair it is to students that our cowardly educational professionals continue asserting that every student has college potential. Not only is that untrue of America’s minorities, it is untrue about every group and race in existence. It is that kind of feel-good-about-ourselves propaganda that dooms some kids to failure by setting unattainable goals, sends other kids to college on a failure-finding mission, and deprives the truly capable from recognizing the uniqueness of their potential.
But there are more victims than the students. There are the teachers, who are tasked with trying to pass off students with IQs in the 80’s as potential scholars, only to fail and then take the brunt of society’s frustration over declining academic performance. These teachers, who must spend a disproportionate amount of time on their lowest functioning students, have now been hit broadside with a mandated testing system designed by the same people who think all kids should go to college.
Then there are the taxpayer victims, forced to spend more and more money, and watch as every academic standard is sacrificed, all in a vain attempt to make real the unreal expectations of our corrupt educational system.
As for the inference that I said anything about Hispanics as a race (which it is not), I must once again point-out that anchor babies is not an interchangeable term for Hispanics. I grew up in a Mexican-American neighborhood and I well remember that “wetbacks” was a term that Mexican-Americans used, often pejoratively (and often when reporting illegals to the police), for Mexican nationals that to the rest of us were indistinguishable from legal residents. We might have used the term if we’d been able to tell Juan from the other, but we couldn’t and didn’t. I used the term anchor babies for its accuracy and, in part, to accentuate my fear over what their presence here will mean for America’s future.
Today, anchor babies are born to parents who are, predominantly, illiterate with no familial history in academics, skilled trades, business, or industry. They are people who have long existed on the lowest rung (with the exception of Mexico’s Indians) of the economic ladder in their own country. They will not, as a group, make a ripple in the fabric of the hard sciences here or anywhere else.
You mentioned that one in five Italian-Americans in New York had dropped out of high school, only to be, in part, rescued by the combined efforts of the community and the school. Well, my reaction to that is this: out of those original dropouts there are probably no more than ten percent with the brains necessary to go onto college and achieve a professional career. So, while it might be nice for those individuals rescued—that diploma might make them an extra 200k in their lifetimes, that program has to be viewed for what it is: a substantial expenditure of time and money spent on a group who’d previously refused to take full advantage of the existing system. If money is no object, if we can afford to embrace a policy of diminishing returns, then great, let’s have program B for those who failed program A, and get ready programs C, D, and E.
Meanwhile, the really smart kids, the kids who will return our educational investment exponentially, are in many cases receiving much less attention than they deserve. In San Jose, some of those really smart kids are your fellow Hispanics. But their individual gifts do not change the distribution of abilities across the board, nor do they say anything about the gifts of those with whom they share gender, economic status, or race. All groups have bright members, and all groups have dull ones. But all groups are not the same, no matter how much you might wish it to be.
Here is a quote from an excellent essay available online:
“While scientists have not yet determined their source, the existence of sometimes large group differences in intelligence is as well-established as any fact in the social sciences. How and why then is this falsehood perpetrated on the public?”
If you are willing to put your most egalitarian convictions at risk, I suggest reading it at:
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/Gottfredson.htm
Christian #56 wrote:“This country’s history is full of rags-to-riches stories…” True, but those people who do overcome such adversity and succeed are in the distinct minority (no pun intended).
Did you read the Murky News front page story on HS dropout rates the other day? Asian HS dropout rate statewide, 10.2%; White, 15.2%; Hispanic, 30.3%; African American, 41.6%. Statewide average, 24.2%
Now, with that in mind, how many surgeons, chemists, engineers, corporate managers, etc. do you think will come from the ranks of the HS dropouts, Christian? How many of your “success stories”?
In SC County, overall dropout average was 20.2%, below the state average; but Hispanic dropout rate was 37.1%, well above the state average. And since Hispanics are the largest segment of our population in SC County, that statistic is even more troubling. 2,684 Hispanic students dropped out of SCC High Schools, 642 at NINTH GRADE. How many success stories will there be from that group, do ya think?
Chuck Weis, SC County schools chief said:“2,684 of our Latino students are virtually unemployable.” Mr. Weis is no raging conservative. But he is a realist.
You can talk about all people being created equal, but for many it ends there, at the moment of conception. There are no guaranteed equal outcomes.
When the City Council comes back from summer break, they probably will not consider my proposal that I made in post #1. Even so, I would still like to commend fellow citizens who have displayed, through their own lives, a determination to control population, sprawl, pollution, congestion and overcrowding.
Thank you:
Mayor Chuck Reed – two children
President Bush – two children
Former President Clinton – one child
Senator Barack Obama – two children
Councilmember Nguyen – no children
Councilmember Oliverio – no children
Councilmember Liccardo – no children
The world needs more dedicated public servants like these.
#44: how others use or misuse words is not my concern. I never listen to Pat Buchanan, and I have never heard of Michelle Malkin, vdare.com.
It is, however, an apt description of persons born in this country to illegal aliens of whatever ethnic background. Those kids anchor Mom to the USA since most folks in authority are loathe to deport Mom for fear of public outcry from those such as yourself.
So, Mom and the kid, if she has limited skills, go on welfare, at my expense. If they are Hispanic and here illegally, they get free medical care at public hospitals (also at my expense, ultimately, and yours, since the hospitals overbill those with insurance to make up the shortfall)where no-one asks if they are citizens, and many of them get pissed off when the hospital staff doesn’t speak Spanish. But if you’re a citizen without health insurance, you’re screwed. So, if you are without insurance and get sick, make sure you speak only Spanish in the ER.