Some Polling I Found Intersting

[Retribution]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/15/20960588-the-new-american-center-why-our-nation-isnt-as-divided-as-we-think?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

According to this article I am more normal in my views than I thought! Oddly I suspect the media is guilty of stirring partisan pots to sell papers so to speak.

[Hemingway]

The appearance of conflict within in the country is part of what keeps those in power, in power. It very much serves the system. It keeps people from becoming aware of what the real issues and solutions are, instead of focusing on petty differences. On issues that really matter, the two "sides" of American politics are practically the same.

[Neysha]

# Whateverman

Hmmmm shows I'm center-right, like most of the political quizzes I take but apparently still part of the NEW American Center.

[Vekseid]

Without active disinformation, something like 80 percent of Americans agree on the overwhelming majority of issues, with the general public picking the sensible option far more often than not.

[Retribution]

Silly me I think it would be nice to actually get the honest information out there. I suspect if someone wanted to make some coin and had the backing an honest to god "just the facts" news agency would do well. Fox News for example, hear me out before you boo too loudly, came about because it filled a niche since there was a perception of a left slant to main stream news. Politics aside from a business POV they have done very well. I really would like to see an organization do very well, you know reporting the unadulterated news.

And as most can probably guess I come out right center. More center than right actually with just a hair of a rightward lean  :-)

[didoanna]

Without active disinformation, something like 80 percent of Americans agree on the overwhelming majority of issues, with the general public picking the sensible option far more often than not.

And the same is true in the UK.....for example, people I know like some Conservative policies but also Labour ones as well.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Fox News for example, hear me out before you boo too loudly, came about because it filled a niche since there was a perception of a left slant to main stream news.

... but you know of course that that "perception" was part of a long campaign of far-right disinformation.

The American public is poorly-served by most of its media because the vast part of that media is owned by conservative billionaires and serves the ends of their class. Fox News is just the most radical example of that. So what you'd really want is a) an anti-trust break-up of billionaire media empires that should never have been allowed to exist in the first place, and b) an independent publicly-funded media outlet in the style of the BBC. Unfortunately, if you think health-care reform brought the nutcases and their "grassroots" dupes on the right out in force, that would be nothing compared enacting *gasp!* "socialized media."

On-Topic: The idea of a "new centre" sounds nice and buzz-wordy but is based on some dubious ideas, most of all that people who have ideological common ground in theory will actually vote based upon it, which assumes all those issues are of equal weight to voters when they manifestly aren't. The rise of movement conservatism over the past half-century tells the lie of this notion and charts the success of a movement that perceived that what people would really vote on was their sense of tribal affinity (in this case the WASP Tribe and other affiliated sub-groups and useful hangers-on).

If this holds true in the future, then what we're seeing emerging in that data is a 60-40 split within a "new centre" (probably solidly White) that believes the White man is getting a raw deal and those pesky minorities are walking all over him, and a "new centre" (probably diverse) that doesn't hold with such notions. That's the kind of conflict that really catalyzes passions, and is usually the unseen lever behind bizarre conflicts over what would otherwise be minor policy differences (cf. Tea Party, Obamacare). What I would bet on is the right going after the White tribal sentiment of that 60% and using it -- or attempting to use it -- to get them to vote against their other ideological interests, which was exactly what they did with the Southern strategy, and leaving the rest of the political spectrum to cobble together a coalition outside that base. How long such a tactic would last as America becomes more "majority minority" is a big question mark, but it could probably drag out Tea Party-style gridlock at least for quite a while.

[Oniya]

I don't know.  If you spin it the right way, an independent publicly-funded media outlet could be made to appeal to both the conservatives and the liberals.

'News - like it used to be.  News - like it was meant to be.'  All you need is somebody who sounds like Walter Cronkite to do the voice-overs.

[Valthazar]

The American public is poorly-served by most of its media because the vast part of that media is owned by conservative billionaires and serves the ends of their class. Fox News is just the most radical example of that. So what you'd really want is a) an anti-trust break-up of billionaire media empires that should never have been allowed to exist in the first place, and b) an independent publicly-funded media outlet in the style of the BBC. Unfortunately, if you think health-care reform brought the nutcases and their "grassroots" dupes on the right out in force, that would be nothing compared enacting *gasp!* "socialized media."

I agree with you that the American public is poorly-served by most of its media, but I am not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic with the rest of your post.

You seem to be saying that most of the mainstream media in the United States is conservative leaning, with Fox News being the radical example.  But of the major TV news outlets, which probably include ABC News, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC News - all of these tend to have a moderate to significant left-leaning bias in their reporting.  Which other mainstream TV outlets do you consider to be conservative leaning?  As I have said previously, your blanket remarks which characterize individuals holding conservative views as nutcases and dupes is ironically the same thing which you criticize conservative-leaning media of doing.

[Cyrano Johnson]

of the major TV news outlets, which probably include ABC News, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC News - all of these tend to have a moderate to significant left-leaning bias in their reporting.

Most of those are only "moderate to left" by comparison with -- and in the rhetoric of -- a right fringe that long ago drifted into Bizarro World. They aren't "moderate to left" in any globally meaningful sense of those terms, they're moderate-to-left in the sense that Obama seems moderate-to-left -- which is mainly an indicator of how meaningless the terms "moderate" and "left" now are in American political discourse. Most of Obama's policies would have been at home in the Reagan White House.

The sole real exception to that, and it's very recent, is MSNBC.

[Valthazar]

My concern is that some of your blanket statements are essentially reinforcing the political divide we see in Washington, in our discussions here.  Even after all the debates we have had here, you continue to associate individuals holding conservative economic principles as aligning with the Republican party, or the Tea Party, or as you say, "movement conservatism."  Personally, I fall in none of these categories, like many of the other right-leaning posters here.  Perhaps many of us would have previously referred to ourselves as moderate Republicans, but at least for me, the party's ideologies no longer mirror my own - largely because of their fixation on social conservatism.

In addition, I am genuinely confused as to how you have managed to associate conservative economic values as being a race-based ideology.  I can certainly understand the "political party" of movement conservatism catering to a Caucasian demographic who might be socially conservative - but the fiscal conservative ideology is simply that - an ideology.  I have stated previously that there is merit to both liberal and conservative economic policies, and a middle-ground approach is what I would consider ideal - for example, with a tiered tax rate, forcing multinational corporations to pay their fair share in tax revenue.  While I certainly respect your views, some of your broad accusations about the type of people ascribing to conservative perspectives are actually decreasing the potential for intelligent debate.

[Cyrano Johnson]

My concern is that some of your blanket statements are essentially reinforcing the political divide we see in Washington, in our discussions here.

That political divide doesn't exist by my choice, but if it exists in fact then I will not dance around that. There is no hope of confronting and changing a broken politics without being willing to honestly describe what is actually in front of us.

I identify "conservative economic principles" with movement conservatism because that is a fact, whether all individuals "holding" those "principles" acknowledge it or have actual allegiance to movement conservatism or not. Those "economic principles" concentrate wealth and are explicitly designed to do so, and have a political party in their pocket that uses divisive tribal politics as a means to enabling that agenda. If you're not comfortable that holding such "principles" might seem to put you in the company of such people -- and I would add that it's you, not me, who keeps anxiously insisting on this conflation of all conservatives with "movement" conservatives, I have always made the distinction frank and clear and am losing patience with your bad habit of trying to invent other views on my behalf -- then too bad. That's not going to change the political and economic realities.

If you're not a Republican, then hearing the Republicans described honestly should not make you nervous and defensive and prompt attempts at derailment and obfuscation from you. I personally have always been willing to take you at your word... but that you're a libertarian who imagines his "economic principles" to be innocent of all the perfidies of "movement conservatism" does not make your imaginings true.

In addition, I am genuinely confused as to how you have managed to associate conservative economic values as being a race-based ideology.

They don't and I have said no such thing. Movement conservatism simply uses tribal politics to enable its agenda. Its politics are simply designed to deliver the actual fruits of that agenda to its real constituency, the billionaires. (They've been really quite open about this for some time. It's why Dubya used to deliver smug speeches to rooms full of people he describes as "the haves" and "the have-mores" and "the elite" and reassuring them that they were "his base.") It's basically an electoral confidence game: focus on a large, cohesive constituency that can deliver reliable numbers at the polls, frighten and exploit it, and make off with the proceeds.

(EDIT: I would add that if you're wondering why I'm bringing it up here, it's because the movement thus described has done very well for itself by its methods and should be expected to try to continue propagating division that favours them within any "new center." It would be hopelessly naive to expect them to behave otherwise.)

[Valthazar]

Cyrano, I apologize if I misunderstood you, I honestly am not trying to argue or anything here.  The reason why I was concerned that you were grouping all of us in one category is because of statements such as this:

I identify "conservative economic principles" with movement conservatism because that is a fact, whether all individuals "holding" those "principles" acknowledge it or have actual allegiance to movement conservatism or not. Those "economic principles" concentrate wealth and are explicitly designed to do so, and have a political party in their pocket that uses divisive tribal politics as a means to enabling that agenda.

When I read remarks like this, I can't help but get the impression that you are grouping all fiscal conservatives together as movement conservatism.  Since you specifically asked why I am defensive when you make these connections to the movement conservatism, it is because I disagree with the social conservative platform of the Republican party.

The idea that moderate right-leaning individuals support policies that "concentrate wealth and are explicitly designed to do so" is inaccurate.  I tried to clarify this point in the post below:

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=186414.msg9100566#msg9100566

With that being said though, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the current Republican party and Tea Party are peons for large businesses - and I agree with much of the material you described about movement conservatism - as it is accurately defined, of course.

[Cyrano Johnson]

When I read remarks like this, I can't help but get the impression that you are grouping all fiscal conservatives together as movement conservatism. 

[EDIT: More irritable version of this post redacted because it was taking out unrelated frustration on Val and he doesn't deserve that.]

Let's try it this way. Suppose I'm standing next to a Black Flag anarchist activist, and you hear both of us make the argument that the police are effectively a paramilitary occupation force designed to protect the rich from the poor*. If you counter-argued that that argument unfairly denigrates the police and vastly over-simplifies their role in the community, and that if either of us succeeded in reforming or abolishing the police according to that argument the consequences for public safety would be disastrous... are you really "grouping us together" as Black Flag anarchists by saying our policies on the issue would have the same effects?

(* DISCLAIMER: No, not an argument I would actually make. This is just a hypothetical.)

[Beguile's Mistress]

Discussions I have or get to listen to tell me most of the people I come in contact with prefer the half-hour to hour long local news for the "hard" news they want but for other things like politics, the economy and such they have their favorites they rely on heavily.  I try to avoid editorials, blogs and think pieces when looking for facts and will only watch or read mainstream media after I find as much fact as I can.  I'm very adamant about not wanting to be told what to think or how I'm supposed to be seeing things. 

I'm part of the New American Center.

[Valthazar]

Cyrano, I understand your analogy.  We simply have different perspectives regarding what we consider ideal economic policy to benefit all individuals, and grow a strong middle class.  While I could certainly provide a lengthy explanation of why I feel moderate, right-leaning economic policy is critical in developing a thriving middle class, I have gathered that you have a strong, resolute belief that such policies are detrimental to the middle class over the long-term, and represent pro-rich policy.

That's simply a fundamental difference between us, and I can respect our differences.  But the reality is that no amount of back and forth posting is going to change our perspectives, or make any progress on this front.

All I would ask is that even if you, personally, feel that my economic policies do not benefit the middle class - please realize that moderate fiscal conservatives such as myself, and others who post here with similar views, do feel it benefits the middle class.  In other words, despite your opinion of our policies as being pro-rich, realize that many of us have equal substantive data demonstrating that our policies benefit the working class.  That's really the only point I was trying to make in all of this - and hence the reason why I was drawing a separation from far-right ideology found in the Tea Party and Republican party.  These far-right organizations truly are pro-rich.

My more moderate stance on economic issues is probably in line with many of your views, Cyrano.  For example, higher tax rates on multinational businesses, higher taxes on capital gains, and so on.

Despite these differences, like I said, I agree with much of your commentary on the current state of movement conservative, and 'politicized' conservatism.

I hope we can simply agree to disagree on this issue.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Oh, I have no doubt of the sincerity in which you hold your views, Val.

Admittedly I can't be that sanguine about everyone who has ever promoted such views...  >:)



But as far as you and I go I've never thought of you as other than a perfectly decent fellow-perv, I can assure you. And I agree and have always done that we have plenty of common ground.

[Love And Submission]

I agree with you that the American public is poorly-served by most of its media, but I am not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic with the rest of your post.

You seem to be saying that most of the mainstream media in the United States is conservative leaning, with Fox News being the radical example.  But of the major TV news outlets, which probably include ABC News, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC News - all of these tend to have a moderate to significant left-leaning bias in their reporting.  Which other mainstream TV outlets do you consider to be conservative leaning?  As I have said previously, your blanket remarks which characterize individuals holding conservative views as nutcases and dupes is ironically the same thing which you criticize conservative-leaning media of doing.

I hate when people  say the  mainstream media is left-leaning without being honest about what being left-leaning is in today's america. Left-Leaning  in modern america appears to be a  buzzword used by the far right for "inclusive."  That's why  MSM tends to go left. Because the  MSM  ,  like most things in America and the world are designed to appeal to the largest group of people they can.

The Right Wing politics of today simply alienate Homosexuals , African Americans , Hispanics , Asians and anyone with a religious view outside of basic Christianity. If the Right Wing members  of this country would like to see the   media being more sympathetic to their actions they themselves would need to appeal to the large demographics that only left wing politics appeal to in today's  culture.

[Vekseid]

I agree with you that the American public is poorly-served by most of its media, but I am not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic with the rest of your post.

You seem to be saying that most of the mainstream media in the United States is conservative leaning, with Fox News being the radical example.  But of the major TV news outlets, which probably include ABC News, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC News - all of these tend to have a moderate to significant left-leaning bias in their reporting.

This statement is not just false, it is a blatant, unequivocal lie, unless you don't have the slightest clue as to what left versus right means.

- How many gave the same degree of coverage, at the same point from inception, to Occupy Wallstreet that they did to the Tea Party?
- How many promoted a critical stance on the Iraq war?
- How many survey the opinions of labour figures with the same frequency they do to corporate figures?
- How many make regular mention of gains in productivity versus wages?
- How many clarify what historical tax rates were in the US, along with how well the average citizen was doing at the time?

Not a single one.

They're all far-right in terms of authoritarian and corporate leanings.

In the mean time, Fox promotes policies to create an actively indentured populace. They actively support China's policies regarding dissidents.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The only political party News Corporation respects is the Communist Party of China. To the point where their subsidiaries are actively fine with sending citizens to death or worse for them.

The only decent person's response to Fox's behavior ought to be vocal disgust at the absolute best.

When a media corporation is willing to send dissidents to torture, prison and death in support of an authoritarian regime, there's no question about who they would support if such a power gained traction in a for-now Democratic state.

[Retribution]

Okay this is where I piss a lot of people off sorry  :-[ I find the argument that there is not a liberal bent in the main stream media or that it is a vast conspiracy by rich white guys well utterly absurd. For example let us look at Mr. Ted Turner, dude was married to Jane Fonda for fuck's sake the poster child of left leaning. To say he is a member of some vast conservative conspiracy is ridiculous. Look at all the attention Hollywood types are given in the media and for the most part their talent is singing and shaking their asses so I am baffled at their qualifications to be sounding boards for political causes. By and large for whatever reasons these types lean hard left, hell I do not know maybe they feel guilty about wealth and fame.

And the argument that there is a "white tribal" mindset makes me go WTF. Look guys I am a white guy, I also come from a white trash, trailer park background.  Trust me, those who grew up like I did face just as many issues as those who grow up in the inner city. I still look at many of my contemporaries and shake my head in bewilderment. Now granted I am no longer of that social class or what have you. I got myself educated (with help from government programs) and raised myself up and would probably be considered at this point of my life solid middle or upper middle class. At no time was I a member of a vast conspiracy to keep people of color down or misreport on them in the news. To say such is frankly hair brained.

Want to know the difference between trailer trash like I grew up and those in the inner city? The accent!! Both face many of the same issues and hardships. Hell, I recall perfecting the art of hunting as a kid because I did not know where my next dam meal was coming from and toss in a side of cutting a lot of fire wood because my family could not afford to heat the house. A lot of my family's hardships were also utterly and completely self inflicted. I see pretty much all of the same sorts of issues when I look at the inner city there is just a slightly different accent much like the way the two groups talk.

And that is why I have grown to be an utterly color blind person. I find smart and stupid people of all races and genders and walks of life. I work to raise my kids to be color blind as well. But saying that the whole concept of media biased is either false or based on some vast conspiracy is just mind blowing to me. Have any of you looked at Washington recently? They cannot figure out how to balance a checkbook so I am pretty dam sure that a secret manipulation of the entire population is beyond them. It is this sort of conspiracy theory on both sides that keeps us all at one another's throats and leads to well media bias. When the point of the initial link I posted was that hey we are all not really that far apart.

*Takes a Breath* okay am ending my rant and returning to silence here....sorry about that folks.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Okay this is where I piss a lot of people off sorry  :-[ I find the argument that there is not a liberal bent in the main stream media or that it is a vast conspiracy by rich white guys well utterly absurd.

That's nice for you. Unfortunately you would have to have an actual answer to any of Vekseid's points above for this"finding" to be worth anything. (And I don't recall anyone saying anything about a "conspiracy" by rich white guys. Conspiracies are things that people try to keep secret.)

For example let us look at Mr. Ted Turner, dude was married to Jane Fonda for fuck's sake the poster child of left leaning.

So if you bang lefties, you Get The Red? Look, copulins are nifty and all, but I'm like 82.3% sure that is Not How Politics Works. I don't remember seeing the likes of Ted Turner at any anti-war protests, or any billionaires joining the Occupy movement (or funding it... unlike the Tea Party), yet I'm pretty sure a fair number of them are banging liberal artists and film stars too. What gives?

And the argument that there is a "white tribal" mindset makes me go WTF.

Which tells us you are not a Republican political strategist, and that can only speak well of you. You are, however (I'm assuming) a nimble carbon-based lifeform with opposable thumbs and access to Teh Google. That means you can look up "Southern Strategy" all by yourself, and free yourself forever from making patently silly statements like this. Go forth and be enlightened... the Power of the Internet compels you!

(Of course it's true that I always have trouble entirely believing people who talk about having grown-up white working class or "white trash" in North America -- with the possible partial exception of Saskatchewan -- and yet affect not to know about the widespread nature of this kind of right-wing political sentiment even in areas where it's not entirely dominant. But one does try to extend the benefit of the doubt.)

Look guys I am a white guy

* Gasp * A white guy! Here?!?!?!

I've never encountered one before! This is unprecedented! First Contact!

Look, something I've always wanted to know, and sorry if it's a bit personal... but do you guys, you know, lay eggs? A friend and I have a bet going.

[Retribution]

Look I was not trying to bog this down with a bagillion links but here goes. Before I do that though I will preface that where Occupy Wall Street failed was that they occupied then did nothing but well occupy. They had the media spotlight then did absolutely nothing with it which is kind of self-defeating, okay a lot self-defeating.

As for links:

Pardon me but I do not think Mr. Turner hangs with the Tea Party http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ted-turner-jane-fonda-cnn-time-warner-295773

As for Iraq I recall at the time I was skeptical but the facts do indeed show a pro war bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War

And for the perception of media bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

I use Wikpedia because I hope that leads to less ranting about inaccuracy of sources, and it also is filled with other links. My perception of the whole ball of wax is that most have a perception of media bias they just happen to think it is biased to whatever view they oppose. Which all kind of goes back to my original link in that we are not as far apart as we all seem to think we are –but- there is a perception that well the other point of view must lay eggs or something.

I am out guys nothing to be gained by further comment from me here it has devolved as such things often do to ranting and finger pointing.

[edit] and since this was posted while I was typing "(Of course it's true that I always have trouble entirely believing people who talk about having grown-up white working class or "white trash" in North America -- with the possible partial exception of Saskatchewan -- and yet affect not to know about the widespread nature of this kind of right-wing political sentiment even in areas where it's not entirely dominant. But one does try to extend the benefit of the doubt.)" 

Not saying I do not know about it, but you did not get my take which is that trailer trash (me) and inner city are two sides of the same coin in my opinion.....again not as far apart as we might think. So maybe we should all stop being a bunch of sheep and use the gray matter between our ears.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I use Wikpedia because I hope that leads to less ranting about inaccuracy of sources

And also, conveniently, involves less exposure to actual evaluation of the competing claims to bias in light of the facts. (Spoiler: outside of MSNBC's recent discovery of the progressive market, the claims of "liberal bias" lose on the facts nine times of ten, as you would probably discover if you followed any of the cites from your WikiPedia article -- to, say, non-partisan organizations founded specifically to study the issue such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.)

So maybe we should all stop being a bunch of sheep and use the gray matter between our ears.

That's excellent advice! You could start by researching some of the actual data on the challenges faced by inner-city black communities as compared to working-class white communities and see if your belief in their equivalence is actually sound on the evidence.

[Retribution]

Okay really my last post but I will happily research maybe you can do the same link to the Daily Pedophile snipped.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Excellent. I got to encounter my very first white guy and get linked to the world's first known evidence of poor white people all in one thread. *mind blown *

(All joking aside, I genuinely wish you well in your research. And yes, I'm genuinely willing to compare notes with you.)

[Vekseid]

Okay really my last post but I will happily research maybe you can do the same link to the Daily Pedophile snipped.

There is no such thing as original journalism from the Daily Mail. It is a fucking tabloid, with a reputation that makes the National Enquirer in the US seem realistic.

For all the ranting I make about Fox, Sky, and News Corp in general, I have to admit that they still have some semblance of journalism and will do original research. Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart individually had more integrity than the entirety of the Daily Mail's staff combined.

If you cannot find a better, non-DM affiliated source, it is not a valid reference. If you can, you can use the actual source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RrjyHlbZck

And if you're wondering why I call it the Daily Pedophile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY

Do not link that trash again, please.

If you are at all a decent human being.

[Retribution]

Actually, not making any judgement or comment on that source's integrity or lack there of Vesk. I simply used it because it was the same source Cryo had tossed my way so I figured he would acknowledge it. But I will keep that in mind and not link it again.

[Valthazar]

(Of course it's true that I always have trouble entirely believing people who talk about having grown-up white working class or "white trash" in North America -- with the possible partial exception of Saskatchewan -- and yet affect not to know about the widespread nature of this kind of right-wing political sentiment even in areas where it's not entirely dominant. But one does try to extend the benefit of the doubt.)

I know there's a lot of hate for Daily Mail here, but with regard to the above article you have linked, if you read the full thing, Joe the Plumber apparently copied that particular post it is talking about, verbatim from Kevin Jackson on the The Black Sphere.

Original Kevin Jackson Post:  http://theblacksphere.net/2013/10/america-needs-white-republican-president/#BOTSZxPlAVqYyB2X.99   (might need to close an ad)
Joe Wurzelbacher's Re-Post:  http://joeforamerica.com/2013/10/america-needs-white-republican-president/

From reading Kevin Jackson's site, he seems to be a black man.

They are identical, and it's a shame it is only considered racist when the white person says it.  Either we should acknowledge that this is a legitimate perspective that everyone can openly discuss (regardless of race), or we should agree that it is not acceptable for anyone to make this kind of commentary.  Personally, I lean towards the side of this type of argument being unacceptable for anyone, regardless of white or black, or any other race.

[Oniya]

There is no such thing as original journalism from the Daily Mail. It is a fucking tabloid, with a reputation that makes the National Enquirer in the US seem realistic.

Or, for a more tongue-in-cheek explanation:

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=186839.msg9010332#msg9010332

[Cyrano Johnson]

Actually, not making any judgement or comment on that source's integrity or lack there of Vesk. I simply used it because it was the same source Cryo had tossed my way so I figured he would acknowledge it. But I will keep that in mind and not link it again.

I am a thoroughly indecent human being but will also refrain from linking the Daily Mail in the future. (I actually wasn't paying close enough attention or would have chosen one of a thousand other, better sites to link to for that story.)

(I will also note that by a strange coincidence, Retribution has happened on my rapper name: Cryo-J. "He's one cold mutha...")

EDIT: Oniya, that test is hilarious... I got to "Hated" in only six questions! Sounds about right.

[Retribution]

I am a thoroughly indecent human being but will also refrain from linking the Daily Mail in the future. (I actually wasn't paying close enough attention or would have chosen one of a thousand other, better sites to link to for that story.)

(I will also note that by a strange coincidence, Retribution has happened on my rapper name: Cryo-J. "He's one cold mutha...")

EDIT: Oniya, that test is hilarious... I got to "Hated" in only six questions! Sounds about right.

Sorry, I tend to shorten people's names and put my own spin on them without even realizing I am doing so. I attribute it to being horrible on remembering names and so I stick something on people I can recall unconsciously. I do not do so meaning any disrespect.

[Cyrano Johnson]

It's all good, really. No offense taken.  O8)

[MasterMischief]

Trust me, those who grew up like I did face just as many issues as those who grow up in the inner city.

Sorry, I don't trust you there.  I do not doubt you faced hardships, but without being those 'other people', you can not possibly know what hardships they faced.  I once thought as you do.  I have been lucky and had many opportunities that I have since discovered were blocked to others.  Many people do succeed, unfortunately, hard work is not the only determining factor.

[Retribution]

Sorry, I don't trust you there.  I do not doubt you faced hardships, but without being those 'other people', you can not possibly know what hardships they faced.  I once thought as you do.  I have been lucky and had many opportunities that I have since discovered were blocked to others.  Many people do succeed, unfortunately, hard work is not the only determining factor.

But you can know what hardships I faced and say they do not compare? Pardon me while am amused by the utter irony of that statement.

Having said that at no point have I ever said hard work is the only answer. This entire argument was derived from this discussion being shifted to race. How that happened I have no idea because the point I was trying to make in the original post was that most people have views that are not really that far from each other....what race has to do with a statement like that mystifies me. But yes racism does exist and it is an ugly thing, no that was not and has not ever been the point of what I was attempting to discuss.

[MasterMischief]

But you can know what hardships I faced and say they do not compare? Pardon me while am amused by the utter irony of that statement.

I did not say I know what hardships you faced only that you can not know what hardships they faced.  Unless, of course, you want to suggest you have experienced everyone's hardships.  Your point seemed to suggest that if you can do it, so can they.  And that seems an all too common sentiment that I just do not buy into anymore.

[Toral Stimins]

Unless I am very much mistaken, this whole discussion is about the US of A. Where even anyone you lot call, left wing, are being seen as far right in Europe. Oh wait, I said this in another thread too.

[Retribution]

I did not say I know what hardships you faced only that you can not know what hardships they faced.  Unless, of course, you want to suggest you have experienced everyone's hardships.  Your point seemed to suggest that if you can do it, so can they.  And that seems an all too common sentiment that I just do not buy into anymore.

Okay, let me take a breath here as your initial statement seemed pretty dam hypocritical to me and to be honest it ticked me off. So let us say no one can know another's feelings unless they have walked in their shoes as the old saying goes. And there are many strata of people who have for lack of a better term faced hard times. But racism is another matter all together and it is hideous and no I cannot know that unless my genes suddenly mutate.

But to get back on topic  :-) the short version of the point I was trying to make is that I think the poll shows we are all not that far apart on views and I feel like the media stirs shit to sell papers.

[MasterMischief]

But to get back on topic  :-) the short version of the point I was trying to make is that I think the poll shows we are all not that far apart on views and I feel like the media stirs shit to sell papers.

I often have to take a step back and promise myself not to read/watch the news for a day or two.  I give myself time to refocus on what is important to me.

[Valthazar]

Sorry, I don't trust you there.  I do not doubt you faced hardships, but without being those 'other people', you can not possibly know what hardships they faced.  I once thought as you do.  I have been lucky and had many opportunities that I have since discovered were blocked to others.  Many people do succeed, unfortunately, hard work is not the only determining factor.

Luck is a factor, connections are a factor, charisma is a factor, and so is creativity.  You're right, there are prejudices all of us face.  Could be because of skin color, being obese, being born without a limb, having a lot of debt, having alcoholic parents, you name it.  Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, all of us, have something or another that is a splinter in our mind, that we want to feel is holding us back.

And you're right, maybe things won't be ideal for any of us.  But the successful people (and I'm defining this as middle class people who have some degree of stability) are people who acknowledge that their lives are not perfect, and continually trying to find ways to create a niche, and capitalize on what makes them unique.

Life isn't fair, but by continually reminding yourself of that, you are making it impossible to be successful.  Accept that life isn't fair, and make the best of your situation. 

Any of us could be paralyzed in a car accident tomorrow, regardless of our position in society.

[Retribution]

That advice Val is oddly like how I used to deal with kids when coaching. The phrase was instilled in me by my college coach. It went something like this "the ref made a bad call and it cost me the match." To which I responded "then it was your fault for allowing your opponent to be so close to you that a poor call could determine the outcome." But that is all a topic for another discussion.

[Valthazar]

I just never understood the idea that one attributes their personal hardships as the reason they can't achieve something - as if their hardships are any different than anyone else.  Sure, some people are born into more financial privilege, and things might be easier for them in rising up in their career.  But they are also human and struggle with their own issues.  Maybe their kid has autism, or they have marital problems holding them back emotionally, or a kid dealing with drug addiction.

If someone can't afford college, or feel they don't have the same "pedigree" as others, then they should show society what they are really worth.  My post here is pretty much common sense, and a little googling is all it would take for someone to figure out the next step in their life to move forward.

All of us have the internet.  If people used their time wisely and learned a topic, and become a master at it, that's half the battle.  No one can take away someone's knowledge.  How easy is it to blog, or to submit an article for the newspaper, or send an email to someone on LinkedIn?  Opportunities are everywhere.

You'd be amazed how many people have access to the internet in the United States, and if they don't have it, how easily it can be accessed in libraries.  Man, worst case, you could even walk into a bookstore, and read the newspapers/books/magazines and yet, no one takes advantage of all it has to offer.

That's why I don't buy into this logic that America isn't the land of opportunity anymore.  Sure, it might be harder, but there are still opportunities to compete.

[kylie]

          Hardships are not all equal.  It may be true that you've faced hardships, but it's another thing entirely to show that your hardships are of the most frequently, systematically occurring kind or that they are somehow the 'least fair.'  I don't disagree that the working class as a whole gets a raw deal, for instance, but being Black and working class is still likely to be somewhat worse than White and working class.  Multiply that times a lot of people and you have patterns.

          If you grew up in a particular side of the city regarded as the "poor, Black neighborhood," all a racist prospective employer has to do is make some assumptions about the address on your resume.  They may toss it without ever seeing your face. 

Now, is that your fault for 'putting yourself in that position,' for being so 'close' to racism that they could do that and remove a whole slew of entry-level office jobs that someone else, say kylie who happens to be white and live in some other cheap neighborhood -- the landlords are not going to look twice at her so long as she can fork over the cash every month (and they don't worry a whit about that being just barely doable for her; for a Black person oh they might keep an eye out and keep saying, "When are they going to break, better dump them first" but no, she's White! -- well, she happens to get inside those jobs (as well as that neighborhood) just fine.

There may be some opportunities (some of them, terribly transient or risky), but there won't be all the same ones for everyone.

         One caveat:  What feels hard, feels it.  I'm  not trying to say that one hardship must be experienced as worse by those who have it.  But objectively, different groups face both different and sometimes more or more pressing obstacles. 

When your whole community is more likely to be situated in a place the government has more or less pulled out basic services (police, firefighters, library funds) from since you were young, the odds you can get enough time on that one computer at the public library soon and long enough to compose a famous research paper become kind of slim...  Btw, I work in a place where university students (in this case of rural backgrounds) are still writing papers (in ESL) all by hand.  I have a little experience with the general problem of people trying to process a lot of information fast, with no word processors to edit it and limited time or training to actually write things out neatly.

[Valthazar]

And I don't disagree with most of what you've said.  I could probably provide a list of all the hardships and discrimination I've faced as well, including racial, since you seemed to emphasis that one.

But what productive good does it provide on an individual basis to constantly reinforce all the biases in one's life?  It's a vicious cycle of negativity, and at least on an individual basis, accomplishes nothing for that specific individual.  People are naturally drawn to individuals who exude positivity, and optimism, despite their life situation.  Why is it that we are inspired by quadriplegics, who have accepted their situation, and push forward to live life to the max, despite their condition?

I've learned that life is unfair, I've accepted it.  But I also know that I have many strengths, as do all people, and I run with it.

[kylie]

          Well, it depends whatever you mean by productive good.  I could argue that most of the economy today does little "productive" of wealth (assets) for most people, except a very small handful at the top.  Many people will be renting for their whole life or won't really have a stable industry/economy basis to support the mortgage all the way through if they do buy a home.  It doesn't look to me as though my generation is going to have a whole lot of security to pass on, even if they do manage to somehow get by.

            It isn't just about being productive, it's about being critical.  Productive for who, for what?  For how long, even?  If no one is critical, it seems to me many people will never be especially productive of wealth they could keep.  The system of brands (low employment, low security, companies that exist primarily for their very top to hold onto a lot of currency often stashed in other places or masked as having convenient secondary purposes) and capital isn't arranged to actually allow them be (not to mention racism often slapping some way down before they can even start).

            Yes, some things are "just" unfair at the moment -- because people keep organizing it so, and telling each other it must be so for lack of a better idea.  Or for fear of pessimism or disruption even!  "Who wants to rock the boat?  Who knows what might happen if some upstart went and TRIED something?!"  But some things are so unfair that if you study the reality, some people very rarely have a chance.  And telling them that they do, they must, or they better act like they do or else they're being a less than good and full human being, is just feeding false consciousness then. 

             Sometimes it ends up feeding nagging social problems, too.  What happens when the kids who think they "deserve" to live a stable life (never mind become star entertainers or athletes, which seems to be a grand diversion of choice)  if only they would keep banging their heads against a wall find out, there's actually no way there from here?  Is it really any nicer than what happens when people think they're "entitled" to some support with basic necessities?  It might even be worse, I would expect.  Maybe there's not only no way, but they've blown what little they had "investing" and now they're in the land of negative, hard up and angry faster than they would have been otherwise.  Though the system may be biased to drive them that way anyway. 

              It doesn't sound optimistic, no.   Umm, so sorry for you...  Maybe the most obvious "strength" some kids have in the system we have, is selling cocaine.  What then?  But what if being a little cold and analytical actually explains a few things that keep happening?  Then either you say, "Well that's just life and the cost of some people elsewhere being productive and feeling good," or you get involved taking some risks maybe, but trying to say what the problems are and see if anyone dares improve the setup somewhere, so more people would really have appreciable chances.

   

[Valthazar]

I'm defining 'productive good' for a person, as being able to live a personally-satisfying, stable, content life.  Again, I'm not disagreeing with many of the things you are saying.  But on an individual level, the minute you let pessimism or the reality of how "bad" things are seep into your mind, that's the instant that goals become impossible.

There's a lot of people who have trouble losing weight because they grew up in households as kids where they ate a lot of fatty foods.  It is extremely hard to break such habits, and statistically they face a much higher barrier in losing weight.  Like what you've described, many of these people are in generational obesity, and you can blame it on the cheap fast food, the habits, and so on.  There is certainly campaigns that are on-going, and starting up, to create more opportunities and support for these people, so that over the long-term, hopefully these inequities can be reduced.

But of those people, the ones that do manage to go out and achieve their goals, told themselves that they can rise above those challenges.  In other words, they accepted their situation, and focused on the end result, regardless of how much effort they would need to put in compared to their peers.  It will be 10x harder for them to achieve, but life isn't about where you start, but in what you achieve.  Everything in life is about attitude.

My family had something like $75 when we first came here, and if you're trying to tell me opportunities don't exist in the USA for people who have a burning desire to achieve personal satisfaction - whatever their goals may be, then you don't understand what having a true lack of opportunities is like in 3rd world countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J0Ahh3UxbM

[alextaylor]

People who get into politics often believe something on one end. Then they get called out on it. Then they defend it past the point where it gets extreme.

"I don't like gays"
"Why?"
"Because they're always trying to fuck my butt"
"What? No. That's stupid. You're stupid for thinking that"
"No it's not. The bible says it's bad"
"Why do you even believe your dumb bible. It says abortion is bad too, but you just ignore that too"
"I never said abortion is not bad. Abortion is bad too"
"If that's what you believe then do something about it or you're a hypocrite"
"Fuck you. Why are you opposing this anyway? Don't you believe in the Bible? If you don't, then you're evil"
"What does Bibles have to do with being good?"
"Because every good person believes in God"
"No they don't. Fuck you. I'm atheist now."

Person 1 becomes a hardcore Conservative. Person 2 becomes a hardcore Liberal.

Now take these individuals and put them in the public eye. Combine that with the viral social media. Instead of Person 1 vs Person 2, it's now Conservative Senator vs Ten Thousand Angry Liberals. It escalates stupid stances a lot faster.

[Retribution]

People who get into politics often believe something on one end. Then they get called out on it. Then they defend it past the point where it gets extreme.

"I don't like gays"
"Why?"
"Because they're always trying to fuck my butt"
"What? No. That's stupid. You're stupid for thinking that"
"No it's not. The bible says it's bad"
"Why do you even believe your dumb bible. It says abortion is bad too, but you just ignore that too"
"I never said abortion is not bad. Abortion is bad too"
"If that's what you believe then do something about it or you're a hypocrite"
"Fuck you. Why are you opposing this anyway? Don't you believe in the Bible? If you don't, then you're evil"
"What does Bibles have to do with being good?"
"Because every good person believes in God"
"No they don't. Fuck you. I'm atheist now."

Person 1 becomes a hardcore Conservative. Person 2 becomes a hardcore Liberal.

Now take these individuals and put them in the public eye. Combine that with the viral social media. Instead of Person 1 vs Person 2, it's now Conservative Senator vs Ten Thousand Angry Liberals. It escalates stupid stances a lot faster.

*laughs* exactly the point I was trying to make Alex. Though it is too early in the day to laugh this hard! Great example!

[kylie]

There's a lot of people who have trouble losing weight because they grew up in households as kids where they ate a lot of fatty foods.  It is extremely hard to break such habits, and statistically they face a much higher barrier in losing weight.  Like what you've described, many of these people are in generational obesity, and you can blame it on the cheap fast food, the habits, and so on.  There is certainly campaigns that are on-going, and starting up, to create more opportunities and support for these people, so that over the long-term, hopefully these inequities can be reduced.

But of those people, the ones that do manage to go out and achieve their goals, told themselves that they can rise above those challenges.  In other words, they accepted their situation, and focused on the end result, regardless of how much effort they would need to put in compared to their peers.  It will be 10x harder for them to achieve, but life isn't about where you start, but in what you achieve.  Everything in life is about attitude.

Perhaps it's a matter of where your concern is.  Often enough, when people emphasize individual "attitude" or "intiative" or "responsibility" that's done as a way to say that individuals can do anything "if only they put their mind to it," and/or look, a few people over here managed to pull it off, so no one else should be able to succeed unless they can prove they worked equally hard under equally harsh conditions to do it completely alone.  But conditions are rarely all that identical -- they're often just harsh in some other ways, so round and round it all goes when people suggest attempting anything to actually provide a security net or generalize opportunities more across the population.  And it's also a crutch frequently adopted happily by anyone who really wanted fewer to no social programs in the first place, think the Tea Party... 

"Oh, we could do it so surely anyone else can."  But you're simply not in the same place looking at the same obstacles.  You don't know that for sure and you're not taking the time to go in and study the actual obstacles, I would suspect.   

          You say it's "all" about attitude, and that's precisely where it falls apart.  In your own example above, you said there were campaigns by others working at the same time, in the same places, to make more opportunities for those very people.  And you set up a case where the assumption is those campaigns are actually working and have enough membership or enough political clout, something, enough organization perhaps, to actually make a difference.  And presumably no one is picketing them shouting "You're going to hell!" or trying to frame them for terrorism or deprive them (the campaigners) of a chance to get to the voting booth -- or not enough that it stops them. 

            In any case, your example is not all about individual attitude.  It's at least partly about achieving success in an environment where you also assume cooperation, activism, perhaps charity, and maybe social programs as policy platforms.  You're rosily assuming some unspecified degree of the changes I ask for would naturally "happen" without taking up the question of how, and with what sort of resistance those changes are actually facing -- as if the arguments you make were not much the same arguments that very resistance loves to use.  But in fact, they are and they do.

            And when you say talking too much about the "realities," the actual odds facing people, is defeatist, then I think you need to check your definition of reality somewhere.  The odds don't go away simply because people stop talking about them.  Sometimes, you can't even surmount them if you don't talk about them, because you won't plan well for what is really out there.  If you think simply saying that there are systemic obstacles and something should be done about them is a distraction when people should be working their butts off religiously on the assumption it will somehow all work out, then that's completely contrary to the role of the campaigns you put into your own example.

 

[Cyrano Johnson]

Life isn't fair, but by continually reminding yourself of that, you are making it impossible to be successful.  Accept that life isn't fair, and make the best of your situation. 

Wow, you mean Positive Thinking and Believing In Yourself can Achieve Anything? That's a great point Val! Why, I'm sure it's never occurred to anyone who's faced racism, discrimination or misogyny to just Get Out There and Take On That World and Go After Their Dreams! Anyone who recognizes that racism and social injustice exist must obviously just be moping around and complaining, never realizing how easy it is to erase injustice from the world with magical thinking, motivational speeches and Care Bear Stares... but that's all behind me. I am going straight out and buy me a copy of The Secret and I'm going to take this message straight out to every slum, reservation, favela and ghetto in the world, and tell all those Poor Fuckers that they have nobody to blame but themselves for not being Awesomely Middle-Class. After all, look at the EliteFamily! A pure example of success by nothing but Raw Will which I'm sure did not benefit from a single piece of public infrastructure or aid dollar in any form whatever.

That is some Deep Libertarian Thinking right there. This thread has Turned My Life Around!

[Imogen]

Blame and solution are two different things.

Of course people may be dealt a bad hand at birth, but what good does it do to dwell on it? "I am <insert drawback of choice> so I have it rough"

Okay. Perhaps that is so.

But how does this help? Wouldn't it be better to focus on things that you -can- change?

Often that requires a positive outlook on life. Whether it's the decision to pursue an education, to save money for something you need, or whatever... Often, it will require a driving force: you. Sometimes, that isn't enough. Sometimes you try and you fail. That doesn't necessarily happen because you're black/white/from a ghetto/from a wealthy family/etc. It happens to everyone. It's all too easy to fall into the trap of pointing at the obvious hindrance as the cause for failure. Sometimes you may be right but it may also hinder perspective and keep you from looking for other reasons - ones that you can improve upon.

(I am using 'you' for easier typing. It by no means is meant to indicate any reader personally)

[Cyrano Johnson]

Basically, I think it's just necessary to recognize that when you're talking to or about the working poor or the working class, in the current environment you are talking to a great many people who are making ends meet by working more jobs and engaging in more ingenious improvisation and deploying more willpower than is likely to be true for most of us who have the time and Internet access to post on a site like this. Or you are talking to people who served in the military and are surviving on veterans' benefits and possibly dealing with PTSD. Or you are talking to the elderly and retirees... some of whom are having to put off retirement to work two jobs or more.

You are basically talking either to or about a whole bunch of people who would feel absolutely rightly patronized and insulted that you think their economic problems would be easily solvable if it occurred to them to just have a more positive attitude. Life does not work that way, social and economic justice does not work that way, and the reason for my blast of sarcasm at Val there is that just at the level of absolutely basic respect -- before we even get to ideological disagreements -- it would be best if the self-help rhetoric was parked at the door.

(Not to be too harsh on the motivational rhetoric -- if it works for someone then good for them, and it surely does help explain the many successes achieved by, say, the Black community in the face of pervasive racial hostility, to the point of electing a Black President -- but nobody should be treating it as a lens through which we can directly analyze macro-economics or problems of income inequality. Those issues are way, way more complicated than just who has the right motivation or not.)

[Valthazar]

Cyrano, I think we are talking about two different but similar issues.  I agree with all the points you are making about discrimination and financial realities.

But if you asked Obama  or any other person who rose up out of their rough life situation what advice they would give to young people living in poverty and facing discrimination, he'd probably say something similar to what Imogen and I posted.

[Kythia]

But if you asked Obama  or any other person who rose up out of their rough life situation what advice they would give to young people living in poverty and facing discrimination, he'd probably say something similar to what Imogen and I posted.

Your problem there, al, is that you're ignoring most of the data.  Sure, maybe Obama would say that.  What you're ignoring is the many many others who worked hard, believed in themselves, followed their dreams, etc etc etc and failed.  By only pointing to the success stories you're implying a 100% success rate for motivational thinking.

[Valthazar]

Again, this isn't about the data, I 100% agree with everything you guys are saying.

But what productive good does it do for the individual to believe that they will not achieve their goals, even if the statistics and realities are all bleak?

[Oniya]

It might be more productive if people were honest about the fact that while possible, success will not be easy.  Handing someone who is having to skip the heating bill to pay the electric a Horatio Alger story is like telling someone suffering from major depression that all they have to do is 'think positive' and 'look on the bright side'.

[Valthazar]

It's probably just a difference of opinion.  I was always taught to accept what I can't change and let my work ethic give me inner satisfaction.  It isn't about compensation, or status, but just in creating a life that one is proud of within themselves.  We really can't debate opinions, and I acknowledge everyone else's views on this.

[Cyrano Johnson]

if you asked Obama  or any other person who rose up out of their rough life situation what advice they would give to young people living in poverty and facing discrimination, he'd probably say something similar to what Imogen and I posted.

Actually, I would say Obama's genius as an orator and pragmatism as a thinker is precisely that he doesn't fall into traps like that. Obama has a habit of acknowledging both his hardships and his privilege, both of them in forthright terms, and factoring them both into what he says about his personal story, and not pretending everyone has the same privileges he did. He also has a habit of strongly backing personal initiative, but not pretending it is a magickal solution to injustice and not pretending it is the solution to every possible socio-economic problem. Hence, among many other things, the ACA (which I do hope retains the name "Obamacare" :)).

I'm a big Obama fan on his strengths as someone who does not recycle those kinds of obnoxious cliches. I like you well enough, but I don't think you can yet count yourself in his company. Not yet.

[kylie]

        I dunno, Imogen, if it's 'not useful' to blame the people holding most of the wealth when those same resources could have rather easily made life at least comfortable for a very large number of people who are left to struggle from day to day and month to month, often on multiple part-time, non-benefit jobs in an economy busy dumping most of the familiar sources of security (the very things their parents tended to assume were there to be positive about in the first place)...

         It sounds to me, like a moral excuse or perhaps, even a policy formula for excusing extreme inequality and forcing everyone else to simply get on with what little tiny, insufficient slice of the pie they have to fight over.  Now granted, if you really believe that is simply the way the world will always be, maybe it's just happier to whistle la-la, see what a good trooper I am and try to feel good anyway.  Or for that matter, one could equally well commit suicide or go blow up a federal building while they're at it.  It doesn't really matter, because nothing we say changes anything and we might as well try to be happy -- or why not, try to make some sense and meaning, or put some conclusion to it all and get it over with (maybe that makes some underprivileged people happy for a short time, too, however hard life might be). 

        And really?  It's not for me so much to say this way is the right response for individuals, or not.  It's your life and your body, your heart to take care of.  But saying that describing what it is, or that protesting or campaigning for something different, is poisoning oneself, now you're telling me what to do with both my own life and what I should believe (or even, couses of events I should help to contribute to) about the fate of everyone's, all at once.  You think you're trying to help, and I think you're trying to drag the whole world down with your own fluffy clouds of virtue in a place that hardly rewards it.

          Saying "whodunit" doesn't necessarily mean one spends their life doing nothing but that.  But saying "blame" itself is too much part of the problem, doesn't make much sense to me -- unless you want things to stay just the way they are.  The corporations and billionaires, with few exceptions, aren't exactly offering a reconciliation package for people who want to negotiate new terms.  Rather, they're opposiing them directly.  And they do that in large part, by saying, "Got a problem?  Ssssh.  Relax.  Just have faith.  You don't want to be singled out as one of those impolite, angry people; why they get monitored, locked out of jobs, and eventually called terrorist sympathizers.  So no, of course you can't do that.  So isn't it sooo much nicer and easier to just shut up, go back to work and remember: keep smiling and telling everyone else life is lovely and our way is the only, best way! while we blatantly rob you.

[kylie]

It's probably just a difference of opinion.  I was always taught to accept what I can't change and let my work ethic give me inner satisfaction.  It isn't about compensation, or status, but just in creating a life that one is proud of within themselves.  We really can't debate opinions, and I acknowledge everyone else's views on this.

I think it's also a difference of background.  Some people have been taught to find satisfaction in having next to nothing, never mind getting on the internet here talking about how their family made it against the odds.  And they may be quite happy living in cities with cholera in the water and a low  life expectancy [strips superfluous exaggeration there], wearing the same filthy clothes all week.  Fine.  Maybe some people, more generally (including in developed countries like the US) just want to have unadulterated pride in doing a lot of work, any work, whatever work (we're still giving you the benefit of assuming they can actually get some!) to lean on, much as some just want to focus on religion.  At that level, sure it's an opinion. 

          But as I think Cyrano is hinting, it's also a big business (selling self-help), a political movement (a favorite line of the Christian right which has become hugely political), and a line that rather wealthy businesspeople are fond of professing as "something you must keep selling to everyone else or you don't even belong in many jobs, much less in the middle class or management."  At that point, it's no longer a choice of opinion, it's a philosophy and politics being forced down people's throats.  We don't say "grin and bear it" because it's just naturally obvious that people were born to do it, and if they knew how to take care of themselves they just would.  We say grin and bear it, because the burdens are unreasonable and in ways that matter to us, injust.  I don't say no one should enjoy working through that simply by working, but I don't see that mainly doing just that is something that suits my conscience either.

[vivaciousvixen]

Well said Imogen. I am a firm believer that life is what you make it. Events may happen outside of your control, but a lot also happens within your control. Use it to your advantage.

But to get back to the first topic of this thread, and the OP, I was also surprised when taking my first politics class, to find that so many were in the middle, when it had always seemed like a black and white issue in my formative years. But when you really ponder it, most people are not very extreme in their thoughts. The term extreme defines them as outside of the norm.

For funsies, if you had to pick an American political party, which would it be, D or R? Give no explanation, or we will be here all day defining what we do and do not support. As has already been established, there is a large gray area. I myself would be on the side of republican.

[HannibalBarca]

I'd like to interject my (suitably nigh-worthless) two cents into this topic, as someone who has a possibly unique perspective into the trials and tribulations of the poor, regardless of other variables.

I grew up in a community that was 90% poor, or around it.  At least, upwards of 90% of us received free or reduced-price lunches, which is a fair barometer for the poverty of a community in this day and age.  However, every single family had at least one adult employed.  We all had homes that were kept up, and there was community pride, as well as significant motivation to succeed.

I grew up in the U.S. Air Force.

Now, I'm already feeling the thought waves of some small percentage: 'An Air Force Brat!  Privilege!  Insulated community!  Safe from crime and similar depredations!'  Insulated, yes, from other communities, not so different from how poor, middle-class, and rich communities are insulated from one another, though.  Safe from some crimes, yes.  Not increased rates of alcoholism, abuse, and suicide, though.  Every community has their pros and cons.  My point is that just because people are poor may have no bearing whatsoever on their motivation to succeed.  Poverty may be built-in to the culture.

Note that I said culture.  So often I hear people wax on about this race or that ethnicity, when the focus should be on the economic structure of said group.  When discussing the amount of welfare recipients among African-Americans, it does well to remember that there are far more white Americans on welfare.  Or that the majority of African-Americans are middle-class.  Please bear witness to modern Atlanta, Georgia, and believe.

But I have had the opportunity, yes, opportunity, to live in four poor communities: a white one, an hispanic one, a black one, and one where the three ethnic groups each made up one-third of the population.

You'd be surprised how many similarities there between the three made up of one predominant ethnic group.  For all intents and purposes, the three of them shared 75% of the same difficulties.  The devil, to paraphrase, however, is in the differences.  And all three, to me, are not based on racial, but cultural differences.

Of the three, the hispanic community was the most vibrant.  I ascribe that to them having a large immigrant segment.  After all, attempting to journey to a new nation in search of improved economic conditions requires motivation, and a desire to improve one's lot.  But, for the hispanics who'd been citizens for generations, there was much less motivation to succeed.  Families tended to stay together instead of divorce.  Religion was important.  Drug use was less, but drug-selling was not.  Gang violence was a problem in some sections--drug-selling Mexican gangs.  Mistrust of the authorities was widespread--for reasons of immigration.

The white community was rural and close-knit.  They had a large percentage of single-parent mothers.  Religion was important.  There was rampant drug-use--methamphetamines.  Gang violence was a problem in some sections--drug-selling bike gangs.  Mistrust of the authorities was widespread--for reasons of all manners of conspiracy theories against the government.

The black community was inner-city and insular.  They had a large percentage of single-parent mothers.  Religion was important.  Gang violence was a problem in some sections--drug-selling gangs.  Mistrust of the authorities was widespread--for reasons of suspected institutionalized racism.

There was a cultural belief among them that I found ran through all three communities:  despair.  Only in the hispanic community was education respected as a way out of poverty--mostly due to the respect afforded education in the old country by immigrants.  The longer generations had been in the country, the less education was looked at favorably.  In the white and black communities, education was a laughingstock, even if teachers were still respected to a point by both--if the teachers could identify with the community.  Motivation was severely lacking, too in both the white and black communities, and both also had a definite culture of victimhood--'the liberal government' by the whites, and 'the racist white man' by the blacks.  Demonized enemies: check.  Both black and white communities had endemic levels of non-supportive fathers and adult males of able body on welfare.  Both had an emphasis on physical skills, rather than intellectual skills.  Both had a focus on survival skills, like being able to pick up and move from an apartment or house within a few hours, or where to find the most free food from food banks.  Both had a culture of victimhood....a lack of acceptance of personal responsibility, a resignation of the futility of trying to improve one's lot in life.

The closer-knit hispanic community had a vibrant community culture, and even though poor, the community looked healthier.  There was a sense of pride of community.  The despairs of generational poverty had not yet set in.

I saw in the black community, and--surprisingly to me at the time--the white community, the same unmotivated, helpless sensibilities as those found on Native American reservations.  Once welfare and/or other government support was the only way income came about, after a few generations, the desire to 'lift one's selves by the bootstraps' was nonexistent.  The whole concept of work ethic, which so many people raise, is absent from these communities.  It has literally been erased from their cultural memories.  It is as alien to them as snow in the Sahara.  Take away a people's reason to work, and you take away a chance for them to have dignity.  Of course, simply stripping away welfare immediately won't solve the problem, either--broad-brush tactics seldom do.  Education works, but education has to be accepted as a possibility for success...and in these two communities, the typical individual is so beaten down, even by the age of eight--eight!--that there is little or no incentive to improve one's lot in life.

Take a moment to soak that in.  Imagine that, by the age of eight, you believed yourself so worthless, that there was simply no power left in you to try to better yourself.  It had already been beaten out of you emotionally, spiritually, or physically.

I am someone who believes there is little difference between Middle Eastern terrorists and gangbangers of any color.  There is little difference between disenfranchised young men with no hope for improvement and low self-esteem and that carry AK-47s, regardless of them being white supremacist bikers, black gangbangers, or Afghani Taliban.  They are created by the same sick formula.  Despair, poverty, and lack of community.

I do have to add, however, that I saw a higher number of disadvantages for blacks than whites or hispanics.  The image of the angry young black gangbanger, the welfare queen, and the uneducated ebonics-speaker carries heavier weight as stereotypes among the majority white population, and the hispanic population, and, yes, the black middle-class, than the racist white redneck hick or the lazy siesta-taking Mexican stereotypes.  Gangster rap and its accompanying videos hasn't helped the stereotypes.

What is truly sad, however, is the mixed community.  I did see a lot of ethnic intermixing, multi-ethnic children, and a great reduction of racism.  Instead of rallying together to improve their common lot, however, I saw an even greater incidence of reinforcement of concepts of entitlement and 'deserving' welfare, regardless of ethnic group.  The ignorant didn't work together to help themselves...they merely increased their feelings of helplessness...'look, it doesn't matter what color you are--we're all always going to be poor and helpless.'

I'd also like to add, however, that when given the opportunity to actually work--really work to live, not at slave labor wages--that I saw people formerly reduced to despair work fiercely hard to keep themselves from falling back into the black hole of poverty and blame.  All ethnic groups.  It seems that dignity has no color barrier, does it?

Take it for what it is.  I'm a teacher, and for someone who is borderline Asperger's, I've learned damn well and good what empathy is, and how to empathize.  The most fearful thing I see, however, isn't welfare, or racism...but lack of empathy for others.  I see the next generation of poor children becoming sociopaths without care for their fellow humans due to lack of parenting by severely-emotionally handicapped parents. 

I've also seen, unfortunately, the same sociopathic tendencies in middle-class children given too much ADHD medication by parents just wanting to shut down normal childhood behavior, too much time in front of TVs and videogames by parents too interested in being on Facebook or MMORPGS for hours at a time, or chatting on iPhones nonstop while their toddlers scream and reach out for a simple hug at the supermarket, needy for emotional contact and support.  This might not have anything to do with the initial discussion, but it segues into it--there are threats to children at all economic levels.  And they become the adults of the future.  Future problems are being created now.

[Retribution]

Nice post Hannibal and you captured a lot of my take on the state of things much better than I ever could.

[HannibalBarca]

Thanks for the compliment, Retribution.  I'm not shy to admit I'm an atheist with mostly liberal beliefs...but I was raised a Catholic by Staunchly Republican parents.  I, like everyone, have many, many beliefs, and not all of them are liberal...many are moderate, and a handful are quite conservative as well.  We are the sum of our beliefs and actions, not a simple cypher, easily digested into left or right, black or white.  While most people would see me and categorize me as white, I'm 1/4 Blackfoot, with some Gypsy thrown in...along with my German, Albanian, Greek, Sicilian, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, English, French Canadian, Lakota, and god knows what else my uncle who keeps track of genealogy has missed.  I went to a bilingual preschool, then elementary school, where 98% of the population was hispanic, so I have a taste, even if miniscule, of what it is like to be on the other side of majority...something I wish everyone who is in a majority could experience.  Walk a mile in another man's moccasins (original saying Native American), indeed.

And I know not all rural white communities are full of meth-heads and ignorant rednecks, too.  Not all inner-city black communities are plagued with low education levels and gang violence.  Not all hispanic communities are close-knit or highly religious.  There are always exceptions.

I read once somewhere that every man or woman is a nation unto themselves...I wish I knew who first said it, because I've taken up that concept wholeheartedly.  Once we look at each human we meet as a rich new tapestry made up of a weave of countless colorful threads, and discard all stereotyping labels before we truly know them, then we as a society are on the right path.

But...I know from experience why people thrust their identity in others' faces.  I know why some African-Americans demand reparations, why some gays and lesbians flaunt their sexuality openly, why some feminists demand the ERA.  It is a demand to be noticed, to be counted, to be verified as existing, to refuse to be swept aside as the Other and counted as wanting, as something less than other humans. 

Once the majority accepts a minority as equal, truly equal, such behavior tends to shrink to a minimum.  Those of other formerly oppressed minorities like Irish and Chinese immigrants are examples of this.  Acceptance into the mainstream does not require the minority to give up all of their ancestral traditions and embrace the overarching culture of the majority, either.  Trust me, as a teacher to the several communities I've worked in, I've seen my cohorts--white and black and hispanic--reveal ugly facets of themselves about 'those kids' who were in the minority in the student population--whether 'those' kids were white, black, hispanic, Muslim, Native American, homosexual, Filipino, or otherwise.  Doesn't sound indicative of the stereotypical liberal educator, does it?

God, I've threadjacked us far off the topic.  To wit, though--I just am trying to make the overall point that humans are humans--no conspiracy theories necessary when Occam's Razor will suffice.  African-Americans really do struggle under additional difficulty multipliers due to historical cultural burdens, no different than Native Americans and the horrible institutionalized despair machine that is the reservation system.  If Reconstruction hadn't been ground to a halt by Hayes' Republicans and their Democrat partners in shame, perhaps the current problems would be much reduced or even nonexistent.  As a historian, I can see the opportunities lost for creating equality early on.  Our nation had to go to bed with the devil of slavery just to get the Constitution created in the first place.

But it is sadly humorous to watch one side of the pushing war fall on their face when the other side suddenly ceases their pushing back.  By the way, VivaiousVixen, I don't identify with either political party.  George Washington knew from the experience of British politics when he said in his farewell address as President not to trust the passions of political parties--they demand your loyalty to them and their constituency, not their nation.  While the Republican Party in general has apparently handed the steering wheel over to their lunatic fringe, that doesn't mean I wholeheartedly approve of the dishwater-weak top brass of the Democratic Party, either. 

Once upon a time, there were liberal, moderate, and conservative segments of both parties, far back into the past of our nation.  Now, much like what I see of so many Islamic nations, with Republicans I see the true silent majority content to allow their most extreme, most vocal, most venomous, most in-the-pocket-of-the-elite members push out any dissident, alternate voices.  God, I mean, when John McCain is called a RINO, Sarah Palin is held up as a viable replacement for him as President, and staunch Republican primary voters choose and expect Tea Party candidates to win acceptance in a general election by the rest of the non-Republican population of voters, what insanity is next?  We need two viable alternatives at least to have a functioning democracy.

Okay, now I'm really through.  Pardon.  Perhaps I'll start my own thread.  Better yet, write a book on my outlook...