AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > May > 11 > Entry
Why are people so angry about illegal immigration?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Last week, instead of the usual debate, Diane and I both looked at the benefits of illegal immigration. This week, as the immigration reform controversy rages, we examine the greatest concerns.
Although terrorism remains the greatest cross-border threat, most immigration reform isn’t about safety. No proponents of strict Mexican-border measures can say with a straight face that they’re there to prevent terrorism, when so much of the Canadian border remains unguarded.
Most immigration reform advocates are simply angry that millions of poor people are unlawfully taking advantage of our prosperous country. No matter how compassionate we are, many Americans do resent the illegal aliens who strain our already-stretched infrastructure in public education, transportation, and healthcare, knowing full well that American taxpayers will foot the bill.
To be fair, most Americans don’t realize that about half of illegal immigrants pay some federal taxes, using fake Social Security numbers. But even those dollars seem insufficient when we see overcrowded schools and hospital emergency rooms, skyrocketing health care costs, and the strain on our state tax base, knowing that in some areas, those strains are significantly worsened by illegals. While it’s not a major issue everywhere, there are many cities where illegal aliens cost Americans far more than they contribute to GDP.
That dynamic is nowhere more obvious than in California, where 84 hospitals have had to close, unable to survive while providing services for so many uninsured. Uninsured Americans are the biggest problem, but that is significantly exacerbated by the fact that – as UCLA researchers found — 20% of the California uninsured are illegals. The cost of paying for illegal aliens’ babies to be born in California – where they immediately become U.S. citizens – alone accounts for half the annual budget of the Medi-Cal welfare program.
Although I personally appreciate the massive contribution that hard-working immigrants make to our economy, it’s this sense of entitlement and being taken advantage of that seems to most anger Americans. If reform put more immigrants “on the grid,” where they’d be more likely to get legitimate jobs and health insurance, and no longer be scared to seek preventative and less costly health care, I think Americans would be more whole-heartedly welcoming.
Rebuttal
The inevitability of job loss and change. That’s what really ticks us off.
It’s not like we haven’t experienced this problem before. Remember when women entered the workforce? There were some really ticked off people. Whenever jobs shift from one demographic group to another, stereotypes trip from our tongues, fueling discontent as we inevitably hurdle the five stages of grief. When it comes to cultural change, mourning must take place before healing can begin.
Denial. Our denial stage went blissfully unnoticed by those of us enjoying the benefits of illegals mowing our lawns. And our denial was supported by convenient stereotypes. You know, like: “Hispanics are hard-working.” This may be true. But we shouldn’t ignore our former naivety, like when women entered the once prestigious male-only club as secretarial staff. We assumed their smaller hands were more dexterous at the typewriter (by the way, this isn’t true).
Anger. Some of us are angry, like the guy who wrote me last week stating he wouldn’t allow this country to be taken over by “lawless mobs.” Is he talking about illegal immigrants or the Puritans who slaughtered a large portion of the American Indian population? I don’t know but I suspect Mexicans are his scapegoat because those damn East Indian programmers are just too far away to yell at.
Bargaining. We are trying to bargain ourselves out of an inevitable globalization of the American workforce, a high-tech trend largely of our own making. But we’ll fail. It isn’t only those with low-paying manufacturing jobs whose pay has been cut. More than three million white collar jobs ( i.e., those damn East Indian programmers) are expected to move overseas by 2015, according to Forrester Research.
Depression. Some of us may get a little depressed as we wend our way through personal discomfort, bridging the accent barrier of our India-based customer care department and circumnavigating the Hispanic janitorial staff. But a new industry supporting foreign diplomacy may prosper.
Acceptance. At some point we’ll move into the final phase and accept these cultural changes. Some of us may even learn a second language. Then maybe we’ll look back and see what all of this fuss was really about: the inevitable.
Comments
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 07:48 AM | Link to this
Because they are all criminals, de facto, being here illegally and all, AND over-breeding Mexican/Latin Catholics to boot!
My perception of it anyway, does not make it necessarily so. Coudn’t resist, though. LOL
Have to comment on the East Indian concept. Not sure Bangalore, New Delhi, and Mumbai(Bombay) are considered the East Indies, I think that is the island groups/nations Malaysia/Indonesia eastward to New Guinea.(look at a globe). Geography-folk may have changed all that, though, and I MAY have missed it. But reading in the IT journals, seems Indian out-sourcing industry is maturing, and getting rather expensive. China now the new place for western companies to want to outsource things to. ‘Tis cheaper, after all.
Now if the intent was to distinquish between North American Indians, how about Asian Indians?
By Ken
May 15, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this
People are angry about illegal immigration b/c that is what the government and the media outlets want us to be angry about.
Iraq has been hashed and rehashed. Social security is going nowhere fast. People have begun to accept $3/gal as the norm. The economy has stabilized regardless of your viewpoint.
The illegals aren’t causing any more problems now than they have over the past decode, BUT, it is an election year. Simply put the politicians need an issue to spar over and the media outlets need an issue to draw in their viewers.
By Brian Curtis
May 15, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this
I’m seeing a disturbing similarity between Shaunti and Diane’s positions both in this week’s and last week’s commentary. They both regard the presence of a huge, invisible workforce as inevitable, and possibly even desirable. The only quibble is over how many of “our” resources this workforce is consuming and whether—gasp!—racism’s involved.
Forest for the trees, folks. The immigrant workers themselves aren’t the problem; the SYSTEM that requires and rewards them is! And Shaunti, Diane, and the rest of us are to blame for insisting that we want low, low prices on our produce, cleaning services, construction, etc. That demand—as Econ 101 tells us—results in a steady suppply of workers who earn below-minimum wage and get no benefits, in addition to having no rights.
Is that hurting American workers? You bet—almost as much as it hurts the immigrants themselves. The ones benefiting from it—the employers of illegals—are getting rich off of this setup. And guess which of those three groups has the government in their back pocket when it comes to challenging or changing this system?
Back in the 1800s, America had a similar workforce. They had no rights and no legal standing; they certainly didn’t earn much by way of wages or benefits; and profiteers accumulated quite a bit of wealth off of their efforts. And as soon as some folks started agitating about these people maybe deserving one or two rights, these plutocrats worked hard to stir up racism and fear among the working-class citizens, hoping to set them against each other so they could keep on raking in the dough.
Are we going to fall for that again?
By Renee
May 15, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
I don’t know about anyone else, but I thought we beat this subject up last week.
Chilao - last week you asked about JBM. She’s been going through some personal issues, I’m not sure when she’ll be back. (I’m sure Chuck is upset).
By GOB
May 15, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
To answer the question as to why people are angry, Ken hit it perfectly. The masses have been stirred into a frenzy because it is an election year. The politicians are playing off the xenophobic tendencies that most every country has. It isnt like illegal immigration just got started. Last election cycle it was gay marriage. This time it is illegal immigration and gas prices.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
I stand corrected, from wikipedia:
In a wider sense, the (East)Indies is also used to describe lands of South and Southeast Asia, occupying all of the former British India, the present Indian Union, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and also Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, which was last called the Dutch East Indies before independence.
Like I said, I must have missed it. LOL
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Thanks Renee. And not going to say anything more. LMAO
By Tim
May 15, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
Hey there to all my blog buddies out there… I’m baaaack… but not for too long today… have to now get all caught up… not much of an opinion about this weeks topic… I think it’s just a continuation of what has been talked and talked and talked about for weeks on this blog… glad I was on vacation last week… I had an AMAZING time… picked up a lil more espanol while I was there and just didn’t want to leave… what an AMAZING place to visit… the locals treat tourists like they are stars or something… and it is very safe… can walk on the street at 2 or 3 in the morning and no one will bother you… they know the city lives off it’s tourist industry and they don’t want any bad publicity… everyone was SOOOO incredibly nice and helpful… only one cabbie tried to take advantage of us and try and tell us the cab ride was 150 pesos… when I said… no no no es trenta pesos… he said oh ok… and that was that… anyway… have fun arguing… I have to get to work
By Julia
May 15, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
Hi Tim! We missed you. Glad you had a great time!!!! :)
By Tim
May 15, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
Thanks Julia… I had a great time… I didn’t miss being at work… but I did miss killing time by reading this lil blog… but the beach was a nice alternative
By Monica
May 15, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Hi to all. We are down to the wire (10 days to summer!), so I’ll not have much time to visit. Besides, I think we exahusted this topic last week.
I have a proposal - we should have Joke Monday instead of Joke Friday - and here’s one for you Monday morning bleary-eyed workers:
Q:What did the agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac do?
A: He stayed up all night long wondering if there really was a dog.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Anyone have any ideas for a decent topic? I am pretty sure this one has been blogged out in the last few weeks…
By Renee
May 15, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
any stimulating topic will do. This dead horse has been beaten, stomped etc…
How about Desperate Housewives lol?
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Anybody see the last episode of The West Wing? I am trying to figure out what was written on that glass-framed present Barlett opened on the plane. I did not get my glasses on in time and they did not show it again. I thought it was great how they showed all the White House mechanics of a turn-over. NINETY people to pack the private residence up in 1-2 hours.
of course I saw DHW. LOL
By The72John
May 15, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
Seriously, how much more is there to say?
How about “Why Arthur Blank should be allowed to buy the Braves instead of Liberty Media.”
By The72John
May 15, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
I did not get my glasses on in time and they did not show it again
No Broadband AND no TiVo?
It’s called the 21st century…join it. ;-)
By Julia
May 15, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
How about the differences in pay between men and women in the same field? Now there’s a good topic.
By Julia
May 15, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Or how about how to stay stress free when you work for a stress-FULL boss?
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
72John - haven’t we been thru this before? Not everyone lives in urban America. Broadband? in the rural South? You know something I do not?
But if it was THAT IMPORTANT to me, and it obviously is not, I can certainly tape while I watch. DUH. without TIVo even, imagine that.
oh, started an Atwood, not HandMaid’s Tale, though, a book called Surfacing, French-Canadians in northern Ontario, and since I am myself 1/2 French Canadian…..
By The72John
May 15, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
How about the differences in pay between men and women in the same field? Now there’s a good topic
Obviously women deserve less money as they are operating at less than full capacity for a portion of each month.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
72John - haven’t we been thru this before? Not everyone lives in urban America. Broadband? in the rural South? You know something I do not?
Satelite modem. Besides TiVo just requires a phone line :-)
oh, started an Atwood, not HandMaid’s Tale, though, a book called Surfacing, French-Canadians in northern Ontario, and since I am myself 1/2 French Canadian
How is it? I really loved Alias, Grace and The Robber Bride but I found the last one I tried to read really tedious - Can’t remember the title but it was a novel-within-a-novel Sci-Fi/Noirish kind of thing.
By Jack
May 15, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
“Obviously women deserve less money as they are operating at less than full capacity for a portion of each month”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good one John. I’m sure all of the ladies on the blog will agree.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
72John - think I did a long discourse of my satellite options, not about to repeat again; like i said, not THAT important enough to have at home. Probably going to get DirectTV eventually, but like I said, I have not missed cable in the nine years I have had none. I was raised in a no-TV household, never had one until I was on my own at 17. TV is off-the-devil you know, people lying and pretending they are someone they are not(it is called acting). being facetious.
Got that Surfacing since it was a closer library than HandMaid’s Tale and to see if I could do her writing style. Apparently it is an ecofeminist book(whatever that means, LOL), per web knowledge, but I am only about 1/4 into it.
By Julia
May 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
72John-I SERIOUSLY hope you’re joking!!!
By The72John
May 15, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Good one John. I’m sure all of the ladies on the blog will agree.
/ducks and hopes that the ladies all know he is just kidding
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
in fact my sole motivation to get DirectTV is to have DHW in better picture and perhaps the Jon Stewart show. (and let’s not forget TNT’s Friday Night Bullriding..LOL)
but since ABC now has free DHW downloads, after it airs, not even an issue for me if I miss one(due to say, the power being out..LMAO). I have yet to check it out, downloading an episode. My first season view was on CD/s someone was saving for me after they downloaded(talking DHW). I would watch 3-4 episodes at one time.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Chilao, I am really just ribbing you.
By Monica
May 15, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Obviously women deserve less money as they are operating at less than full capacity for a portion of each month.
In that case, all employees should have to take an I.Q. test to determine who works at less than full capacity all the time.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
72John - I know. LOL, I thought I was being progressive when I got a cell a year ago, my next-to-last member of family to get one. Cingular, it works in NYC, Boston, Atlanta, etc but not at home. LOL
By Julia
May 15, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Good one Monica! I know most of the guys up here seem to have PMS for 30 days each month.
You know what PMS stands for? Putting up with Mens Sh!t. (Sorry-saw that on a bumper sticker one time and couldn’t believe my eyes.)LOl
I’m having a hard time with a boss who treats women like secretaries who deserve minimum wage and the men are treated like kings of the hill who NEED more money because they have a family to feed. He is the ultimate male chaevinist (sp???). His motto is that work comes first and family comes second.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
On the women at work issue.
I would hope this is not the norm, but CANNOT see a man doing it: I am currently looking across the hall at a female co-workers door and there is a sign that her niece (about 15yo) that she brought to work wrote (with all the girly sqqiggles and such) stating “Beware: Girls Talking about Boys in here. Enter at your own risk, or better yet go bother someone else.”
And the giggling is loud enough to hear with their, and my, doors closed.
In no way does this mean ALL women would perform their job in this fashion, but NO man would.
Comments?
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
You know what PMS stands for? Putting up with Mens Sh!t. (Sorry-saw that on a bumper sticker one time and couldn’t believe my eyes.)
Whats the acronym for Stupid Human Error?
By Jack
May 15, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
I thought it stood for Punish My Spouse.
By Julia
May 15, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
Hi FM! I can honestly say that there are good and bad employees (male and female). I see employees who spend more time outside smoking than working. I see employees waste more time making coffee and eating donuts. I see two women who spend all day engaging in gossip. I see men huddled in the corner talking for 45 minutes about sports or their motorcycles.
Their are good and bad on both sides. I’m sorry for coming across Whileyish this morning. My boss is driving me crazy. (Time for prayer now….):)
By Julia
May 15, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
(Disclaimer: Lord knows I can’t spell.)LOL
By Jack
May 15, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Julia. You just think they’re talking about sports and motorcycles. hehe
By Billy
May 15, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Chilao — It was “Bartlett for America”. It’s what Leo wrote on a cocktail napkin, I believe when he was convincing Bartlett to run.
I miss John Spencer.
By Billy
May 15, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
I guess Shaunti and Diane don’t read the board…If they did, I doubt they’d have gone with immigration again.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Billy - thank you, yes, that napkin had been mentioned once or twice on the show, earlier epidsodes. and his daughter wrapped it up. I was not able to rewind my TiVo and catch it over. LOL I am so last-century. I am going to miss that show and could give a rat’s behind about some Sunset Strip/Hollywood show. (the alledged replacement), I used to live Mid-Wilshire, one block from the WilTern theater. KoreaTown. I’ll pass. LMAO
By The72John
May 15, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
I guess Shaunti and Diane don’t read the board…If they did, I doubt they’d have gone with immigration again
Makes me think of the scene in Jurrasic Park where the beaten-up SUV falls from the tree and lands on Dr. Grant and the two kids, and the kid says in exasperation “We’re back in the car, again.”
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
I guess Shaunti and Diane don’t read the board…If they did, I doubt they’d have gone with immigration again.
they probably had this written before the NSA eaves-dropping news hit, now THERE’s a topic. LOL
By GOB
May 15, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
In no way does this mean ALL women would perform their job in this fashion, but NO man would.
Interesting how you go out of your way to avoid a negative stereotype for all women, but then go out of your way to include a positive one for all men.
By kimberly
May 15, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
I’m not angry at the immigrants. But I’ve noticed that people I do NOT TRUST really want me to be angry at the immigrants. So I ask: “Why do you want me to be angry at the immigrants?” Or “Why are you trying to direct my anger to a specific location?” Or “What are you hiding that you don’t want me to see?” Then those people I don’t trust are angry with me as well. And I think: If those people are angry with me, then I must be doing something right.
By Jack
May 15, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Woof, woof.
Tell them where to put that anger Hon.
By Billy
May 15, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
I dunno, I think the Sunset Strip show could be good. I think Aaron Sorkin’s helming the thing, and it’s got some pretty good actors in it. Then again, I enjoyed Sports Night.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
GOB,
Interesting how you go out of your way to avoid a negative stereotype for all women, but then go out of your way to include a positive one for all men.
First I would say that the non-existance of an action is not a positive stereotype. Second, guys do have their stereotypes - this just is not one of them.
Julie,
Hi FM! I can honestly say that there are good and bad employees (male and female). I see employees who spend more time outside smoking than working. I see employees waste more time making coffee and eating donuts. I see two women who spend all day engaging in gossip. I see men huddled in the corner talking for 45 minutes about sports or their motorcycles.
I agree that bad employees abound, but am hesitant to say that causing commotion in the workplace is not a biased towards women moreso than men. It could be that I notice them more - but I make a concious effort to be fair.
Another example for you that burns me up: A co-worker was determined that the guys regularly get more kudos than the women (who worries about that stuff is odd to me as it is). So, at the last performance period she ran a query and found that the ladies got more by a ratio of 2-1. The kicker? She was unaware for 2weeks that we were all privy to the report and during that time she still demanded that they get fewer kudos; although she KNEW otherwise.
Now, I also work with a guy who is a total pr!ck and does not want to do crap. I guess that does not bother me since I can simply not visit him - whereas the commotion is frustrating.
As for His motto is that work comes first and family comes second. That is a realy ambiguous statement that could swing both ways. For example, I had to move from sharing an office (same person that has sign on the door) bc she would have multiple arguements each day (still does actually) with her husband on the phone and could see the comment refering to that; but, if you have a sick child or such - his notion is absurd.
By Netbanker
May 15, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Well since we’re going to continue last week’s discussion I’ll stay off topic to clarify something for GOB and Billy about Social Security. I’m not against paying extra into the system to help people who really couldn’t afford to save on their own for retirement.
I, personally, just don’t view any household that makes over the median income of $43K as unable to save SOMETHING.. These are the people I was ranting about who make choices that feel good at the time and then later claim they weren’t able to save. Not true…they chose not to save, but to spend. Maybe I’m more sensitive than many people about this because I grew up in a middle-class family that had a large garden because growing fresh vegetables is less expensive than buying them, we put up our own pickles, made our own peach preserves from the tree in the backyard, mowed our own lawn, cleaned our own house, etc. There are many of these same activites that families could do today, but they choose instead to hire services because they’re ‘too busy.’ Well how about dropping some activites (that would save money), do some chores together as a family (saves more $$ AND you spend time together AND kids learn to be responsible as well as a sense of satisfaction from contributing), cook a few more meals together at home, etc. I can afford to hire people to do many things for me that I continue to do for myself because I can do them and save money at the same time. Maybe in the end I’m just a cheap bastard.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
First I would say that the non-existance of an action is not a positive stereotype.
Well, if the non-existant action is a negative one, and you are saying that NO man would commit this negative action, I would call that a positive stereotype. If I said no men steal from their employers, wouldnt that imply some sort of positive stereotype, while at the same time implying a negative one on women?
Do you really believe, as you stated, that NO man would put up a childish sign on an office door and be loud? Or were you being literal and saying that NO man would put a sign that says, “Beware: Girls Talking about Boys in here. Enter at your own risk, or better yet go bother someone else” on their office door?
By GOB
May 15, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
NetB - Based on your last post, I think that we are in general agreement. I wasnt talking about the people who make poor finincial decisions, and are wasteful spenders, but those who truly are unable to save anything. Like you, my upbringing plays into those feelings. My mom was a single parent who literally could not save for retirement, as she had 2 boys to raise, while working 2 jobs to make ends meet. Those are the people that we should ensure are taken care of in retirement.
By Netbanker
May 15, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
all employees should have to take an I.Q. test to determine who works at less than full capacity all the time Hmmmmm…if an idiot is working at full capacity does that make them less of an idiot or simply mean they’re spreading their idiocy around a lot more?
His motto is that work comes first and family comes second Julia…I’m sure he’ll appreciate his motto when he’s older and lonely because his kids put work first or are simply resentful that their own father was never present in their lives. I think that the next gift you give the man (for the holidays, boss’s day, whatever) you include a muscial gift of a copy of “Cat’s in the Cradle”
By Jack
May 15, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
If family comes second to work, that guy needs help.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Do you really believe, as you stated, that NO man would put up a childish sign on an office door and be loud?
Does stereotype actually mean 100% of the people being typed must perform the same? It is my understanding that a stereotype generalizes but does not create an absolute.
I agree that some guy, somewhere, has done this.
For instance, I entered a guys office for a meeting to find him crying bc of an error in his web programming that caused 1k people to get spammed by a test message; although I think that we could agree that this is more rare than a female being emotional at work.
Or are we so PC now that we cannot even talk about our differences without people feeling that it is a slam?
By GOB
May 15, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Although I think that we could agree that this is more rare than a female being emotional at work.
Maybe in your office that is true, but in mine, I have found it to be the exact opposite. Most of the women I work with are career-driven to a fault, and tend to be more on the icy side. The men, however, tend to complain and whine, and generally be less productive, and more emotional.
By Netbanker
May 15, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
GOB, I didn’t think we’d be that far apart in view. I do wonder what happened to Americans that we seem to generally not care for older family members by bringing them into our homes to care for them. I realize this isn’t always possible due to the level of care medical care, etc. that some people will need. My great-grandmother moved in with my grandparents at their insistance after she fell in her apartment at the age of 86. She lived with them for 4 years before insisting on going into a nursing home because she knew that her failing health was becoming harder for my grandparents to deal with. She also had a few long time friends still alive in the home who really enjoyed the daily planned activities that people at home can’t offer. She entered the home my freshman year in college so we’d exchange letters comparing experiences. Frighteningly the main differences between college and home were that she had a private room while I had a room mate and the noisy nights at college were due to parties while in the home it was alzheimers or dementia patients.
By Billy
May 15, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
NetB — I get what you’re saying, and I agree with you. People really do live above their means, and it’s hard to feel much sympathy for them when they could have still lived comfortably while saving.
I’m going through something like that with a family member right now. Husband and wife make probably $70-80K between them. At the time their house was foreclosed on they had at least two extra mortgages. Several cars repossessed. And yet they’ve managed to keep buying newer, more expensive cars, cell phones, and even a house. They’ve borrowed money from almost everyone that considers them friends. That includes my wife and me. They haven’t saved anything for retirement — well, they’ve withdrawn what was saved — nor do they have anything put away for their kids’ education. Yet they always have money for cigarettes and beer.
Meanwhile my wife and I have bought a house and had a child on about $30K gross for the past 2 years. Were it not for the outrageous cost of health insurance (which I do not get through my employer) we’d be sitting pretty. As it is we’ve gone into more debt than we’d like, but we’re not living so far above our means. I mean, my car is twelve years old. What sucks is that we’re right on that income line where you can’t afford to spend so much on gas or buy a car that gets better mileage. And we have no public transportation to speak of here…
By GOB
May 15, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
I am currently looking across the hall at a female co-workers door and there is a sign that her niece (about 15yo) that she brought to work wrote (with all the girly sqqiggles and such) stating “Beware: Girls Talking about Boys in here. Enter at your own risk, or better yet go bother someone else.”
And the giggling is loud enough to hear with their, and my, doors closed.
In no way does this mean ALL women would perform their job in this fashion, but NO man would.
Or are we so PC now that we cannot even talk about our differences without people feeling that it is a slam?
I would argue that your original comment was not a general statement of our differences. Read it again, and it does sound like a slam. It seems to imply that women are much more likely to goof off at work, or act in childish ways.
By Jack
May 15, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
That’s a sad song indeed Net.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Maybe in your office that is true, but in mine, I have found it to be the exact opposite. Most of the women I work with are career-driven to a fault, and tend to be more on the icy side. The men, however, tend to complain and whine, and generally be less productive, and more emotional.
I am sure there are all types - seems that the aura of a workplace will attract more like-minded people; whether it is better or worse bc of it depends.
I can honestly say that I would welcome a workplace that did not fit the negitive stereotypes (on both sides) so well, but this is my third place of employment that enforces them to a large degree.
By Jack
May 15, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
I know. We can split hairs today. What fun.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
It seems to imply that women are much more likely to goof off at work, or act in childish ways.
No, I stated that they are more prone to exhibit the SAME actions as described. Not similar, king-of-like or childish ones, those are your words.
“Imply” is a dangerous word if you have no ability to get in anothers head - agreed? A better way of stating it would be “Are you saying X?”
For example, when the cowbell episode of SNL was new I had to here guys laughing all day long to it blasting on their pc speakers. I doubt women would do that “in general.”
By RF
May 15, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Look at the average credit card debt today. It has skyrocketed, even among seniors who used to know better. It’s too easy to live above your means and have a “buy now pay later” attitude. Respect for money, like respect for people, laws, morals, etc. is taught at home. Our generation apparently wasn’t paying attention as well as it should have been.
Net- I remember all too well being rudely awakened by the incessant rattling of the pressure valve on mom’s pressure cooker on Saturday mornings as she canned green beans or god knows what else. She grew up on a farm where you didn’t have it if you didn’t grow it. They were dirt poor but ate well. I think the average American nowadays couldn’t survive if they had to be self-sufficient like that. We are becoming increasingly selfish and now-oriented. Worry about the payments later—and then the repo man shows up!
By chuck
May 15, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
Ken hit the nail on the head. For most of the people out there, this issue was not even on the radar until the media started putting the stories on every night about the “minute men”. I have been harping on this issue with my Reps. and Sens. for about 10-12 years. It was kind of a chain reaction thing.
The Minute Men started patrolling the border because Arizona was being inundated with illegals, and because INS wasn’t. This became a national story.
Congress began discussing immigration reform. Both sides began to use this as a wedge issue.
Mexicans and other illegal aliens decided to preemptively protest a bill that had not yet been passed. They made the mistake of being very disrespectful toward our flag and our country.
Mainstream America saw the pictures on the news of upside down flags and Mexican flags and got ticked off. Congress had to address the issue for real. The politically correct Senate Bill was going to be DOA. H of R decided to dig its heels in for real reform.
Now both sides are MAD.
That’s the simplified version.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
No, I stated that they are more prone to exhibit the SAME actions as described. Not similar, king-of-like or childish ones, those are your words.
So you were being literal then, and simply meant that women are more prone to put childish signs on their office doors and giggle loudly…Gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
For example, when the cowbell episode of SNL was new I had to here guys laughing all day long to it blasting on their pc speakers. I doubt women would do that “in general.”
Deleted the wrong “hear/here” in my sentence - just so noone thinks I dont know the diff;) It had read “For example, when the cowbell episode of SNL was new I had to hear guys here laughing all day long to it blasting on their pc speakers. I doubt women would do that “in general.”
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
So you were being literal then, and simply meant that women are more prone to put childish signs on their office doors and giggle loudly…Gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
No problem.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
Wow…
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
Want to answer the question from last week? Especialy since this topic blows?
Here is a refresher:
By FatMoose
May 12, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
I will go slow.
God created man. A man that from the start (adam/eve) and throughout history (noah/flood) cannot live up to God’s lowest acceptable standards.
How do YOU explain this given your definition of an all knowing all perfect God and the literalism in which you read the bible?
Remember, a god who is all knowing and outside of time means he knew the second he created adam (actually before;) that it would give rise to hitler at some point…etc….down to every last persons actions. He would have to either KNOW he was condemning most (like dominos falling, it would be dictated) or he gives us a piece of his power that makes him blind to our future - but the latter does not fit in your view (but does in mine).
By chuck
May 12, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Man can’t live up to God’s standard in his own strength. When Jesus becomes savior and Lord of your life, you let Him live the life through you.
By FatMoose
May 12, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
See, even with simplified english you provide a non-response:
Man can’t live up to God’s standard in his own strength. When Jesus becomes savior and Lord of your life, you let Him live the life through you.
How does this apply to Adam/eve? Or ANY pre-Jesus era person?
By The72John
May 15, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
LOL, Gob. It’s amazing, isn’t it.
By Renee
May 15, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
RF - Your 2:06 hits the nail right on the head. It’s like an entitlement attitude. It’s like saying, I’m entitled to have this, even if I don’t have the money to pay for it.
My mom coming up used her pressure cooker frequently. My mom and dad were always pretty well off, but nobody knew but us. I hung clothes on the clothes line (even though we had a dryer it was rarely used). We had one one TV coming up, it was black and white AND we used the pliers to turn it. In 82 my mom finally broke down and bought a new car, a Chevrolet Citation. I could never understand why I couldn’t (or we couldn’t) have what my friends had. Color TV and cable in the bedroom, big stereos etc…Needless to say, my mom being frugal even, even when she had the money to spend has really paid off. To this day, my mom COULD drive a Mercedes, but has a 98 Grand Voyager with over 150000 miles on it.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
72John - It truly is…
By Monica
May 15, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
RF, Net, et al, I agree that most of us have become lazy with regard to gardening, cooking, cleaning etc. I remember well the afternoons I spent around the kitchen table, helping my mother snap green beans. We had tomatoes, peaches, corn, even watermelons one year! However (maybe I’m defensive because I’m feeling guilty), with more families being two-income families, that lifestyle is becoming obsolete.
By Renee
May 15, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
My apologies for my TERRIBLE writing. I just read my post and I am shaking my head at all my errors.
Can’t do work AND blog obviously. LOL
By GOB
May 15, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
with more families being two-income families, that lifestyle is becoming obsolete.
Monica - That is true, but isnt the need for a two-income family also mostly overspending, and living above your means? My wife and I were approved for a mortgage amount that was WAY above what we could have actually paid. Many people, however, see that number and take the best house they can get, regardless of their ability to pay. That type of behaivor has increased the need for a two-income household dramatically.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
That is true, but isnt the need for a two-income family also mostly overspending, and living above your means? My wife and I were approved for a mortgage amount that was WAY above what we could have actually paid. Many people, however, see that number and take the best house they can get, regardless of their ability to pay. That type of behaivor has increased the need for a two-income household dramatically.
And we export this mentality through american TV/movies which intersects with the immigration debate. I see it in Turkey all the time now - the new turks are materialistic as heck whereas the old turks are a very much “your ok, im ok” 60s mentality.
By Zack
May 15, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Ms. Glass,
Why should the most productive country on the planet and also the one that does by far the most for the world slow down its day-to-day work regimen to accommodate illegal aliens who want to jump in and snare a piece of the cake? Why don’t you answer that one, and that’s just ONE of MANY examples. There also are matters of immunization. I could go on and on. You just don’t get it, Ms. Glass. Of course, I’d expect this type of answer from you. You and your type promote casual sex, abortion, the myth that post-abortion guilt doesn’t exist, and THEN you say, to Pro-Life advocates like myself that it’s all my fault because I haven’t adopted any kids in the past. If not for Lozen, Whiley, Norman, and John, you’d make the least sense on here.
By RF
May 15, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
GOB-it’s a combination of liberal credit practices, materialism, and the fact that the cost of living has, in many ways, gone beyond what most families can manage on one income. Once many families had two incomes, they realized how much stuff they could have and materialism set in. Before all the “stuff” we have out there today was available, people wanted less. More temptation= more buying. It’s good for business and the economy and lousy for the consumer who is overspending and financing his/her life away.
Monica- you’re right to some extent. Prices seem to have risen faster than income, and we are working more to pay for what we have. We also have more “necessities” today that cost money. Do you remember party lines on phones? We had one until I was in elementary school, cable was unheard of, and remote control meant getting the kids to change the channel!! LOL
Renee- my mom drives an 11 year old Pontiac, which she babies, and refuses to spend the money to buy anything else. She and my dad didn’t always make the best financial decisions when we were growing up, but at least they learned and didn’t keep making the same mistakes.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Why should the most productive country on the planet and also the one that does by far the most for the world slow down its day-to-day work regimen to accommodate illegal aliens who want to jump in and snare a piece of the cake? Why don’t you answer that one, and that’s just ONE of MANY examples. There also are matters of immunization. I could go on and on. You just don’t get it, Ms. Glass. Of course, I’d expect this type of answer from you. You and your type promote casual sex, abortion, the myth that post-abortion guilt doesn’t exist, and THEN you say, to Pro-Life advocates like myself that it’s all my fault because I haven’t adopted any kids in the past. If not for Lozen, Whiley, Norman, and John, you’d make the least sense on here
I’ll give $100 to anyone who can correctly diagram this.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
I’ll give $100 to anyone who can correctly diagram this.
No way. That’s a sucker bet.
I still contend that he is fake. Just a troll trying to get people worked up.
By Archie
May 15, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
I, personally, just don’t view any household that makes over the median income of $43K as unable to save SOMETHING.. These are the people I was ranting about who make choices that feel good at the time and then later claim they weren’t able to save. Not true…they chose not to save, but to spend. Maybe I’m more sensitive than many people about this because I grew up in a middle-class family that had a large garden because growing fresh vegetables is less expensive than buying them, we put up our own pickles, made our own peach preserves from the tree in the backyard, mowed our own lawn, cleaned our own house, etc. There are many of these same activites that families could do today, but they choose instead to hire services because they’re ‘too busy.’”
Netbanker,I wished you could have talked to me years ago about spending. Lack of confidence is why some of the people that you and Billy speak do certain things. People don’t think things are going to get better so they spend to have something nice but when their hard work finally does start to pay off they have to pay off bills,bills, and bills. I don’t want to bring up the race card but there’s a psychological issue to spending in that some folk don’t thinks will get better but they do and because bad choices people have problems. People are angry at illegal immigrants because they broke the law. People aren’t angry at legal immigrants. Anyway I am making improvements with my spending…
By GOB
May 15, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
RF - You are totally right on it being a combination of things that lead to need for two-income families. Part of the reason for prices rising faster than income is the huge jump in credit card use.
It used to be that if you didnt have the money to buy something, you waited until you did (or so I hear…I was raised in the credit card generation). That forced the demand down, which in turn kept prices in check. Now, however, with the ability to buy things you cant really afford, demand is up, and prices go along for the ride.
By kimberly
May 15, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Regarding the modern tendancy of Americans to live beyond our means, does anyone wonder why the CREDIT INDUSTRY is never held accountable? The bankruptcy “reform” that your Congress passed last year, interestingly, did absolutely nothing to hold the credit industry responsible for its own irrepsonsible lending practices. It DID, however, seriously curtail the average citizen’s access to a way out of insurmountable debt, making NO DISTINCTION WHATSOEVER between those who accrued it through living beyond their means, and those who lost (or will lose) everything due to a catastrophic illness in the family. The hard-working family whose [uninsured] dad has an early heart attack, or whose child has lukemia, is treated just like the Nordstrom addicts or Vegas junkies.
Meanwhile, we all get piles of mail (dead trees) every week from “lenders.” Bad credit? No problem! If there’s such a crisis, WHY aren’t lending practices addressed? Just curious.
By RF
May 15, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
john- I’d have to correct the grammar first, and well, it wouldn’t be worth trying to make it intelligible so I could diagram it.
By Billy
May 15, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
I’ll give $100 to anyone who can correctly diagram this.
I’ll give it a shot…
“Blah, blah, blah, jingoistic remark, blah, blah, confrontational attitude, blah, blah, blah, blah, ultra-right-wing inflammatory rhetoric straight from Faux News talking points and not at all relevant to the question at hand, blah, blah, lame attempt at insulting poseters with IQ greater than mine.”
How did I do?
By Jack
May 15, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
The more I read Zack, the more I like Chuck.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
I still contend that he is fake. Just a troll trying to get people worked up
I dunno - the little psycho tracked down my MySpace page a couple of weeks ago and posted all kinds of rantings and ravings on there. Here’s a sample:
*You’re full of hatred. I don’t know if I’ve ever known anyone else anywhere who had your level of hatred. All you do is try desperately to establish some sort of credibility and try to hurt others, while failing at both. In the process, you just show your effeminate nature and how you would never work to become someone but instead would try to undercut someone else and try to lower them down to your sorry level. *
Thankfully, it’s not as easy as it sounds. To anyone on here who associates with this, er, guy, I encourage you to leave him alone and just ignore him. This guy is absolutely nothing more than a piece of trash. Also, what’s scary about him is that he looks just like the proverbial next-door neighbor.
So either he’s a troll-stalker or he’s just nuts.
By Renee
May 15, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Meanwhile, we all get piles of mail (dead trees) every week from “lenders.” Bad credit? No problem! If there’s such a crisis, WHY aren’t lending practices addressed? Just curious.
Of course these people prey on and take advantage of people. For the person who can’t get a car through a legitimate dealership, a car at 28% interest is a deal and probably know they are being “reamed” to say the least. But, as a consumer, you can make the decision to NOT use one of these places. Save your money and wait until you can afford it, pay the things on your credit that are holding you back, or any number of things.
If I could loan someone $500 and get paid back $750 (legally) I would probably do it too.
All these pay day loan places, buy here pay here car lots, and the high interest (bad credit, no problem) car lots are a rip off. But if nobody frequented them, they would go out of business quickly.
By Chilao
May 15, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Billy - I think you missed the generic Rush Limbaugh portion. LMAO
otherwise….LOL
By Jack
May 15, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
“The percent that your paying is too high priced, while your living beyond all your means. And the man in the suit has just bought a new car from the profit he’s made from your dreams.
Traffic.
By GOB
May 15, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
72John - Ok, I guess I was wrong, although dont you have to have your own myspace page to post? Based on his comments, he doesnt seem like the type that would be frequenting myspace. But still…Yikes.
By RF
May 15, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
But Renee, even though you don’t graduate HS because you’re lazy, and can’t keep a decent paying job, doesn’t mean you don’t need a nice car to cruise in on Saturday night, does it?? ;-) So what if it’s at 28% interest if it gets the right attention, huh?
By kimberly
May 15, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Good point, Renee. They do it because there’s profit in it. So I had to wonder WHY then, when the credit industry is so profitable (look it up!), did they need our Congress to spend time and energy (and our tax $$) solving their little “problem” instead of the other very REAL problems we have that Congress fails to address?
Maybe it’s just another example of individuals being held to a different standard of behavior and accountability than corporations (and their executives) and governments. When corporations screw up, they can go ask for tax relief by making promises they’ll never keep, or just file bankruptcy like Enron and Harkin Oil. When WE screw up, we’re told to “suck it.” Congress: your tax dollars at work, but not for YOU!
By Zack
May 15, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
John—Oh, you could say quickly and easily, from what you know of me, that I’m someone who likes to put sick liars in their places.
Of course, you also could ignore the truth and name-call, which is the irresponsible, easy approach you’re known to take.
I’d appreciate it if you’d contribute something to this blog, since you continually insist on visiting it.
By Zack
May 15, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
John,
Also, why don’t you tell the whole story and mention what you called me? As I said, I wanted to put someone who makes the comments you make in his place, so I did. For once, why not be honest?
By Dr. Acula
May 15, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Zack - How old are you, by the way?
By chuck
May 15, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
I thought I did answer your question FM, but you added the “pre-Jesus” Caveat I see. Her goes.
God created mankind for fellowship. He gave man a free will because He didn’t want to fellowship with robots. We have the choice as to whether or not we love Him and obey Him. The perfect analogy is our children. We love them unconditionally, even when they screw up. That doesn’t mean that there are not consequences both NATURAL (touch a hot stove, get burned) and PROSCRIBED (if you violate curfew you lose the car for a week), when they do screw up.
We are God’s children from the moment that we accept God’s free gift of salvation through His Son Jesus. Does God KNOW that some will reject Him? Yes, He is omniscient. Does God care that some will reject Him? Of course He does. He loves EVERY HUMAN BEING and as the Bible says in Matt 18: 12-14
“12How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
This is one of the most difficult tenets of the Faith for non-believers to understand. How could God, knowing in advance what many would do, create them and then send them to hell? It is the natural consequence of rejecting Christ. As for those who were born and died before Christ came to earth, you really need to read the book of Hebrews in the New Testament. It does a great job of explaining what happened so far as salvation goes, before Christ. If you don’t have a bible handy, go to www.biblegateway.com and just type hebrews into the search area and it will take you directly to chapter 1.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Zackie, if you think your irrational ranting and raving constitutes “putting me in my place”, then I feel not only for you but for anyone who has, at any time in his or her life, been your teacher.
Seek counseling, Zack.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
First: This is one of the most difficult tenets of the Faith for non-believers to understand I am a believer. I just do not believe the same absolutes that you do.
How could God, knowing in advance what many would do, create them and then send them to hell? It is the natural consequence of rejecting Christ.
Are you saying here that God knew certain people would not be saved but chose his design for man as he did anyways? That would mean that all was dictated before creation OR some people are able to change that outcome thereby defying God. It would also mean that there is no “striving” to be christ-like, it is an either/or situation that has been determined.
I think your missing the point by thinking to shallow. All life as we know it has come and gone, by your definition of an all knowing God, BEFORE he ever created adam/eve.
And therefore, where is free will? Either we are free to change or not. And once again, if we ARE free to change our destiny it defies God, meaning we have a power he does not.
By The72John
May 15, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
God created mankind for fellowship. He gave man a free will because He didn’t want to fellowship with robots. We have the choice as to whether or not we love Him and obey Him. The perfect analogy is our children. We love them unconditionally, even when they screw up. That doesn’t mean that there are not consequences both NATURAL (touch a hot stove, get burned) and PROSCRIBED (if you violate curfew you lose the car for a week), when they do screw up
Apparently he DOES want “fellowship with robots”, if the only way to properly engage in that fellowship is by blindly adhering to a series of strictly established and utterly inflexible rules and regulations. If it squeaks like a robot and moves like a robot, then, well…it’s a robot.
And the child metaphor is so woefully misplaced…loving parents, as we see day in and day out, do not flat-out reject their children for all eternity because that child fails to live up exactly to the expectations laid out by the parents. Loving parents do not set their children on fire and watch them burn because a rule has been broken.
More - the rules that parents set out for their children are rarely arbitrary - they are meant to prevent harm to those children and to inculcate in them an understanding of the rules of the world in which they live.
GOD’S rules, on the other hand (at least as interpreted by religious reactionaries and extremeists) are arbitrary in the extreme. Don’t do that on this day. Don’t do THIS that way. Don’t go over there! Don’t eat THAT! Whoops - don’t pick THAT up. Oh dear…well, I love you, but now you’re going to hell…
How sad for you, Chuck, that you are so frightened by the amazing world that you live in that you continue to reduce it to the oh-so-simple understanding of it achievable by a thousands-of-years-gone tribe of superstitious primitives.
By Renee
May 15, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Excellent post John (4:24)
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
The perfect analogy is our children. We love them unconditionally, even when they screw up. That doesn’t mean that there are not consequences both NATURAL (touch a hot stove, get burned) and PROSCRIBED (if you violate curfew you lose the car for a week), when they do screw up.
Yes. It is the perfect analogy IF you believe that God is not absolute in perfection/knowledge like human parents. And just like children think parents dont die and are perfect, as well as the maker of the rules, so do we regarding god - until we grow up.
That DOES make sense, but is not what you mean or actually believe. It IS in line with my beliefs though.
By FatMoose
May 15, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
The72John,
Please do not muddle this with your sarcasm and anger. I am trying to have a focused conv and would appreciate your non-involvement.
By cc
May 15, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Many americans are angry because the illegals feel it’s their right to come here illegally and demand welfare and not speak the english language. Just today I heard a guy drive up to one of those pick up area to hire two guys for the day and they asked how much and told the guy it wasn’t enough. So now they are getting picky regarding the pay. Why is it that they don’t go back to Mexico and protest their own government. Plus employers who hire them should be fined heavily. Tonight George Bush is going to address the nation regarding this problem and if he doesn’t say or do the right thing, which is protecting the borders and stopping the illegal immigrats from getting public assistance off of our tax dollars. I know if I had a chance to say where my tax dollars were going it sure wouldn’t be for some person coming into our country illegally.
By blablabla
May 15, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
hello, all. long time, no blog.
By Al Bumen
May 16, 2006 07:54 AM | Link to this
I found this passage in Lamentations and thought it was appropriate:
Lamentations of the Father Of the beasts of the field, and of the fishes of the sea, and of all foods that are acceptable in my sight you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the hoofed animals, broiled or ground into burgers, you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the cloven-hoofed animal, plain or with cheese, you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the cereal grains, of the corn and of the wheat and of the oats, and of all the cereals that are of bright color and unknown provenance you may eat, but not in the living room. Of the quiescently frozen dessert and of all frozen after-meal treats you may eat, but absolutely not in the living room. Of the juices and other beverages, yes, even of those in sippy-cups, you may drink, but not in the living room, neither may you carry such therein. Indeed, when you reach the place where the living room carpet begins, of any food or beverage there you may not eat, neither may you drink. But if you are sick, and are lying down and watching something, then may you eat in the living room. Laws When at Table And if you are seated in your high chair, or in a chair such as a greater person might use, keep your legs and feet below you as they were. Neither raise up your knees, nor place your feet upon the table, for that is an abomination to me. Yes, even when you have an interesting bandage to show, your feet upon the table are an abomination, and worthy of rebuke. Drink your milk as it is given you, neither use on it any utensils, nor fork, nor knife, nor spoon, for that is not what they are for; if you will dip your blocks in the milk, and lick it off, you will be sent away. When you have drunk, let the empty cup then remain upon the table, and do not bite it upon its edge and by your teeth hold it to your face in order to make noises in it sounding like a duck; for you will be sent away. When you chew your food, keep your mouth closed until you have swallowed, and do not open it to show your brother or your sister what is within; I say to you, do not so, even if your brother or your sister has done the same to you. Eat your food only; do not eat that which is not food; neither seize the table between your jaws, nor use the raiment of the table to wipe your lips. I say again to you, do not touch it, but leave it as it is. And though your stick of carrot does indeed resemble a marker, draw not with it upon the table, even in pretend, for we do not do that, that is why. And though the pieces of broccoli are like very small trees, do not stand them upright to make a forest, because we do not do that, that is why. Sit just as I have told you, and do not lean to one side or the other, nor slide down until you are nearly slid away. Heed me; for if you sit like that, your hair will go into the syrup. And now behold, even as I have said, it has come to pass. Laws Pertaining to Dessert For we judge between the plate that is unclean and the plate that is clean, saying first, if the plate is clean, then you shall have dessert. But of the unclean plate, the laws are these: If you have eaten most of your meat, and two bites of your peas with each bite consisting of not less than three peas each, or in total six peas, eaten where I can see, and you have also eaten enough of your potatoes to fill two forks, both forkfuls eaten where I can see, then you shall have dessert. But if you eat a lesser number of peas, and yet you eat the potatoes, still you shall not have dessert; and if you eat the peas, yet leave the potatoes uneaten, you shall not have dessert, no, not even a small portion thereof. And if you try to deceive by moving the potatoes or peas around with a fork, that it may appear you have eaten what you have not, you will fall into iniquity. And I will know, and you shall have no dessert.
On Screaming Do not scream; for it is as if you scream all the time. If you are given a plate on which two foods you do not wish to touch each other are touching each other, your voice rises up even to the ceiling, while you point to the offense with the finger of your right hand; but I say to you, scream not, only remonstrate gently with the server, that the server may correct the fault. Likewise if you receive a portion of fish from which every piece of herbal seasoning has not been scraped off, and the herbal seasoning is loathsome to you, and steeped in vileness, again I say, refrain from screaming. Though the vileness overwhelm you, and cause you a faint unto death, make not that sound from within your throat, neither cover your face, nor press your fingers to your nose. For even now I have made the fish as it should be; behold, I eat of it myself, yet do not die.
Concerning Face and Hands Cast your countenance upward to the light, and lift your eyes to the hills, that I may more easily wash you off. For the stains are upon you; even to the very back of your head, there is rice thereon. And in the breast pocket of your garment, and upon the tie of your shoe, rice and other fragments are distributed in a manner wonderful to see. Only hold yourself still; hold still, I say. Give each finger in its turn for my examination thereof, and also each thumb. Lo, how iniquitous they appear. What I do is as it must be; and you shall not go hence until I have done. Various Other Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances Bite not, lest you be cast into quiet time. Neither drink of your own bath water, nor of bath water of any kind; nor rub your feet on bread, even if it be in the package; nor rub yourself against cars, nor against any building; nor eat sand. Leave the cat alone, for what has the cat done, that you should so afflict it with tape? And hum not that humming in your nose as I read, nor stand between the light and the book. Indeed, you will drive me to madness. Nor forget what I said about the tape. Complaints and Lamentations O my children, you are disobedient. For when I tell you what you must do, you argue and dispute hotly even to the littlest detail; and when I do not accede, you cry out, and hit and kick. Yes, and even sometimes do you spit, and shout “stupid-head” and other blasphemies, and hit and kick the wall and the molding thereof when you are sent to the corner. And though the law teaches that no one shall be sent to the corner for more minutes than he has years of age, yet I would leave you there all day, so mighty am I in anger. But upon being sent to the corner you ask straightaway, “Can I come out?” and I reply, “No, you may not come out.” And again you ask, and again I give the same reply. But when you ask again a third time, then you may come out.
Hear me, O my children, for the bills they kill me. I pay and pay again, even to the twelfth time in a year, and yet again they mount higher than before. For our health, that we may be covered, I give six hundred and twenty talents twelve times in a year; but even this covers not the fifteen hundred deductible for each member of the family within a calendar year. And yet for ordinary visits we still are not covered, nor for many medicines, nor for the teeth within our mouths. Guess not at what rage is in my mind, for surely you cannot know. For I will come to you at the first of the month and at the fifteenth of the month with the bills and a great whining and moan. And when the month of taxes comes, I will decry the wrong and unfairness of it, and mourn with wine and ashtrays, and rend my receipts. And you shall remember that I am that I am: before, after, and until you are twenty-one. Hear me then, and avoid me in my wrath, O children of me.
By Lyrazel
May 16, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this
Does anyone wonder if the only jobs being created these days is in the Natl. Guard/Military and the reason for high employment rate statistics?
Why is it no one has come up with a program to conscript caught illegals into military/civilian duty? Ship them to Iraq where we really need builders, landscapers, and crews! They could easily be employed by Halburton at seventeen times the wage they get now and after 4 tours of duty get their citizenship. This idea of conscripting immigrants into military duty harkens back to the Founding Fathers. If they want to be Americans well BE AMERICAN! Why cant we have whole platoons of spanish speaking new Americans? By the way my grandfather came illegally to America and was conscripted to serve in WWI for his citizenship.
Ho