Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
WHAT IS REALLY THE CAUSE OF THE RIOTS IN OAKLAND?
Pent up sub-conscious rage against the fascist police state we live in seems to me to be behind the violence.
This display indicates that large sectors of our society are at the point of revolting against the oppressive nature of our society, why else would people burn their own neighborhoods? The propaganda and phyc-ops are so effective though that the rage is only released related to state sanctioned events like the super bowl. If some one could only find a way to channel this rage to change the oppressive nature of our society, things would change quickly
This display indicates that large sectors of our society are at the point of revolting against the oppressive nature of our society, why else would people burn their own neighborhoods? The propaganda and phyc-ops are so effective though that the rage is only released related to state sanctioned events like the super bowl. If some one could only find a way to channel this rage to change the oppressive nature of our society, things would change quickly
Unruly fans set several cars on fire, tossed bus stop benches into the street, burned Christmas trees, broke car windows and blocked parts of International Boulevard in East Oakland
Unruly fans set several cars on fire, tossed bus stop benches into the street, burned Christmas trees, broke car windows and blocked parts of International Boulevard in East Oakland
Riot police lobbed tear gas to break up the crowd of mostly young adults, the second straight week of violence
A McDonald's restaurant was trashed and fires could be seen burning up and down the busy thoroughfare.
The boisterous, unruly crowd stood on street corners as a police line moved them east along International Boulevard, near 38th Avenue. One man yelled at the crowd: ``Raider fans, roll it back. The tear gas is getting stronger.''
Police could not be immediately contacted. Several teens complained that police had overreacted.
``They're just trying to get everybody off the street, but we're just trying to have fun,'' said Jaunel Williams, 14, an eighth-grader at Oakland's Calvin Simmons Middle School, as he covered his face with a T-shirt. ``This stuff burns my eyes and throat.''
Some people were taunting motorists who were trying to weave their way through intersections along International Boulevard. Others danced in the street, waving Raider flags. Others dragged dried out Christmas trees into the street, setting them ablaze.
Almost 500 Oakland police officers, Alameda County deputies and Highway Patrol officers were ready for duty.
Authorities also kept traffic out of the city's historic Jack London Square, near downtown, and fans mostly heeded official warnings and stayed away from the area.
The scene along International Boulevard started like a sideshow, with youths in Raiders jerseys hanging out of car windows and even jumping out of moving cars as TV helicopters flew overhead.
Many fans said they hoped the streets would remain calm, although they acknowledged the possibility for trouble.
``I hope they don't destroy the town,'' said Salvador Salas, who stopped before the game for a bite to eat at a taco bar along International Boulevard, the street that took the brunt of the damage last week.
At Q's Clothing, Nader Qutov, the owner's nephew, said he was closing early for fear that the night would turn violent. But before the game he hawked Raiders t-shirts to eager fans.
But when the Raiders fell behind Tampa Bay early on, the fight seemed to go out of many fans scattered across sports bars and homes in the East Bay.
``They're playing like they don't want to win,'' said John Carroll, 67, who was so despondent that he turned away from the game during the third quarter to smoke cigarettes outside the Club New Yorker on East 18th Street in Oakland.
``They are making asses of themselves between fumbles, sacks and interceptions,'' said Carroll, a lifelong East Oakland resident. ``They are playing worse than a normal high school football team.''
Added Debbie Nobrega-Tabarez, 40, of Oakland, who was wearing a gray and black mask that looked as though she had painted her face: ``I was crying until half time, and then I stopped crying.''
As time ran out at Ricky's Sports Lounge in San Leandro, where 500 fans had paid $25 to watch the Super Bowl on a 20-foot big screen TV set up in the parking lot, the tears came again.
``It's okay,'' said Nobrega-Tabarez. ``That's our team. We're still going to be there'' for them.
Unruly fans set several cars on fire, tossed bus stop benches into the street, burned Christmas trees, broke car windows and blocked parts of International Boulevard in East Oakland
Riot police lobbed tear gas to break up the crowd of mostly young adults, the second straight week of violence
A McDonald's restaurant was trashed and fires could be seen burning up and down the busy thoroughfare.
The boisterous, unruly crowd stood on street corners as a police line moved them east along International Boulevard, near 38th Avenue. One man yelled at the crowd: ``Raider fans, roll it back. The tear gas is getting stronger.''
Police could not be immediately contacted. Several teens complained that police had overreacted.
``They're just trying to get everybody off the street, but we're just trying to have fun,'' said Jaunel Williams, 14, an eighth-grader at Oakland's Calvin Simmons Middle School, as he covered his face with a T-shirt. ``This stuff burns my eyes and throat.''
Some people were taunting motorists who were trying to weave their way through intersections along International Boulevard. Others danced in the street, waving Raider flags. Others dragged dried out Christmas trees into the street, setting them ablaze.
Almost 500 Oakland police officers, Alameda County deputies and Highway Patrol officers were ready for duty.
Authorities also kept traffic out of the city's historic Jack London Square, near downtown, and fans mostly heeded official warnings and stayed away from the area.
The scene along International Boulevard started like a sideshow, with youths in Raiders jerseys hanging out of car windows and even jumping out of moving cars as TV helicopters flew overhead.
Many fans said they hoped the streets would remain calm, although they acknowledged the possibility for trouble.
``I hope they don't destroy the town,'' said Salvador Salas, who stopped before the game for a bite to eat at a taco bar along International Boulevard, the street that took the brunt of the damage last week.
At Q's Clothing, Nader Qutov, the owner's nephew, said he was closing early for fear that the night would turn violent. But before the game he hawked Raiders t-shirts to eager fans.
But when the Raiders fell behind Tampa Bay early on, the fight seemed to go out of many fans scattered across sports bars and homes in the East Bay.
``They're playing like they don't want to win,'' said John Carroll, 67, who was so despondent that he turned away from the game during the third quarter to smoke cigarettes outside the Club New Yorker on East 18th Street in Oakland.
``They are making asses of themselves between fumbles, sacks and interceptions,'' said Carroll, a lifelong East Oakland resident. ``They are playing worse than a normal high school football team.''
Added Debbie Nobrega-Tabarez, 40, of Oakland, who was wearing a gray and black mask that looked as though she had painted her face: ``I was crying until half time, and then I stopped crying.''
As time ran out at Ricky's Sports Lounge in San Leandro, where 500 fans had paid $25 to watch the Super Bowl on a 20-foot big screen TV set up in the parking lot, the tears came again.
``It's okay,'' said Nobrega-Tabarez. ``That's our team. We're still going to be there'' for them.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I was at the riots and I didnt see people burning their own neighborhoods like you say. I agree with what you are saying but I don't like this often-repeated myth that people are always burning their own neighborhoods.
Two things to consider:
1. In large scale riots, like the LA riots in 92, the police create a perimeter around rich parts of town to keep people bottled up. Much of the fighting is pitched battles at these points.
2. In stuff like this, which is kind of large but short-lived, some local peoples cars probly got burned but again, cops were in force in Jack London Square so they could protect shit like the Gap. But from what I saw, hitting a McDonalds or looting some things from a store doesnt hurt anybody in the working community. Maybe in the coroporate CEO community or the local business owner community (a little).
Two things to consider:
1. In large scale riots, like the LA riots in 92, the police create a perimeter around rich parts of town to keep people bottled up. Much of the fighting is pitched battles at these points.
2. In stuff like this, which is kind of large but short-lived, some local peoples cars probly got burned but again, cops were in force in Jack London Square so they could protect shit like the Gap. But from what I saw, hitting a McDonalds or looting some things from a store doesnt hurt anybody in the working community. Maybe in the coroporate CEO community or the local business owner community (a little).
In the real world, far removed from the drunken gambling rackets called professional football:
(1) Sunday night is a school night and weekends are for studying, library research and preparing for final exams, which are usually at the end of January.
The serious students of all economic classes do not have time for or interest in the stupidity of professional football, also known as the Empire's circuses instead of bread routine, with the stupid football players being the gladiators, who often receive lifelong serious injuries in the course of their average four-year career at this horrifying war game which would not exist as a professional game if it were not for the gambling.
(2) Serious people, whether it be the workingclass or not, of all ages, do not stand around on the street. We are busy, productive people, engaged in working for a living, being serious students in school always going for the goal of being "A" students which all students should be doing, and pursuing our serious leisure activities such as reading and the arts. Those of us with families are doing our best to maintain our families and family relations. We do not have time to stand around on any street.
(3) Everyone who is not interested in standing around on any street lives in fear of these hoodlums who do and made this mess in Oakland. We experienced this horror show 5 times in San Francisco and have learned to be home and inside with our doors locked and windows closed by 5 p.m. on the day of this stupidity called the Super Bowl. This is the most viciously anti-people, anti-women, anti-gay crowd we have experienced, destroying our communities and attacking people. There is absolutely nothing progressive about these lumpen gangs.
(4) I am sure none of these football thugs are doing anything to prepare for the peace marches, to demand more funding for the schools, doing any labor organizing or doing any other kind of workingclass organizing.
The police may not have had the best strategy in coping with these lumpen who stand around on the street with the phony excuse of a stupid football game, but my sympathy for the whole stinking football crowd is ZERO, NONE WHATSOEVER.
(1) Sunday night is a school night and weekends are for studying, library research and preparing for final exams, which are usually at the end of January.
The serious students of all economic classes do not have time for or interest in the stupidity of professional football, also known as the Empire's circuses instead of bread routine, with the stupid football players being the gladiators, who often receive lifelong serious injuries in the course of their average four-year career at this horrifying war game which would not exist as a professional game if it were not for the gambling.
(2) Serious people, whether it be the workingclass or not, of all ages, do not stand around on the street. We are busy, productive people, engaged in working for a living, being serious students in school always going for the goal of being "A" students which all students should be doing, and pursuing our serious leisure activities such as reading and the arts. Those of us with families are doing our best to maintain our families and family relations. We do not have time to stand around on any street.
(3) Everyone who is not interested in standing around on any street lives in fear of these hoodlums who do and made this mess in Oakland. We experienced this horror show 5 times in San Francisco and have learned to be home and inside with our doors locked and windows closed by 5 p.m. on the day of this stupidity called the Super Bowl. This is the most viciously anti-people, anti-women, anti-gay crowd we have experienced, destroying our communities and attacking people. There is absolutely nothing progressive about these lumpen gangs.
(4) I am sure none of these football thugs are doing anything to prepare for the peace marches, to demand more funding for the schools, doing any labor organizing or doing any other kind of workingclass organizing.
The police may not have had the best strategy in coping with these lumpen who stand around on the street with the phony excuse of a stupid football game, but my sympathy for the whole stinking football crowd is ZERO, NONE WHATSOEVER.
That last comment is exactly why working people have always killed socialist bureaucrats on their way to building revolution. Socialist, die off like the berlin wall, eh?
The real cause of the riot is that YOUR TEAM GOT IT'S ASS KICKED!!
Tampa Bay - 48
Oakland - 21
Yo Ho Ho We're the Buccaneers
Yo Ho Ho We're the Buccaneers
Offense, Defense, Now We're Here To Say
Make The Raiders Walk The Plank,
Throw 'Em Tampa Bay.
Hey!!
Tampa Bay - 48
Oakland - 21
Yo Ho Ho We're the Buccaneers
Yo Ho Ho We're the Buccaneers
Offense, Defense, Now We're Here To Say
Make The Raiders Walk The Plank,
Throw 'Em Tampa Bay.
Hey!!
>>> This display indicates that large sectors of our society are at the point of revolting against the oppressive nature of our society, why else would people burn their own neighborhoods? <<<
People burn their own neighborhoods because Oakland is truly the s**thole that EVERYONE in the Bay Area, and now the NATION, thinks that it is. I have the misfortune of working downtown and it is a SCARY place! When five o'clock rolls around, everyone with half a brain GETS THE HE** OUT!
You can put down suburban, SUV-loving folks all you want, but people will NEVER return to transit friendly cities when they have to fear for their lives like they do in Oakland every day.
All of the businesses on International Boulevard should pack up and leave. Then all of the anti-capitalists can be happy when they've got nothing but abandoned buildings left (at least until they get torched).
Yes, trashing your own homes, businesses, and city will really show all of us capitalists how smart you are.
People burn their own neighborhoods because Oakland is truly the s**thole that EVERYONE in the Bay Area, and now the NATION, thinks that it is. I have the misfortune of working downtown and it is a SCARY place! When five o'clock rolls around, everyone with half a brain GETS THE HE** OUT!
You can put down suburban, SUV-loving folks all you want, but people will NEVER return to transit friendly cities when they have to fear for their lives like they do in Oakland every day.
All of the businesses on International Boulevard should pack up and leave. Then all of the anti-capitalists can be happy when they've got nothing but abandoned buildings left (at least until they get torched).
Yes, trashing your own homes, businesses, and city will really show all of us capitalists how smart you are.
Uh, your pictue of a banner wasn't from the Oakland riot. And your premise is ludicrous. Keep dreaming, Lefty. The bums and welfare clowns who rioted did so because they are ignorant cretins who were upset at their pitiful team getting its ass handed to it. Today they will get up (around noon), watch some TV (springer), and wait for Friday (welfare checks). Have a nice day.
A comment by "honest guy" was hidden because it contained racist slurs.
I am now going to hide everything else "honest guy" ever posted here. So long, sucker. You're out of here.
I am now going to hide everything else "honest guy" ever posted here. So long, sucker. You're out of here.
Done, done and done. And don't let me catch you in here again, "honest guy." You're scum. So go float on a pond. Do it face down.
hey dummy,
You've never set foot in Oakland.
Clinton ended welfare. Have you noticed all the homeless people lately? Most of the people who couldn't get off by the end of the 5 year lifetime limit are Vietnamese older people who fought for the US and mentally can't transition to english, and/or have PTSD:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2003-01-08/cityofwarts.html/1/index.html
The people in east oakland are the ones who actually have to work for a living (i.e. don't have SF jobs where you can spend 1/4 of the time chatting, reading email, going out to tax deductible lunches, or can pee even if it's not their official break). If the people in East Oakland weren't there, everything would cost a lot more for you, just like things cost a lot in Zurich and Oslo where there is a very small working class
You've never set foot in Oakland.
Clinton ended welfare. Have you noticed all the homeless people lately? Most of the people who couldn't get off by the end of the 5 year lifetime limit are Vietnamese older people who fought for the US and mentally can't transition to english, and/or have PTSD:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2003-01-08/cityofwarts.html/1/index.html
The people in east oakland are the ones who actually have to work for a living (i.e. don't have SF jobs where you can spend 1/4 of the time chatting, reading email, going out to tax deductible lunches, or can pee even if it's not their official break). If the people in East Oakland weren't there, everything would cost a lot more for you, just like things cost a lot in Zurich and Oslo where there is a very small working class
This sort of propaganda spewing from your website hurts serious protests against our malicious government. The riot was out of disrespect for their fellow human beings. That's the way they do things. Simple as that. Your spin on it is ridiculous. I'm anti-war, I'm anti-Bush, I'm anti-all-that-crap, but I am not pro-you. Get a life.
> Personally, I would have prefered that the Raiders had won, but
by nessie • Monday January 27, 2003 at 05:09 PM
> I'm certainly glad that the people of Oakland showed enough moxie to riot anyway. Good for them.
Just curious, is there a chance you'll grow up one day, Nessie? There's a real world out there, with real people who actually work their butts off for a living, who really don't want to pay for satisfying your overindulged and flabby ego.
by nessie • Monday January 27, 2003 at 05:09 PM
> I'm certainly glad that the people of Oakland showed enough moxie to riot anyway. Good for them.
Just curious, is there a chance you'll grow up one day, Nessie? There's a real world out there, with real people who actually work their butts off for a living, who really don't want to pay for satisfying your overindulged and flabby ego.
Very speedy Bucs defense.
Raiders offensive line not adequately protecting Gannon.
Record-setting 5 INTs by Gannon. Yikes.
Alcohol
Stupid people
Raiders offensive line not adequately protecting Gannon.
Record-setting 5 INTs by Gannon. Yikes.
Alcohol
Stupid people
So if you are trying to see the other team's playbook (other team being defined as the non-lunatic fringe), you should read the greatest newsmagazine around: The Economist.
the Economist? They had issue after issue about the Tiger Economies right before the Asian Economic Crisis, touted the New Economy and even believed in the Y2K bug... And thats when most credible economic journals knew what was going on...
They are perhaps a step above Forbes and Fortune in credibility but hardly a real news source
They are perhaps a step above Forbes and Fortune in credibility but hardly a real news source
You see, you really should actually do your own research rather than relying on the half-truths and lies found on this board.
The Economist warned of the bubble way before it burst, warned of the falacies of the supposed new metrics in the New Economy, warned of banking insolveny and crony-capitalism in Asia, and was undecided about the Y2K bug. The magazine reasonably concluded that there is no way to know if the Y2K threat was overblown or if the billions spent successfully avoided major problems. Likely somewhere in the middle. Like most positions in The Economist: reality is grey. When (if) you gain some experience in the world, you will realize that very few things are black and white.
So, good try. You obviously don't read the magazine. Like I said earlier, you ought to. You might learn something. Or at least know what the more intelligent masses think...
The Economist warned of the bubble way before it burst, warned of the falacies of the supposed new metrics in the New Economy, warned of banking insolveny and crony-capitalism in Asia, and was undecided about the Y2K bug. The magazine reasonably concluded that there is no way to know if the Y2K threat was overblown or if the billions spent successfully avoided major problems. Likely somewhere in the middle. Like most positions in The Economist: reality is grey. When (if) you gain some experience in the world, you will realize that very few things are black and white.
So, good try. You obviously don't read the magazine. Like I said earlier, you ought to. You might learn something. Or at least know what the more intelligent masses think...
Anarcho-communist wrote:
"That last comment is exactly why working people have always killed socialist bureaucrats on their way to building revolution. Socialist, die off like the berlin wall, eh? "
This jerk, hereafter A-C, who wrote this threat, reminds me of the thugs who murdered Delores Evans, a pollworker, and 5 children in a mysterious fire in their Housing Authority home on December 13, 1997, 10 days after the election fraud lawsuit concerning the 49er Stadium Swindle election was filed, in which Evans was due to testify as to the election fraud she witnessed as a pollworker in Bayview-Hunters Point, San Francisco. The fire inspector told the Hearst Examiner they could have escaped but someone stopped them. This story as the dedication of the website, and all the rest of the election fraud story of June 3, 1997, when we voted 70% No on D&F, the 49er Stadium Swindle propositions, while the registrar recorded our vote as 50.2% "Yes" after "mayor" Willie Brown had his election fraud team steal and tamper with our votes, can be found at:
http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
Election fraud, gambling, and organized crime all go together and Willie Brown is a lifelong LEADING gambling and organized crime politician, who promoted this stadium swindle for a favorite gambling racket known as professional football.
I can only assume such a stupid comment made by A-C was in fact made by someone connected to the organized crime, gambling, election-frauding racket known as professional football as such threats are common to that horrifying world. It is these thugs, friends of the despicable professional football teams, who murdered Delores Evans and 5 children, thereby denying our ability to carry on with any election fraud lawsuit for that election or any subsequent election and they thus denied the right to vote to the workingclass, in particular, the black workingclass.
From the reports I have heard from Oakland workingclass residents, the thugs who had nothing better to do than stand around and throw rocks at cars driving by and all the rest of it, are not liked at all by the workingclass residents of Oakland. Watching anything on TV is one thing; destroying people's neighborhoods and personal safety is another. These thugs are effectively agent provocateurs. There is nothing progressive or revolutionary about that.
"That last comment is exactly why working people have always killed socialist bureaucrats on their way to building revolution. Socialist, die off like the berlin wall, eh? "
This jerk, hereafter A-C, who wrote this threat, reminds me of the thugs who murdered Delores Evans, a pollworker, and 5 children in a mysterious fire in their Housing Authority home on December 13, 1997, 10 days after the election fraud lawsuit concerning the 49er Stadium Swindle election was filed, in which Evans was due to testify as to the election fraud she witnessed as a pollworker in Bayview-Hunters Point, San Francisco. The fire inspector told the Hearst Examiner they could have escaped but someone stopped them. This story as the dedication of the website, and all the rest of the election fraud story of June 3, 1997, when we voted 70% No on D&F, the 49er Stadium Swindle propositions, while the registrar recorded our vote as 50.2% "Yes" after "mayor" Willie Brown had his election fraud team steal and tamper with our votes, can be found at:
http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
Election fraud, gambling, and organized crime all go together and Willie Brown is a lifelong LEADING gambling and organized crime politician, who promoted this stadium swindle for a favorite gambling racket known as professional football.
I can only assume such a stupid comment made by A-C was in fact made by someone connected to the organized crime, gambling, election-frauding racket known as professional football as such threats are common to that horrifying world. It is these thugs, friends of the despicable professional football teams, who murdered Delores Evans and 5 children, thereby denying our ability to carry on with any election fraud lawsuit for that election or any subsequent election and they thus denied the right to vote to the workingclass, in particular, the black workingclass.
From the reports I have heard from Oakland workingclass residents, the thugs who had nothing better to do than stand around and throw rocks at cars driving by and all the rest of it, are not liked at all by the workingclass residents of Oakland. Watching anything on TV is one thing; destroying people's neighborhoods and personal safety is another. These thugs are effectively agent provocateurs. There is nothing progressive or revolutionary about that.
For more information:
http://www.brasscheck.com/stadium
Why don’t you read for yourself. Here old snapshots of their web site.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.economist.com
The archive doesn’t go back far enough to show how much they promoted Indonesia and Singapore as miracle economies (even on their front page), but what do you expect from a new agency which probably was chummy with the likes of Suharto…
Yes, they have a few articles predicting a bubble (I mean Greenspan was talking about irrational exuberance) but they pretty much fell for the hype like everyone else. Marketplace, their radio news magazine on public radio, even had interviews with Toffler. I guess he was a little better than the Raelians but not that far away.
Don’t get me wrong. They are slightly better than NewsWeek. But they are not exactly a stockpile of secret wisdom about the economy. The FT is much better but even it fell for most of the hype.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.economist.com
The archive doesn’t go back far enough to show how much they promoted Indonesia and Singapore as miracle economies (even on their front page), but what do you expect from a new agency which probably was chummy with the likes of Suharto…
Yes, they have a few articles predicting a bubble (I mean Greenspan was talking about irrational exuberance) but they pretty much fell for the hype like everyone else. Marketplace, their radio news magazine on public radio, even had interviews with Toffler. I guess he was a little better than the Raelians but not that far away.
Don’t get me wrong. They are slightly better than NewsWeek. But they are not exactly a stockpile of secret wisdom about the economy. The FT is much better but even it fell for most of the hype.
FT and Economist are sister publications.
You are right, of course, about them not hitting a home run every time. That doesn't happen in the real world. All a journal like that can do is to present the various shades of grey and allow the reader to interpret (ideally, based on other sources in the political gradient, who have other sources). The magazine also deserves credit for adapting its editorial positions as new information becomes apparent.
It's obviously not perfect (nothing is), but my point was that if you are looking for an intelligent mainstream slightly-right-of-center journal ("the other team's playbook"), it's a good choice.
If you have the time, then read FT every day. Unfortunately, I don't have that much time.
You are right, of course, about them not hitting a home run every time. That doesn't happen in the real world. All a journal like that can do is to present the various shades of grey and allow the reader to interpret (ideally, based on other sources in the political gradient, who have other sources). The magazine also deserves credit for adapting its editorial positions as new information becomes apparent.
It's obviously not perfect (nothing is), but my point was that if you are looking for an intelligent mainstream slightly-right-of-center journal ("the other team's playbook"), it's a good choice.
If you have the time, then read FT every day. Unfortunately, I don't have that much time.
"Uncorking the past
Dec 20th 2001
From The Economist print edition
Recreating old drinks provides an enjoyable form of time-travelling
IT MAY be small—each molecule is less than a billionth of a metre long, and consists of a handful of atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen—but ethyl alcohol makes an excellent time machine.
...
"
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=883706
"Next year, the french-fry index
Dec 18th 1997
From The Economist print edition
Few Economist indicators are as often cited as our Big Mac index, which uses hamburger prices as an index of currency parity. In the same spirit, we wondered how the globe looks when viewed through the bottom of a Coca-Cola bottle.
"
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=456039
"Who dares wins
Jan 9th 2003
From The Economist print edition
The president has surprised America with another bold tax initiative"
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1524766
Dec 20th 2001
From The Economist print edition
Recreating old drinks provides an enjoyable form of time-travelling
IT MAY be small—each molecule is less than a billionth of a metre long, and consists of a handful of atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen—but ethyl alcohol makes an excellent time machine.
...
"
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=883706
"Next year, the french-fry index
Dec 18th 1997
From The Economist print edition
Few Economist indicators are as often cited as our Big Mac index, which uses hamburger prices as an index of currency parity. In the same spirit, we wondered how the globe looks when viewed through the bottom of a Coca-Cola bottle.
"
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=456039
"Who dares wins
Jan 9th 2003
From The Economist print edition
The president has surprised America with another bold tax initiative"
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1524766
I hate capitalism, so don't get me wrong. I think it IS possible to live a more communalistic way.
But this argument caught my attention. I used to subscribe to the Economist and yes, they did predict the Asia meltdown of '97-'98. I wish I could find that article because it alerted me and I wasn't so surprised when it happened. For Asia, the "East Asia Economic Review" is excellent as well--I mean to see what our class enemies are up to.
And I agree, reading the enemies playbook is better facilitated with the Financial Times too--the Wall St. Journal stays too parochially American.
Just my 2 pense.
Adam's Bastard
Bush's playbook would require linking to neonazi sites and I think that would be censored by Indymedia's editors
1) the fun end-of-year-double-issue, always filled with goofy stories. I remember this one. Delightful.
2) the Big Mac Index is a valuable (and obviously light-hearted) metric for purchasing power parity comparisons and the relative valuations of world currencies. One must choose a standard product available in as many countries in the world as possible in order to make this apples-to-apples comparison. Although it is silly, can you think of a better one?
3) "Following the proper fiscal form, there is truth on both sides. Cynical or not, the plan is a ploy: make no mistake about that. The package will have next to no stimulative effect in the relevant time-frame—and, if the administration succeeds in pushing it through, by the time the proposal does inject some extra demand it may well do more harm than good. The president is using the economic slowdown to advance a boldly ideological tax-cutting agenda that has nothing to do with stabilisation policy. And yet the White House need not be ashamed of this feint, because the idea of eliminating the tax on dividends happens to be a good one."
See my earlier point on presenting both sides of the issue. Balance. Grey. Great example!
2) the Big Mac Index is a valuable (and obviously light-hearted) metric for purchasing power parity comparisons and the relative valuations of world currencies. One must choose a standard product available in as many countries in the world as possible in order to make this apples-to-apples comparison. Although it is silly, can you think of a better one?
3) "Following the proper fiscal form, there is truth on both sides. Cynical or not, the plan is a ploy: make no mistake about that. The package will have next to no stimulative effect in the relevant time-frame—and, if the administration succeeds in pushing it through, by the time the proposal does inject some extra demand it may well do more harm than good. The president is using the economic slowdown to advance a boldly ideological tax-cutting agenda that has nothing to do with stabilisation policy. And yet the White House need not be ashamed of this feint, because the idea of eliminating the tax on dividends happens to be a good one."
See my earlier point on presenting both sides of the issue. Balance. Grey. Great example!
hmm lets think about whats wrong with using an item at a restaurant as a way to calculate PPP... McDonalds is not local food in other countries so one must add that into account... going out to eat is a luxury in most of the word so one would expect that to bump up prices... the products in fast food are perishable its not a great thing to choose etc... etc... etc...
I mean the stupidity of some of this stuff would just be funny if the same people with these ideas were not helping design countries economic policies...
I mean the stupidity of some of this stuff would just be funny if the same people with these ideas were not helping design countries economic policies...
Hehe,
The whole point of this index is to show relative purchasing power parity. The Big Mac is sold in over 100 countries (I think almost 120). A Big Mac in Nigeria, for example, does not cost what a Big Mac costs here -- using the standard exchange rate. That's the point! In poorer countries, the Big Mac costs relatively less (less expensive labour, material, and real estate). In Switzerland, it costs relatively more (more expensive labour and material and real estate).
The whole point is to use a universally-available standard product as a currency for the sake of comparing the relative valuations of real currencies.
One could use something like long-distance pricing, but this doesn' t work due to the different degrees of pricing due to competition or lack-of competition in international telephony.
You can choose to not agree with The Economist on a number of issues, but this shouldn't be one of them. Although light-hearted (purposely so -- hey, we're talking about it), it works.
The whole point of this index is to show relative purchasing power parity. The Big Mac is sold in over 100 countries (I think almost 120). A Big Mac in Nigeria, for example, does not cost what a Big Mac costs here -- using the standard exchange rate. That's the point! In poorer countries, the Big Mac costs relatively less (less expensive labour, material, and real estate). In Switzerland, it costs relatively more (more expensive labour and material and real estate).
The whole point is to use a universally-available standard product as a currency for the sake of comparing the relative valuations of real currencies.
One could use something like long-distance pricing, but this doesn' t work due to the different degrees of pricing due to competition or lack-of competition in international telephony.
You can choose to not agree with The Economist on a number of issues, but this shouldn't be one of them. Although light-hearted (purposely so -- hey, we're talking about it), it works.
What’s next the luxury car index (hey every country has corrupt rich people)?
Any product consumed at home as a necessity would make a better index and the use of the "Big Mac" index in college economic textbooks probably resulted in a kick back to some author...
Aside from different supply issues with the things that go into Big Macs in most countries (which are not the same since they have to change those to fit local tastes) there are also big problems with using a product like that in terms of demand. Most of the world's population is too poor to eat much meat. A lot of people can't eat cows for religious reasons (much of India).
It’s a pretty worthless thing to use as a standard basket of goods to calculate PPP. While Mc Donalds tends to over saturate markets keeping prices low, a new restaurant of this type in a poor country could start out as a rather expensive restaurant for those with American tastes (and in some of the poorer parts of the world that could mainly be tourists).
The Economist and entry-level economics courses at Universities are packed full of bullshit like this. I remember years ago having to prove that rent control hurt people and also having to show why the minimum wage was a bad idea. In any other class promoting right wing politics in such a weird way would not be allowed but in economics entry level courses (and popular publications like the Economist) real world considerations are abstracted away and examples are then chosen to promote a far right ideology (its similar to arguing about the design of an airplane while ignoring air friction).
People are unfortunately conned into believing the more technical sounding words of economists when using abstraction one can work backwards to design a mathematical model that will just about prove whatever one wants...
Any product consumed at home as a necessity would make a better index and the use of the "Big Mac" index in college economic textbooks probably resulted in a kick back to some author...
Aside from different supply issues with the things that go into Big Macs in most countries (which are not the same since they have to change those to fit local tastes) there are also big problems with using a product like that in terms of demand. Most of the world's population is too poor to eat much meat. A lot of people can't eat cows for religious reasons (much of India).
It’s a pretty worthless thing to use as a standard basket of goods to calculate PPP. While Mc Donalds tends to over saturate markets keeping prices low, a new restaurant of this type in a poor country could start out as a rather expensive restaurant for those with American tastes (and in some of the poorer parts of the world that could mainly be tourists).
The Economist and entry-level economics courses at Universities are packed full of bullshit like this. I remember years ago having to prove that rent control hurt people and also having to show why the minimum wage was a bad idea. In any other class promoting right wing politics in such a weird way would not be allowed but in economics entry level courses (and popular publications like the Economist) real world considerations are abstracted away and examples are then chosen to promote a far right ideology (its similar to arguing about the design of an airplane while ignoring air friction).
People are unfortunately conned into believing the more technical sounding words of economists when using abstraction one can work backwards to design a mathematical model that will just about prove whatever one wants...
Name a better product.
And don't get too riled up -- it is meant to be light-hearted. I don't believe The Economist received any kickbacks (McD's doesn't even advertise in the magazine and they write bad stuff about McD's). It's a half-joke and a half-useful metric. Check it out. They introduce it as such.
You are right, though. It's not a perfectly standard product. And it is not equally accessible. Think about for awhile and write back if you can think of a better product.
PS - the way rent control hurts the poor is that it lowers the supply of housing (Econ 101: low supply => increased demand => higher prices on the newly rented places). I have first hand-experience with this: I sold my company and had to live in NYC for a year. It was 2000 and I feared I wouldn't be able to find a new place so affordable (it was rent controlled) when I returned to SF. So in the height of the housing crunch, the apartment sat empty (the landlord wouldn't let me sublet). Less supply means higher prices. My gamble didn't really pay off, as the housing bubble returned to equilibrium, but the place sat empty.
Minimum wage hurts the poor: Most Americans working for minimum wage are kids saving to buy wheels for their Camaro. The US economy is dynamic -- people move from minimum wage jobs to higher-than-minimum wage jobs. It's an entree for most. A minimum wage higher than the market wage for that job decreases the number of entree jobs, decreasing the number of people beginning their worklife. I worked a minimum wage job. Now I don't. Same with 99% of people working for minimum wage. I'm glad I had that first job so I could start out. I pity the poor folks who can't start out because of (admittedly good-hearted) feel-good policies that end up not working. This argument (and minimum wage laws themselves) assumes that there are jobs whose market wage is less than the minimum wage. Nobody will work for 2 cents an hour. But maybe they would work at $5. And then so could somebody else.
And don't get too riled up -- it is meant to be light-hearted. I don't believe The Economist received any kickbacks (McD's doesn't even advertise in the magazine and they write bad stuff about McD's). It's a half-joke and a half-useful metric. Check it out. They introduce it as such.
You are right, though. It's not a perfectly standard product. And it is not equally accessible. Think about for awhile and write back if you can think of a better product.
PS - the way rent control hurts the poor is that it lowers the supply of housing (Econ 101: low supply => increased demand => higher prices on the newly rented places). I have first hand-experience with this: I sold my company and had to live in NYC for a year. It was 2000 and I feared I wouldn't be able to find a new place so affordable (it was rent controlled) when I returned to SF. So in the height of the housing crunch, the apartment sat empty (the landlord wouldn't let me sublet). Less supply means higher prices. My gamble didn't really pay off, as the housing bubble returned to equilibrium, but the place sat empty.
Minimum wage hurts the poor: Most Americans working for minimum wage are kids saving to buy wheels for their Camaro. The US economy is dynamic -- people move from minimum wage jobs to higher-than-minimum wage jobs. It's an entree for most. A minimum wage higher than the market wage for that job decreases the number of entree jobs, decreasing the number of people beginning their worklife. I worked a minimum wage job. Now I don't. Same with 99% of people working for minimum wage. I'm glad I had that first job so I could start out. I pity the poor folks who can't start out because of (admittedly good-hearted) feel-good policies that end up not working. This argument (and minimum wage laws themselves) assumes that there are jobs whose market wage is less than the minimum wage. Nobody will work for 2 cents an hour. But maybe they would work at $5. And then so could somebody else.
Something like wheat or rice combined together based off local demand would make a much better measure than a Big Mac (or course subsidies would again be a problem). I would bet that using a Big Mac as a measure of PPP in certain of the world's poorest countries would give one a better measure of the tourists than of the local population. Econ 101 would say that this wouldn’t matter since there is only one price but in most countries there is more than one price since people know to charge tourists more... a large bazaar in a third world country may seem like perfect competition but from experience I think we all know that Americans get charged much more than the local price...
"PS - the way rent control hurts the poor is that it lowers the supply of housing (Econ 101: low supply => increased demand => higher prices on the newly rented places). "
Yep Econ 101 abstractions again. Rent control does other things like level out bubbles in the market. Your ignoring the transaction cost of people having to move... for a rich person that may be a small cost ... In the Bay Area better rent control would have resulted in more rather than less economic efficiency since there was lot of spending put intro evicting people, making them move and then advertising for them to come back after the dot com boom. Yeah you can argue some specifics of your individual case but its not as simple as Econ 101; those examples are chosen for 100% political reasons...
"Minimum wage hurts the poor: Most Americans working for minimum wage are kids saving to buy wheels for their Camaro. ...This argument (and minimum wage laws themselves) assumes that there are jobs whose market wage is less than the minimum wage."
Again there are a lot of problem with viewing minimum wages laws as getting in the way of economic efficiency. In the case of children who don't need to work working jobs while in school, the net effect on society could easily be negative. It takes away from education and other forms of learning. The argument against the minimum wage also usually includes some statement about how it would cause the market to clear only resulting in the unemployment of those changing jobs. Of course that’s bullshit. It ignores the black market that makes up for much of what people with low paying jobs are forced into and it also ignores the costs of hiring people outside of wage. It could also be argued that a higher minimum wage would create a few better paying jobs in the place of more existing low pages jobs (and with the increased spending of those getting the jobs the end effect could be the same number of people employed at better wages). People's production abilities are not fixed and they can invest in themselves (freshmen economics courses usually ignore that). A business forced to hire a small number of higher paid workers might be forced to train these workers with a net benefit to society... Again you can argue about these points but I’m again trying to point out how abstracting away more complex parts of society suggests that the example of minimum wage in an entry level college textbooks is a political argument being made by those with neoliberal views rather than a purely educational choice.
"PS - the way rent control hurts the poor is that it lowers the supply of housing (Econ 101: low supply => increased demand => higher prices on the newly rented places). "
Yep Econ 101 abstractions again. Rent control does other things like level out bubbles in the market. Your ignoring the transaction cost of people having to move... for a rich person that may be a small cost ... In the Bay Area better rent control would have resulted in more rather than less economic efficiency since there was lot of spending put intro evicting people, making them move and then advertising for them to come back after the dot com boom. Yeah you can argue some specifics of your individual case but its not as simple as Econ 101; those examples are chosen for 100% political reasons...
"Minimum wage hurts the poor: Most Americans working for minimum wage are kids saving to buy wheels for their Camaro. ...This argument (and minimum wage laws themselves) assumes that there are jobs whose market wage is less than the minimum wage."
Again there are a lot of problem with viewing minimum wages laws as getting in the way of economic efficiency. In the case of children who don't need to work working jobs while in school, the net effect on society could easily be negative. It takes away from education and other forms of learning. The argument against the minimum wage also usually includes some statement about how it would cause the market to clear only resulting in the unemployment of those changing jobs. Of course that’s bullshit. It ignores the black market that makes up for much of what people with low paying jobs are forced into and it also ignores the costs of hiring people outside of wage. It could also be argued that a higher minimum wage would create a few better paying jobs in the place of more existing low pages jobs (and with the increased spending of those getting the jobs the end effect could be the same number of people employed at better wages). People's production abilities are not fixed and they can invest in themselves (freshmen economics courses usually ignore that). A business forced to hire a small number of higher paid workers might be forced to train these workers with a net benefit to society... Again you can argue about these points but I’m again trying to point out how abstracting away more complex parts of society suggests that the example of minimum wage in an entry level college textbooks is a political argument being made by those with neoliberal views rather than a purely educational choice.
The World Bank will argue for a country to privatize water since really simplistic economic models make this look like a good idea. The simplistic models make it looks like there are no public goods and everything should be privatized. Magazines like the Economist then use the really simplistic models to con people into thinking that maybe it is a good idea if one only knew economics. Not only are the models the Economist uses simple enough that anyone could understand them but those that are told they should learn more usually have a better idea of the real effects and could probably come up with a lot more accurate economic models.
The problem isnt economics as an area of study its the over simplification of it by magazines like the Economist. The dot com boom was only partially an bubble like tullips and a lot of the money lost was because people didnt undertsand problems with the technologies that were being introduced in inappropriate ways. Deregulation that resulted in some of the more recent crises was also pushed by the Economist since somehow people took employee and consumer corruption into account (restrictions on lawsuits and personal bankruptcy) but not corruption by those with money. Most on the left probably saw this as a conspiracy of the upper class but its really worse than that it; the upper class and economists were really blinded by their own conceit (CEO corruption just didnt fit into their view of the world since those at the top were seen as rational moral super humans who somehow were working to maximize corporate rather than personal utility).
The problem isnt economics as an area of study its the over simplification of it by magazines like the Economist. The dot com boom was only partially an bubble like tullips and a lot of the money lost was because people didnt undertsand problems with the technologies that were being introduced in inappropriate ways. Deregulation that resulted in some of the more recent crises was also pushed by the Economist since somehow people took employee and consumer corruption into account (restrictions on lawsuits and personal bankruptcy) but not corruption by those with money. Most on the left probably saw this as a conspiracy of the upper class but its really worse than that it; the upper class and economists were really blinded by their own conceit (CEO corruption just didnt fit into their view of the world since those at the top were seen as rational moral super humans who somehow were working to maximize corporate rather than personal utility).
Adam Smith recognized there were public goods that should not be left to the free market and I can’t think of any economist who does not recognize that there are many public goods The problem is that when policy decisions are made they always bring in the economists who can use first year economics to show supply and demand curves that show how the private market will do better. A value judgment was made ahead of time that a certain good was not public usually based off of that good not needing to be public for the very wealthy in the short term. But things can go beyond with Republicans arguing for health care to not be considered a public good. I think they must be backtracking on that with all the scares surrounding biological terrorism. In most countries the idea of no public healthcare would seem crazy, but epidemic diseases in the US have not reached a point in the poorer populations that they are effecting the very wealthy...
I read the first two volumes of Das Kapital a while ago and agreed with it but in retrospect it seemed to not really say much about the functioning of the economy as a whole. He mainly is arguing that profits are stolen from workers etc..
Is there a separate Marxist analysis to argue effects of things like minimum wage and rent control (and other aspects of our current economic system)? I know Marx wanted revolution rather than reform but its is useful to understand short term reforms even if that is only a means to an end... (I guess one could argue that a minimum wage is a way to pressure surplus value from owners by letting workers prevent competition from bringing wages down to a subsistence market level, but how would one counteract questions of this creating unemployment? It seems like it would depend on the elasticity of the employers demand for labour... or is the argument that it doesn’t matter since profits are much higher than "normal" models predict so the demand for labour is extremely elastic)
It seems like one must use "normal" economic arguments in such cases and there is really nothing distinctive about Marxist economics aside from arguments about fundamental contradiction in labour markets etc.. Is this the case? As I said I’ve only read a few of his books...
Is there a separate Marxist analysis to argue effects of things like minimum wage and rent control (and other aspects of our current economic system)? I know Marx wanted revolution rather than reform but its is useful to understand short term reforms even if that is only a means to an end... (I guess one could argue that a minimum wage is a way to pressure surplus value from owners by letting workers prevent competition from bringing wages down to a subsistence market level, but how would one counteract questions of this creating unemployment? It seems like it would depend on the elasticity of the employers demand for labour... or is the argument that it doesn’t matter since profits are much higher than "normal" models predict so the demand for labour is extremely elastic)
It seems like one must use "normal" economic arguments in such cases and there is really nothing distinctive about Marxist economics aside from arguments about fundamental contradiction in labour markets etc.. Is this the case? As I said I’ve only read a few of his books...
A comment by "Vincent St. John" was hidden because it contained a sexist slur.
If you want to hang around here, you *must* show respect for women.
Thanks for pointing it out, Sam. I missed that one.
But "bastard" offends some people, too. If enough of them complain, we're going to have to consider dealing with it, too. Please people, keep it civil. If you're going to call each other names, use names that mean something, and add to the cogency of the discourse.
Show respect. Get respect. Show disrespect, and you will be treated accordingly.
If you want to hang around here, you *must* show respect for women.
Thanks for pointing it out, Sam. I missed that one.
But "bastard" offends some people, too. If enough of them complain, we're going to have to consider dealing with it, too. Please people, keep it civil. If you're going to call each other names, use names that mean something, and add to the cogency of the discourse.
Show respect. Get respect. Show disrespect, and you will be treated accordingly.
>>> A comment by "Vincent St. John" was hidden because it contained a sexist slur. <<<
So why are comments calling white people "crackers" not hidden?
So why are comments calling white people "crackers" not hidden?
The term is generally of a derogatory nature, and seems to be resident to the South. Despite its negative connotations, it is sometimes seen as a term of endearment, especially among White Georgians, although many Southern whites do not use nor do they approve of the term. "Cracker" has specific ethnic connotations, directed towards White Southerners, and more frequently, poor ones. Of its peculiar dual nature, Irving Allen writes, "'Cracker' is a positive or at least a humorous self-label for many Georgians. But in and beyond Georgia it was and remains a class epithet, and is more recently a black term for any white, Southerner or Northerner, who is thought to be a racist" (59). Peculiarly, in the book Black Jargon in White America by David Claerbaut, the latter, more negative racist definition of cracker is listed first (Claerbaut 61).
The origins of the term are uncertain, though there are a few conjectures. Dave Wilton, who studies etymology as a hobby, presents the idea that the term may have come from the word corncracker, which describes someone who cracks corn for liquor, a common practice especially in early Appalachia. Wilton writes, "The song lyric 'Jimmy Crack Corn' is a reference to this. In the song, a slave sings about how his master got drunk, fell, hit his head, and died. And the slave 'don't care.' (This was a pretty subversive song for its day.) This usage, however, is probably not the origin of the ethnic term cracker" (Wilton, par. 1). Wilton also suggests that the term may have come from 16th century Old English, where "to crack" meant to boast. There isn't much to reinforce this belief, however.
Going along with the cracked corn theory, Delma Presley, a noted scholar, believes that "cracker" came from as far back as the 18th Century, where cracked corn was actually consumed by the Scots-Irish (Allen 50). As those settlers came to Appalachia, the practice of cracking corn to produce liquor became popular, and the term thus followed them. Then, while the Scots-Irish and several other ethnic groups populated Appalachia, cracker was applied to all of the white inhabitants.
Clarence Major, in his Dictionary of Afro-American Slang, lists two rather interesting ideas about the origin of the term. The first is that a "cracker" was a slang term used by 19th Century Georgian slaves to refer to the slavemasters. If this were in fact, true, then the term would come directly from the cracking of the slavemaster's whip. This is quite a peculiar theory, because it would immediately explain the negative connotation that the word has taken. However, there seems to be little or no support for this theory, and no other source that was studied mentions it.
The other theory Major suggests is that, in light of the extreme racial tension of the 19th Century, "cracker" came straight from "the white soda cracker as opposed to say, ginger cookies" (Major 42). Again, this would explain where the derogatory undertones could originate. But as with Major's first explanation, there seems to be no reinforcement for this, and this was the only source that made any mention of such an origin. The former of Major's etymologies does seem to somewhat hint back to the popular cracked corn theory, but it is the only theory investigated that gave such an assertion. Major's definition of cracker is simple: "a white person" (Allen 42). One particular thing to note is that Major's Dictionary was published in 1970, towards the end of the civil rights era, which, along with years of Reconstruction, mark arguably the two most tense ages with concern to relations between Blacks and Whites.
http://athena.english.vt.edu/~appalach/essaysA/cracker.htm
The origins of the term are uncertain, though there are a few conjectures. Dave Wilton, who studies etymology as a hobby, presents the idea that the term may have come from the word corncracker, which describes someone who cracks corn for liquor, a common practice especially in early Appalachia. Wilton writes, "The song lyric 'Jimmy Crack Corn' is a reference to this. In the song, a slave sings about how his master got drunk, fell, hit his head, and died. And the slave 'don't care.' (This was a pretty subversive song for its day.) This usage, however, is probably not the origin of the ethnic term cracker" (Wilton, par. 1). Wilton also suggests that the term may have come from 16th century Old English, where "to crack" meant to boast. There isn't much to reinforce this belief, however.
Going along with the cracked corn theory, Delma Presley, a noted scholar, believes that "cracker" came from as far back as the 18th Century, where cracked corn was actually consumed by the Scots-Irish (Allen 50). As those settlers came to Appalachia, the practice of cracking corn to produce liquor became popular, and the term thus followed them. Then, while the Scots-Irish and several other ethnic groups populated Appalachia, cracker was applied to all of the white inhabitants.
Clarence Major, in his Dictionary of Afro-American Slang, lists two rather interesting ideas about the origin of the term. The first is that a "cracker" was a slang term used by 19th Century Georgian slaves to refer to the slavemasters. If this were in fact, true, then the term would come directly from the cracking of the slavemaster's whip. This is quite a peculiar theory, because it would immediately explain the negative connotation that the word has taken. However, there seems to be little or no support for this theory, and no other source that was studied mentions it.
The other theory Major suggests is that, in light of the extreme racial tension of the 19th Century, "cracker" came straight from "the white soda cracker as opposed to say, ginger cookies" (Major 42). Again, this would explain where the derogatory undertones could originate. But as with Major's first explanation, there seems to be no reinforcement for this, and this was the only source that made any mention of such an origin. The former of Major's etymologies does seem to somewhat hint back to the popular cracked corn theory, but it is the only theory investigated that gave such an assertion. Major's definition of cracker is simple: "a white person" (Allen 42). One particular thing to note is that Major's Dictionary was published in 1970, towards the end of the civil rights era, which, along with years of Reconstruction, mark arguably the two most tense ages with concern to relations between Blacks and Whites.
http://athena.english.vt.edu/~appalach/essaysA/cracker.htm
they will be hidden. But they can't be complaints by just anybody. We only respond to complaints by our friends and our allies. The rest of you are SOL. Go back to Free Republic, you miscreants, and wallow around with your ilk.
I lost it a little when I saw Sam B. prowling around these parts. Remember him, the one who drones on about the sufferings of the ruling class and how "greedy" workers, like the ILWU Longshoremen, are ruining this country? Since he glorifies being an enemy of the working class as he openly endorses crossing picket lines and taking blackleg jobs, is it O.K. to refer to him as SCAB Sam? Editors?
My apologies for using slang from my 'hood. I'm sorry to any women who took offence.
Vince
Good for you for stepping up like that to do it. It's a lot more than we hear from the trolls arounf here. They're shameless.
It really does matter how we treat each other, and half of us are women.
It really does matter how we treat each other, and half of us are women.
No problem. My pleasure. I love this job.
Okay...maybe you do have access to make changes....ala editor...
But your still a biased bigot!!
But your still a biased bigot!!
You mean as opposed to the other kind?
It was a paled attempt at portraying the typical lefty commentary when one has been proven wrong.
> I stand corrected
> by Vincent St. John • Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 06:55 PM
> I lost it a little when I saw Sam B. prowling around these parts. Remember him, the one who drones on about the sufferings of the ruling class and how "greedy" workers, like the ILWU Longshoremen, are ruining this country? Since he glorifies being an enemy of the working class as he openly endorses crossing picket lines and taking blackleg jobs, is it O.K. to refer to him as SCAB Sam? Editors?
Sorry, Vincent, I neither believe in illegal actions or monoplies. That you do, separates us ethically.
Here's some info for you:
Business Week
December 9, 2002
SECTION: ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT; Number 3811; Pg. 22
THE BEST LITTLE MONOPOLY IN AMERICA
"A more serious candidate is ILWU, the West Coast longshoremen's union. Here we have a group of about 10,000 semiskilled workers who have used their monopoly position to push up their annual salaries to more than $ 100,000 and have the muscle to damage the entire U.S. economy. The union has excelled at limiting the introduction of productivity-enhancing technology that would likely compromise its monopoly power. In the heyday of antitrust enforcement in the 1890s under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the ILWU would have been declared illegal as a ''conspiracy in restraint of trade.'' But later legislation effectively exempted labor unions from antitrust laws. "
> by Vincent St. John • Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 06:55 PM
> I lost it a little when I saw Sam B. prowling around these parts. Remember him, the one who drones on about the sufferings of the ruling class and how "greedy" workers, like the ILWU Longshoremen, are ruining this country? Since he glorifies being an enemy of the working class as he openly endorses crossing picket lines and taking blackleg jobs, is it O.K. to refer to him as SCAB Sam? Editors?
Sorry, Vincent, I neither believe in illegal actions or monoplies. That you do, separates us ethically.
Here's some info for you:
Business Week
December 9, 2002
SECTION: ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT; Number 3811; Pg. 22
THE BEST LITTLE MONOPOLY IN AMERICA
"A more serious candidate is ILWU, the West Coast longshoremen's union. Here we have a group of about 10,000 semiskilled workers who have used their monopoly position to push up their annual salaries to more than $ 100,000 and have the muscle to damage the entire U.S. economy. The union has excelled at limiting the introduction of productivity-enhancing technology that would likely compromise its monopoly power. In the heyday of antitrust enforcement in the 1890s under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the ILWU would have been declared illegal as a ''conspiracy in restraint of trade.'' But later legislation effectively exempted labor unions from antitrust laws. "
When workers stick together, life improves.
Their solidarity with other people's struggles is legendary.
> That's simply untrue.
by worker • Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 05:15 PM
> Their solidarity with other people's struggles is legendary.
Shall I quote you what they say about non-union workers making $100,000?
by worker • Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 05:15 PM
> Their solidarity with other people's struggles is legendary.
Shall I quote you what they say about non-union workers making $100,000?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$155.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network