Latest Class and Race Disputes
“Lazy poor” rhetoric has been greatly stepped up due to the news of fast food workers striking for higher pay or higher minimum wage.
Here is a common meme being passed around:
Just like I only “push a pedal” when my union striked, and autoworkers only “turn a bolt”, and all of us “only do our 40 hours a week and then go home”. Only the CEO or entrepreneur doing 100 hours produces “value”, and thus is “valued”. Everyone else is just a bunch of “chattel”, or a “loutish low level work force”, as I cited in Makers-Takers.
In one discussion now, I’m pointed to “the old days,” where people lived in cramped quarters and worked 16 hours a day, and just rolled up their sleeves and did what was necessary to succeed, and did not complain about their “low wages” in contrast to today’s unhappiness with wages one has “agreed to”, “bashing” the wealthy, and all the “redistribution” or “legalized parasitism”.
But because horrid living conditions (which were not conducive to health and well being) were more common and accepted back then, doesn’t make right. So because people came to demand better than that, they are regarded as parasites, and those with the power (the only ones who “deserve” ANYTHING, apparently) punish everyone for that (so they can blame these so-called parasites instead of non-government power-holders; and even the alleged total abuse of assistance; i.e. not working at all, is totally hyped up by this rhetoric machine).
It’s clear that government is not the only force who wants happy peasant subjects and lies to everyone to get it.
I’m not so much into legislating redistribution (still hardly helps with the high costs of everything), but still, I think too much blame is being placed on this, and it’s a scapegoat for people who control the market (and have largely bought out government), and thus set what everyone must “agree” to, to begin with. —Again, based on a premise of false scarcity.
The poor (or their cause) are not the cause of all these problems. Wealth is power; that’s why they get blamed, but still, the rhetoric blaming the poor has been far louder.
Here’s a good video that deals with how borrowing is creating class (and not to blame on its victims):
Also, this “quote” from West is passing around.
“Hold Obama to the same standards as a white president”
Can’t even find where he said it; it seems to be just his followers on the blogosphere.
This is a total turnaround, where the same people of course deny that he is being treated worse because of his race. As I say in Makers-Takers, he has been totally DISOWNED in a way no other president ever has, and every little thing he does people don’t like is ELEVATED to the level of the worst presidential scandals in history (such as Watergate). Of course, now, they have surpassed even those, since the white scandal bearers were punished, but he isn’t.
So they get to say that the black president is only lasting because of special treatment because of his race. And the real insult is from those “liberals” who are doing this because of his race, and not “the content of his character”.
But the conservatives are the ones calling out race (as much as they complain about others always “playing the card” on them!) No liberal has ever said they are promoting (or “excusing”) Obama because of his race; it’s the conservatives who keep inferring this.
But the issue is a matter of interpretation of what he does. Here is an illustration of all the “impeachable offenses” they have heaped up against him:
A lot of this stuff is grossly exaggerated. He does something that to them amounts to “attacking Second Amendment” (likely referring to gun control; but that is a matter of interpretation, not “attacking”)
Noam Chomsky once pointed out that the last five presidents (up to the Clinton era he wrote in) should have been impeached for declaring war without the approval of Congress!
The “funding Al Qaeda” thing is something I have heard so much from the conservatives, and I’ve never heard the other side of what they are referring to.
Still, all the other presidents do stuff on this level that can be interpreted the same way. Like Iran-Contra.
Again, why is it an impeachable offense for Obama, but not the Reagan administration, if Obama is the one getting all the preferential treatment because of race?