Bubba, I did not suggest you supported the bailout. What I was alluding to was the failure of the US government to regulate the financial sector more tightly - ie interfere with the free market - and the costly consequences of this.

Khang - sorry to hear about Joey. But to give you one of my mother’s platitudes, ‘I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of fish’.

And here’s another for both of you - guess we’ll have to agree to disagree!
View all comments by milo

I do think, in a couple of regards, you are pissing into the wind, though.

Firstly, I would advise in the future, when responding to an adult post, to refrain for using childhood aphorisms. When I was 3 or 4, I too was told that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” I was also told that I should never show my pee-pee to little girls. I had been caught playing doctor with the neighbor girl, you see. Of course, in today’s “excessively politically correct” society, that would possibly mean my little 3-year-old ass would be in court with my parents for sexual assault, even if the little girl was the instigator of the play. (Don’t laugh … in the states, they’ve tried to do it already!!, but I think the little boy was actually 5.) …But I digress, pardon ….

When I grew up, I realized that if no guy ever showed his pee-pee, and no gal ever showed her kitty, then in 100 years, the human race would be extinct. Actually, a little before that, I learned that when a person or entity perpetrates a transgression against your person or your concern, there are times when retaliation is necessary to preserve a healthy state of relations, “two rights don‘t make a wrong” be damned! In the political world, it’s called a retaliatory strike. In the human world, those that don’t at least stand prepared to do it go through life as suckers and targets. So don’t you agree that you should dispense with the childhood clichés?

But that aside, my nigger comment was not said in a retaliatory vein. Further, I didn’t call her a nigger. I stated that “niggers” shouldn’t be hired for those positions. And I meant any black and meant to use stereotype “blacks are stupid,” then made even more offensive with “nigger.” I patterned to statement to match the circumstance as closely as I could, in a few milliseconds I had to think about it, and in a very offensive fashion as demonstration of what they, the government, were allowing to be said of an entire race of people, the Thais. Milo, social inequities will never be mended within a society by giving license to an “aggrieved” group to perpetrate the same turpitudes for which they themselves, at least nominally, seek remedy. But the US government apparently did not and does not see it that way. Oh well, I tried. Now I’ve moved on.

Hey man, I love facts!!: you said:

The bottom line is this; women have historically been subjugated by males.
Fact.

And I got one for you, too:

Historically, the white US female has never been held to the general performance standards of the white US male and indeed is the most pampered “class” in the human species.
Fact.

Now, if you want to compare facts sometime after we clear up some of the abstracts, fine, but for now, I think you get the point, in fact.

Got a sad little story for you, Milo. I had a friend, Joey, that was killed in Vietnam back in 1972. He was 19, and had been drafted in 1971. I spoke with his Mom shortly thereafter, and we actually spoke about that honor and privilege to serve thing. Somehow, she just didn‘t see it that he was privileged. And one thing that really bothered her was that 2 months before his death, his girlfriend, Beth, had sent him a Dear-John letter, and had been seen around partying it up with her girlfriends and had even been seen with some older guy at a couple of nightclubs. Just didn’t seem fair to her. Somehow, Joey’s Mom just didn‘t get it, Milo. She’s passed on now, but I sure wish you had been around then to explain it to her.
______________________

Now, the part I have waited for …. YOU GOT IT!! You wrote:

“I agree with you about one thing - excessive political correctness does not serve anybody, black, white, male or female.”

You do understand what I have been saying! And yes, I feel a lot of harm is being done.

As I was reading your response, with all its fact, subjugation, bottom lines, privilege, clichés, etc, all stated as unassailable platitudes, I almost stopped reading. I thought perhaps you were some school kid. It was kinda like a fart, Milo … lots of air but no substance.

But I misjudged you. Glad I didn’t stop reading. Thanks for your understanding. And thanks for contributing.

Regards,

Khang
View all comments by Khang

That you suggest only when every CEO is either black or female have the equal opportunity programs gone too far exposes the extent to which your opinion is prejudiced.
View all comments by bubba

You also say: “I’m guessing that many people here never knew, let alone those who’ve forgotten, the cultural, social and business environment of the US when these programs were put into place.

That profile of the USA is long, long gone.”

The point is, that USA isn’t long gone. If it weren’t long gone my youthful avatar would have the election in the bag, baby.

I’m a young guy, and the civil rights struggles were a mere 15 years before I was born. That’s a heartbeat in my history my friend.

If equal opportunity programmes have gone too far, surely every CEO would be black or female. That’s hardly the case.

The point is not that every business is racist. The point is that the prejudices of the past have created conditions which mean that not everybody is on an equal footing. Why are attempts to correct that inequality so wrong?
View all comments by milo

Many western governments have gone overboard with their “equal opportunity” programs. The US has got to be the worst.

By meeting some governmental mandated statistical requirement and providing “political correct” brainwashing, the organization MIGHT avoid becoming a target of a lawsuit.

I don’t see how placing an individual’s marginal qualifications on equal footing with superlative qualifications on the basis of gender or race is an overall net gain to society. I’m guessing that many people here never knew, let alone those who’ve forgotten, the cultural, social and business environment of the US when these programs were put into place.

That profile of the USA is long, long gone.

If a white business owner wants to pick some stupid hick high school dropout like me over a black Harvard MBA why should the government step in? Forget the competitive disadvantage and poor business decision that would be. On what basis should the government (once again) be interfering with the free market? On the basis that all organizations in the US are run or owned by white males and every one of them are prejudiced against anyone who isn’t white or male? Now that’s a prejudiced attitude.
View all comments by Bubba