Kakki wrote: > My dark and cynical prediction is that most all of > the Bush picks will be hounded out by his political > enemies, and the ones, if any, that remain standing > will be nicked and smeared on a constant basis for > the next four years. I'm sure my memory is failing me, but I don't recall politics ever being quite as dirty and hateful as they became during the Clinton administration. Once Clinton took office, the opposition held nothing back in their efforts to ruin him. In the wake of that and considering the close election in November, they expect things to be different now? Sorry. "You reap what you sow." > In the meantime, though, do people really think all > the wrangling and dirty politics is productive for > the country? There's no doubt that this behavior promotes nothing that's good for the country. As long as politics is what it is, though -- a personal-power greed fest -- this is the way things are going to be. Or worse. If people could REALLY get behind doing what's good for this country instead of being primarily concerned with their own personal agenda ... oh fuck, I just feel like I'm talking to air. When I called Linda Chavez a hypocrite yesterday, I wasn't referring so much to her harboring an illegal immigrant -- I knew there had to be more to the story (and as I learned more, I admired Chavez's actions) -- as I was to Chavez's opposition to affirmative action and minimum wage increases. For Chavez, as a Hispanic and as a woman, to deny the existence of a glass ceiling is CRAP. Bully for her if she never experienced professional discrimination (although I'd bet she'd be lying on that count). Many, many more people of color and women HAVE experienced denial of promotions based on race, ethnicity, and gender (nevermind sexual preference), and this practice continues everyday. More insulting is for Ms. Chavez to tell poor working people that they shouldn't get a wage increase as the cost of living increases (and it is sure to do so soon, in leaps and bounds). Regarding this issue, Chavezs and the Republicans attitudes are sickening. As the Hispanic population in the U.S. continues to swell, more and more Hispanics work for minimum wage or less. It's painfully obvious what the new administration was hoping to say: "Here stands a Latina you should admire, and she says you should work to achieve what she's achieved. If you can't do that, she says you shouldn't make more for putting up with standing in a hot kitchen, frying burgers for a living." Well, what if you can't achieve what Linda achieved? What if you don't have the smarts? What if you work hard, hoping to go to school so you can better yourself, but can't because you can't afford someone to watch your kids? I know all the arguments regarding why there shouldn't be minimum wage increases. Oh, the poor small businessman. What about the rich huge corporations? For three years I worked for Ray-Ban/Bausch & Lomb in San Antonio. The "eyewear division" moved there from Rochester, NY, in 1989 to escape having to pay union wages of $7.50 an hour. In San Antonio they found a population, primarily Hispanic (and they insured this by opening the plant on the far south side of the city), who was THRILLED to get jobs for 50 cents more than minimum wage (which was then $4.25 an hour). But those jobs included no sick time off and no health insurance if you were part-time. Talk about dangling the proverbial carrot in front of the ass! It was a classic case of, Heres what you can ALMOST achieve! To add insult, the folks from Rochester were so ignorant that they sent their relocating managers through a quicky Spanish course because they were convinced that their new workers in SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS wouldnt understand a word of English! As one of the higher paid non-exempts, I was halfway between the managers/supervisors in the offices and the sunglass assemblers on the manufacturing floor. Quite often I found myself being shoulder and ears to people who wanted little more than an on-site daycare center, or a couple days sick leave, or a 50-cent raise. My own manager patiently explained to me that the suits in Rochester couldnt be bothered with a 50-cent raise as it would mean so little (?) ... I told her she ought to try living on the other end, where 50 cents an hour means $20 more a week, which can be the difference between being able to pay your electric bill on time or not. Tell you what, Ms. Chavez and the rest of you who dont believe in increasing the minimum age: YOU work for $5.15 an hour! 40 hours a week, it amounts to $10,712 per year. Go ahead -- live on THAT! Oh yeah, there are usually opportunities for overtime, but that just means you have less time to spend with your family. Great American Dream, my ass. I hate to say this, but I truly think that the end of our great capitalist experiment is somewhere in the foreseeable future. People are going to have to stop being so greedy, both in business and in politics, and SHARE some more of the wealth. Otherwise, there will be a revolution in this country, and it will be an ugly one. Lori, disgusted and only mildly apologetic for the rant, in DC Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/
