Hi Arlo, I am glad that you disagree with the leveling of salaries as the current administration is promoting.
You pick and choose your PC efforts, I will choose mine. That was my opinion from my original email. Glad to see you are coming around. Cheers Willblake2 On May 9, 2009, at 10:54:02 AM, "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <[email protected]> wrote: [WillBlake] If this is comical, then so is the need for gays to get married. [Arlo] Its comical because it does not offer any insight into the reasons, and offers a poorly thought out solution. With regard to gay marriage, it is an issue who's reasons are spelled out (love, desire to leave inheritance, loan opportunities, tax reasons, mortage financing, etc.) and offers an adequate solution to the problem (have the "state" absolve itself entirely from "marriage", leave that to the churches, and recognize only "civil unions", affording all committed, consensual adult relationships equal benefits under the eyes of the law). Each of these contexts you present are different, I'm pretty dismayed that you seem to fall into the "all or nothing" camp of talk-radio propaganda. Didn't I say that determinations of Good and Bad (and Comical) are contextual? All you did was take one of my determinations and use it to, without any support or reasoning, apply it to every possible point you could think of. That's pretty horrible rhetoric, WillBlake, and really demonstrates a pretty shallow and manipulative use of reason. Nonetheless, I'll try to answer each of your points. [WillBlake] If this is comical, then so is your example of a woman who wants to be a supreme court justice. How much is she suffering exactly. [Arlo] In this example, more than half our population may be being denied an opportunity to levels a "representative" government should afford them. While I agree that promoting an under-qualified woman just to appoint a woman is wrong, if women remain under-represented then it is a foundational question we must address. As I said, its easy to see historically the patriarchy that denied women outright access to these seats, but in today's world if this still occurs, we must ask why. I point out that you never answered this. [WillBlake] If this is comical, then so is your example of the black man worried that someone is going to call him "nigger" and hurt his feelings. [Arlo] I, too, would like to walk down the public streets without a group of black men following me shouting "redneck!", making allusions to my inferiority and stopping short of outright threats of violence. I am also sure that mentally-handicapped children would like the same thing. I wonder if you were a mentally-handicapped man who walked by the water cooler one day and heard a group of your co-workers joking about "retards", if that would merely "hurt your feelings". What do you think? Is that all it is, just that mentally-handicapped person getting all "boohoo, they hurt my feelings"? [WillBlake] It seems you are willing to deal with the soft, poorly defined goals of PC, rather than the real economic ones. [Arlo] Wow. Are you truly incapable of treating things based on context? Are you actually implying that if leveling incomes is bad, then so must be sensitivity training towards the mentally-handicapped? What "real" economic one do you mean? Your poorly construed, poorly thought out, and poorly contextualized one about movie star salaries? Are you using that as a general example of any and all "economic goals of PC"? Without context it is really laughable to even try to answer, but since that seems to be the only level you are capable of thinking about this, I'll try. I think "leveling of salaries", when overriding "merit" as it relates to the context of the position, is an example of "bad" PC* (for the record, I don't consider this personally a PC-thing, but an socio-political thing). In your vacant example, you fail to understand or present the context of how those salaries are determined. Actor salaries are, from what I understand, tied to their ability to draw box office revenue, to extend to advertising, etc. If THAT was the reason for the pay-discrepancy, then I see nothing wrong with it. Movie studios will naturally pay more to people who are able to bring more money in. When their ability to generate revenue goes down, so too does their income. If, however, you are presenting a scenario where the salary discrepancy can be shown to not correlate to revenue generation, where the top income earners continue to earn the most despite low revenue generation, and the highest revenue generating actors get paid the least, and if you can show then that those actors are also of a certain group (that the highest paid actors are not), then you have an issue. Are you able to follow this need for context? Now, as I said, let's assume this is the case. Let's assume that the top income earners are all black, despite their low revenue generations, and that the lowest paid actors are all white, despite their high revenue generations. Let's assume you were able to uncover this trend in all cases, all years, all parts of Hollywood. Now you have a case for unfair discrimination. Even so, your solution of "four movies per year" is an absurd, ineffectual solution. Nothing in that solution precludes the black actors from continuing to be paid more, as I am sure the execs would simply pay them more per film. A better solution might be to look for ways that would tie "income" to "revenue generation", and have the white actors guild work towards getting that in their contracts. Or at least this might be one part of a solution. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
