California is the first state to an hair discrimination

I will assume that you agree with the policy. Next we have an example where you are hiring a lathe operator with super long dreads and a super long beard. Should you face legal challenges for not hiring this individual?

 

so you are fine with this black girl harassing this white boy about wearing dreads... guess we know why we have laws like this not

imagine if a white boy harassed a black girl for having blond hair, bet you would not just call it "AN OPINION" - we need to be consistent, and this law needs to apply to cases like I linked to as well

I would not support what you claim happens to black girls either

though personally I have not seen either happen in real life locally, maybe in some areas it does - I would guess both are rare

all you had to do is agree.. what that black girl did to that white boy was also wrong, why is that so hard?

 

that would be an extreme test of the law, someone growing a Hitler mustache and trying to get a job and being denied

I would not want to hire them, would I have too?

 

Hmm... first time I've heard the Missile Crisis parsed as a victory for the Soviets.
Don't know what the Russians, Iranians, Chinese are thinking. No doubt they've got their war-game scenarios. A great shame, since we have no real conflicts of interests with those countries.

Well, that depends on how far you go back in history, whether it has been a problem to the West. They weren't driven out of Europe until 1492. Of course, if they had had an Enlightenment, and the beginnings of an industrial revolution, they might have been in the position of dragging Europe into the modern world instead of the other way around. They were certainly more advanced than we were when they were in Europe, but their intellectual growth didn't continue. However, they're coming slowly into the modern world, and will take their place in the leading ranks of humanity before the end of the century. This Islamist crap is the last gasp of the old order.

Not sure what you mean here. Could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by 'socialism' -- so many people use the word in different ways. (Have you read Francis Spufford's Red Plenty? A marvellous book -- I lived briefly in the Soviet Union during the 1980s, and he captures the characters and atmosphere perfectly. A great way to learn about The Socialist Calculation Problem.)

On poverty: Have a look at this chart:
That's the proportion of people living in extreme poverty. Everyone, Left Right and Center, ought to be cheered up by this. In one generation, world povetry has halved! We can't just project forward of course -- for one thing, Asian poverty-decline had a one-time-only effect when the Chinese got rid of socialism. There's only N Korea and Cuba left to go, and when socialism is thrown off there, their ascent from poverty won't affect the world statistics much.

It's all down to capitalism, which has been a great force for human progress, just as Karl Marx said. It's brutal, unfeeling, unfair ... in the Third World you have a very imperfect version of it, compared to the ideal ...but it delivers the goods. Material progress is the precondition for social progress. And we're making material progress. That's why I'm an optimist.

 

Sorry, but you have me confused with someone who is interested in what you think.

 

"An extreme test of the law" would be hiring an unsuitable person for any job simply for the fact that the person is a female.

I would not want to hire her, would I have to?

 

What it proves is that 49 states haven't yet thought of something so silly.

 

That's what I am talking about > > >

Yes, that is a large part of the problem ... a deliberate twisting of definitions (by a barrage of misusage) perpetrated particularly by the U.S. Ex:

"Suicide bomber = Coward"
"Not agreeing = Against"
"Criticism of the U.S. = Anti-American"
"Criticism in general = Hate"
"Stalinism = Communism"
"Socialism = Communism".

You are attributing Cuba's poverty to Socialism?! I see where you are going and I am not impressed. If you are claiming that Cuba's hardships are bourne out of Socialism then you are being hypocritical. Anyone who has read and experienced as much as you claim knows better than to say that.

 

You could say that but once PC-ness gets its hooks into the mix you're left with a tough decision to make.

I guess where primitive behaviour is fostered and encouraged "from the top down" then the only way to side-step the accusation is to make a law so it deceitfully gives the impression that you are struggling for justice.

 

Yes, words are weapons, and he who controls the vocabulary controls the mind. George Orwell wrote about this, although the people he was mainly aiming his own words against were the Communists. My favorite example of word-twisting is "People's Democratic Republic". (An almost-infallible rule of thumb: any country calling itself a 'democratic Republic' almost certainly is not.)

As for "criticism" being labelled 'Hate' or being 'anti-[the country]" -- please consider the case of a critic of the government in North Korea or Cuba, while living in those countries. You'll find that the supporters of the government will not try to answer your ideas with their own, but will label you an 'agent of the imperialists' etc.

It's the standard ploy of people who can't defend by argument what they support -- call your opponent a 'communist' , a 'white supremacist', etc. Get him fired from his job (much more devasting where the government is the only employer). And if that doesn't shut him up, smash his head with a club or, if you've got state power, put him in prison or in front of a firing squad.

Is Cuba's socialism the cause of its poverty?

Well, it's not the only cause. The first 'cause' was being settled by the Spanish, instead of the English. As we can see from all of Latin America, that doesn't give you a good start, in terms of an individualistic entreprenuerial culture, committment to the rule of law, etc. However, that can be overcome, and is being overcome in Latin America. And when I travelled in Cuba, one thing that impressed me was the entrepreneurial spirit of so many people I met -- wherever the government allows it, people start trying to improve their lives via the market: opening restaurants in their homes, nail-parlours in their living rooms, renting rooms in their homes to tourists (the casas familiares that everyone should stay in when you visit Cuba, which every American should do).

Socialism was/is not all bad. There was a formal, and to a large extent real, committment to bringing high culture to the masses: so the classics in literature and music were subsidized. There was little street crime, and none of the abject poverty you find in individualistic free societies -- poverty was generalized and spread around, so that everyone lived in a poor-quality flat instead of some people owning their own homes and others sleeping on the sidewalk. [By 'everyone' I don't mean, of course, the high Party officials: the Cuban generals live in pretty nice places in the Vedado district of Havana, formerly owned by wealthy Cubans. How this must torment them, being surrounded by the symbols of the bourgeoisie. Well, we all have to make sacrifices for the Revolution.]

Cuba in particular does a good job with its education system: in mathematics education, a field I know a little bit about, they come well ahead of other Latin Amreican countries -- mainly because parents don't dare to keep their children out of school ... there are no Cuban kids selling shoelaces at stoplights when they should be learning how to read.

The fallacy is to think you choose between one or the other. All of the good things that socialist societies did and do, can be replicated under capitalism, and far easier since we're not impoverished.

Cuba's problems also come from the economic embargo, which the idiot Trump ramped up instead of abolishing. (I suppose if he had abolished it, the Lefties would be screaming that he was bribed by an offer to build a Trump Tower somewhere on Cuba's magnificent beaches.) It's difficult to say just how much damage the embargo does, but ... if you talk candidly to Cubans, you will learn that government restrictions on private economic activity are ubiquitous and stifling. And by 'Cubans' I don't mean just someone who would like to open a bicycle repair shop and can't, but the economics faculty at the University of Havana. Even Fidel Castro, in one of his last interviews, said that 'the Cuban model doesn't even work for Cuba'.

The men who made the Cuban Revolution and successfully defended it against all odds are almost all gone now. A new generation has taken over, who don't have the deep emotional committments of the previous generation -- nor are they respected as the previous generation was. They're desperately looking for a way to turn Cuba into China -- to allow the flourishing of capitalism while the Party keeps control. We should aid them in the first part of their desires, and let the Cuban people find their own path to democracy.

Here's a suggestion: have a look at The Havana Times. It's an online newsletter, in Spanish and English, which has reports and essays from both anti- and pro- government Cubans.

On optimism about the future, which you do not have, apparently. May I suggest you read this book -- Bright Future -- which is by an economist and which gives us reasons to be optimistic. You should appreciate it, because the author is a Marxist who believes that automation will force us to have collective ownership. Whether or not that's true, he does a good job of spelling out why the world has been improving and why it will continue to do so. But do look at Red Plenty, which I linked to in a previous post -- that will show you the problems of trying to run an economy according to a central, rational plan.

Also .. although it's not so important ... I would be interested in why you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was a victory for the other side. The Cubans didn't thnk so at the time -- they were furious with the Russians for backing down and not starting WWIII. Khruschev lost his job over it -- he was seen to have departed from the very cautious Soviet approach to the world. It's true that Khruschev got something out of the deal .. the standing down of the Americans' nuclear missiles in Turkey and a pledge (ha!) not to invade Cuba again. Perhaps that's what you mean?

 

My long hair has never impeded my ability to perform.

 

You might even say that for some jobs, it's a requirement. Look at Samson.

 

Great observation, and a funny one too!

 

You make interesting posts.

I'm not so prolific in my writing, nor am I so well informed. Yet, I'd like to make a couple of observations.

Wouldn't the sanctions be lifted if stolen properties were returned?

And.

Don't we already have collective ownership of our corporations? Isn't that what stock is? Anyone, whi wants to, can be a part of the collective ownership of any public company.

 

WINNERS

A. The Soviet Union

1. they made the U.S. back down.

2. they made the U.S. remove its missiles from Turkey & Italy

3. they saved face


B. The U.S.

1. they succeeded in PR-ing the event as though it was a victory and that it was the USSR who backed down although it was (is) only the Americans who believe it

2. they managed to strangle Cuba ever since


C. Cuba

1. it maintained its sovereignty

2. it secured promises from the U.S. not to “invade”.


LOSERS

A. Cuba

1. economic devastation by American sanctions

2. being abandoned by the USSR which proved to Guevara that the Soviet Union was no better than the U.S. - the reason he left for Africa.

B. The U.S.

1. losing face to the Soviets

2. being forced to remove its missiles

THE BOTTOM LINE is that the USSR was the winner all around. The only successes the U.S. achieved were false. Cuba got screwed from beginning to end.

 

Thank you for the kind compliment. I suspect most people don't read my long screeds, and I cannot blame them. And I am aware that quantity is not quality.

The property nationalized by the Cuban government is the formal reason for the sanctions, yes.
Nationalization has occurred in many countries, and they usually offer compensation. And, according to something I read years ago, the Cubans did. The question is, what is the value of the nationalized property? Was it very valuable, in which case compensation would have to be high, or not so valuable, in which case, compensation would not be so great. The Cubans said, well, we will value it at the same rate the owners valued it as ... when they paid their taxes on it. Oops!
But this may not be true ... as I said, I read it long ago ... I think it was in C. Wright Mills' book about Cuba, Listen, Yankee! I'll try to find out more about it.

Note that there is a certain element of, shall we say, double standards when the American government insists that compensation be paid for property. Here's an interesting fact:

So those who remained loyal to their King and Country, were never compensated by us..

Of course there is a difference between property lost by Cubans who fled to the US, and American-owned property in Cuba. The American government has the duty to get the best deal it can for its citizens who face nationalization of their assets abroad. We ought to ask: has the embargo helped get this? Wouldn't it be better to sit down and try to negotiate a deal that will recognize the right of the Cubans to nationalize assets in their own country (as Mexico, for example, did with oil in 193, but will also get some sort of compensation for the owners? Opening up trade with Cuba -- the embargo costs Cuba, but it also hurts the US -- would allow, I'll bet, enough wealth to be generated to finance that.

And the horrible irony is, the Cuban leadership are aching for a way to open up their economy. Just travel there, and you can see for your own eyes that socialism does not work. People standing in queues to get their monthly food rations!!!! In this fertile island! If we would just drop the embargo, encourage tourism, give 10 000 scholarships to young Cubans to come study in the US -- the place would become a Caribbean Vietnam in ten years. (Capitalism flourishes in Vietnam.) Americans could retire there cheaply, American entrepreneurs could build hotels on those magnificent beaches ...

And another irony: most Cubans don't hate the US. In fact, when I was there, one of the things that struck me was the number of buses and taxi cabs ... flying little American flags!!! This does NOT mean that they want an American invasion ... it does mean that the place is ready for change.

Of course, you're right about collective ownership. "Peoples' Capitalism", as some call it. We ought to do everything we can to educate young people about how the stock market works, the importance of spreading risk, the power of compound interest/growth over time. The actual ability to "want to" own shares needs to be nurtured in our schools. It comes naturally to some people, but to large parts of the population it's a mystery -- something they wouldn't know how to do if they wanted.

Thomas Picketty wrote a very influential book a few years ago about how the balance of wealth has been shifting towards capital and away from labor. This is just a consequence of the advance of technology, as we substitute our intelligence, as embodied in machines, for direct labor. The answer is not to try to stop this trend, but to make ownership of capital widespread. How to do this is another discussion.

 

Okay, that's a view. In these sorts of things, all sides lie a great deal. The Americans privately claim that the Jupiter missiles they removed from Turkey were outdated anyway, but that may just be face-saving.

The Cuban experience in Africa is interesting ... our 'anti-racist' snowflakes would be horrified to hear what some of the Cuban revolutionaries thought about their African counterparts. And as for Che Guevara ... what a tragedy.

 

LOLOL! white people are going around cutting off the hair of black people??? LOLOL. You think white people don't have better things to do than that?
First of all, I would be afraid to touch their hair due to all the straightener and crap they put on it. It must make their hair feel nasty.
Blacks complained about another racist plot to keep them down, and that was that people who wear dread locks, and weaves and such don't seem to be getting hired.
Well, I wouldn't care if they had snakes in their hair. As long as they were the best qualified for the job they get the job. It couldn't be that those four years of courses like African studies, white privilege studies, humanities and such didn't prepare them for the real world.
It would be hard to take someone seriously though if they were wearing their hair like this? I wouldn't hire him. I don't care. I wouldn't.

Just like it would be hard to take seriously a tatooed person with pink and purple hair.
Businesses should be able to decide who they will hire and who they will not.

 

Really? What in the hell does this thread have to do with Nazis?

 

The Rastas appropriated the idea from ancient Judaism. In any case, dreads have been noted in a wide variety of cultures all over the world at different times, including early Christian cultures & parts of Europe. Nobody 'owns' them. Pure stupidity.

 

Not just what they thought, but what they did. There are credible allegations of chemical weapon use by Cuban troops and there is little doubt theys participated in crimes against humanity & actively assisted others who did. They helped to kill & oppress Africans in the name of socialist solidarity.

 

I don't know much of anything about how the Cubans behaved in Angola -- from what I know of the various indigenous forces who fought each other, I would have thought that the Cubans were by far the most civilized. Not that that meant having to achieve very high standards.

I wonder how Cubans feel about having spilled their blood in this corrupt now-capitalist country ... for nothing. The Russians were smarter ... they wasted their money there, but let the Cubans take the bullets.

 

What happens if there is a mass infestation of hair lice? Can school boys heads be shaved the way they were in the past? The kids called it a 'baldy' at that time, and it was common in the summer. As for the girls, they suffered.

 

Hair discrimination law passed.

Well, I guess that's all of California's problems solved then.

 

That's what I have always thought. And as with most face-saving crapola, it almost never quells inquisitive eyes and ears.

* After confronting them with the heretofore 'hidden' facts about the missiles in Turkey they claim, yes ... the "outdated anyway" excuse.
* And when you point out that those "outdated" missiles were not replaced with up-to-date ones ... and why might that be if they were not forced to eat crow ..... they then need to come up with another excuse such as longer-distance range missiles, etc.
* And as you say "privately" claim ... makes one ask why it was so private if it was such a success and on the up-and-up.

I never cared very much for Guevara but my opinion has softened over the years.