Conservative media figures falsely suggest that Reich proposed excluding white males from stimulus package
SUMMARY: Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity have falsely asserted or suggested that Robert Reich, speaking at a congressional forum, proposed that jobs created by the economic stimulus package should exclude white males. In fact, Reich has repeatedly stated that he favors a stimulus plan that "includ[es] women and minorities, and the long-term unemployed" in addition to skilled professionals and white male construction workers, not one that is solely limited to them.
On January 22 and January 23, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity falsely asserted or suggested that former Labor Secretary and Obama economic adviser Robert Reich, speaking at a congressional forum, proposed that jobs created by the economic stimulus package should exclude white males. In fact, while addressing concerns from women's advocacy groups and others about the composition of the proposed stimulus, Reich said then and has repeatedly stated that he favors a stimulus plan that "includ[es] women and minorities, and the long-term unemployed" in addition to skilled professionals and white male construction workers, not one that is limited to women and minorities.
During the January 22 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin claimed that Reich proposed that "the stimulus funds should not go to white male contractors." During the January 22 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Reich "doesn't want it to go to white construction workers," while on his January 23 show, he stated: "And by the way, we're dedicating today's program to white construction workers -- the white construction workers that we learned yesterday Robert B. Reich said he doesn't want to receive any of the bailout money to hire infrastructure workers." And on the January 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity claimed that Reich "expressed concern that the current [stimulus] package is, well, too inclusive." After airing a clip of Reich's testimony, Hannity stated: "Now here I thought the package was intended for everybody. So aren't pink slips color blind?"
During his January 9 appearance (of which Limbaugh and Hannity aired portions) before the House Democratic Caucus Steering and Policy Committee Forum on the economic recovery plan, Reich did not suggest excluding white males from employment programs as part of the stimulus package. Rather, he emphasized including minorities, women, and the chronically unemployed. During the hearing, Reich stated that the jobs created should not "simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers." Reich continued: "I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."
Similarly, during a January 7 hearing on the economic recovery plan in front of the same committee, Reich proposed "[m]ak[ing] sure the poor and long-term unemployed get a portion of those jobs. To lower-income Americans -- including women and minorities, and the long-term unemployed -- are especially hard hit by this recession." Reich also addressed the issue in a January 8 blog post, in which he wrote:
[I]f there aren't enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out."
From the January 22 broadcast of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
MALKIN: But this slogan, "My President is Black," is very popular among the young generation. You heard it on college campuses the day after the election. It's sold on T-shirts. And it's not just Jay-Z, it's not just Young Jeezy. Nas also did a song very much like it, called "Black President," and P. Diddy was up on stage during one of the inaugural balls, using this same slogan. And, you know -- and the fact that we have this kind of racial identity politics still infusing pop culture, I think points to the fact that the Obama administration itself has not distanced itself from these kind of policies.
And just today -- I think this is very related, Megyn -- another video came out of Robert Reich, the economic adviser formerly from the Clinton administration and now from [President] Obama, talking about how the stimulus funds should not go to white male contractors. It's the same kind of mentality of bean counting, and, you know, it's the same old, same old. It's the same old Democrat mentality of treating people based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character or the content of their resumes. You know, not exactly the kind of legacy we thought Martin Luther King was supposed to leave.
MEGYN KELLY (anchor): Well, I know, Michelle, that, you know, when you comment on these things, and when others comment on these things, some people come out and call you racist for even commenting on it, which seems a little boneheaded to have the exact wrong message as a result of these. But we appreciate you blogging about it -- we saw the tape, we were rather surprised by it, and we hope that we don't see more of it. Michelle Malkin, always a pleasure talking to you. Thanks for being here.
MALKIN: Thanks.
From the January 22 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Let me play -- I promised wall-to-wall sound bites. So let me go to one we haven't played. This is labor secretary -- former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich during a House Democrat [sic] Steering and Policy Committee meeting back on January 7. This, I said on Hannity's show last night -- second part of the interview tonight: 9 o'clock Eastern, Fox News Channel. The racism in this country, the looking at people as members of groups and assigning them as such exists solely on the left. Listen to this.
REICH [audio clip]: I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And, therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
LIMBAUGH: Talking about the money we're going to spend on the infrastructure plan. Roads, bridges, all that stuff. But he doesn't want it to go to white construction workers; he wants it to go to inexperienced minorities and single women. He's got nothing against white construction workers but, but, but, but the money needs to go to others. These people are crazy. They're just -- if I heard myself talk like this I would be so embarrassed.
From the January 23 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: And by the way, we're dedicating today's program to white construction workers -- the white construction workers that we learned yesterday Robert B. Reich said he doesn't want to receive any of the bailout money to hire infrastructure workers.
ANNOUNCER: Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida via New York City, it's open-line Friday.
LIMBAUGH: Now, he said he has got nothing against white construction workers, but instead he wants to hire minorities and stuff. It's strange he didn't talk about qualifications to do infrastructure work.
From the January 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: In other Obama administration news, former secretary of labor and Obama adviser Robert Reich -- he chimed in with his input on the stimulus package. And Mr. Reich expressed concern that the current package is, well, too inclusive.
REICH [video clip]: I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. ... I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
HANNITY: Now here I thought the package was intended for everybody. So aren't pink slips color blind? Now here's hoping Mr. Reich does not have the president's ear on this one.
From Reich's January 9 testimony (retrieved from the Nexis database):
Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible.
I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
From Reich's January 7 testimony (from Nexis):
Make sure the poor and long-term unemployed get a portion of those jobs. To lower-income Americans -- including women and minorities, and the long-term unemployed -- are especially hard hit by this recession. It is important that these people have a fair chance to get the new jobs that will result from federal action. This is also good for the economy. These groups are most likely to spend any extra income they receive. And their spending is likely to promote other jobs on the Main Streets of the lower- income communities, in which they live.
1. Require contractors to set aside 20 percent of jobs for such groups. All contracts entered into with stimulus Ends -- either by federal, state, or local governments -- should require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
2. Create a "Green Jobs Corps." Low-income and low-skilled workers should be put directly to work providing homes and businesses with more efficient land more renewable heating, lighting, cooling, and refrigeration systems; installing solar panels and efficient photovoltaic cells; rehabilitating and renovating older properties, and improving, recycling systems. Green Jobs Corps teams could be trained to evaluate and advise homeowners and businesses on these and other means of conserving energy.
3. Provide job training linked to these and when, jobs generated by the stimulus. These "green" jobs, as well as many others generated by the stimulus -- installing new pipes for water and sewage systems, mixing and pouring cement, laying asphalt, installing and repairing basic equipment -- can be clone by people who receive relatively short-tern training for then. At least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training, most efficiently through the Workforce Investment Act. In addition, advantage should be taken of building trades apprenticeships, which must be fully available to women and minorities.
4. Provide income assistance during training. One of the biggest barriers for vulnerable populations who want such training is their need for income: while being trained. Income maintenance should be assured for the duration of training, up to six months.
Michelle Malkin, a female of Asian descent, sure likes going to bat for white men. I guess you can't blame her, she really knows how to tap a market.
Michelle Malkin is truly a phony.
I think the American people are smarter than we give them credit for. They elected Obama they must be growing up.
Except for the haters, of course.
Racist are still there correct but we have come along way.
There are many people in the Obamamania movement that concern me, though.
Since there is no such thing, your imaginary concerns should worry no one else.
This is truly laughable... The American people can't be dumb enough to fall for this conservative crap.
Ha...! Of course, there are still pleanty of people dumb enough to fall for this crapola. Haven't you ever read the forum at hannity.com?
pleanty = plenty
or the Hannity and Rush ratings?
Well, 58 million, 421 thousand and 377 voters suggest a lot of them can fall for that stuff...
That "Soviet Style Censorship" right? ;)
Though if the new FCC cracks down on media misinformation, what becomes of places like Media Matters?
if the rightwing expects liberals to stop going pc crazy everytime they make some comment like this, then Malkin and the rest don't need to overreact to what Reich is saying here either.
B,
This has nothing to do wiith PC. This has to do with facts.
You know, whether something is true, or not. Malkin is not "overreacting." She's lying through her teeth. That's a big difference.
Malkin is lying about what Reich said but I think jamesB makes a good point.
I had to read it a couple of times, but I think I agree with you. If the right wing wants the left to stop overreacting to what they say, they have to stop overreacting to what the left says. It was confusing the way james wrote it, but yeah, I get it and would have to agree that is a good point.
I've suggested the following to my congressman. That a law be passed that applies accross the board to ALL media outlets (radio, TV, etc.) that if a media company is found to consistantly LIE, distort the truth or otherwise misrepresent facts, that media must provide to its' listeners/viewers a Public Service Announcement stating "THIS IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY".
The founders were right to establish the freedom of speech and I have fought for that right. But we can not continue to allow these companies to pollute our public discourse, confuse the national consciousness, and use OUR airwaves to do it. This is becoming no less offensive than public pornography. I don't need to recount the litany of misinformation that the right wing authoritarians have used to pollute our thinking on a particualr subject but the one that stands out for me was the promulgation that New Orleans had 3,000 buses at its' disposal to evacuate residents. A quick search of this site reveals that to be a complete and utter fabrication. But ask ten people if that is true and I'll guranteee you 9 out of 10 would say YES!
This is not what our Founders had in mind when they enshrined freedom of speech into the constitution. The Nation was our first national magazine. It is credited with having provided a sense of national consciousness. I think it is time we gave some thought to what to do when this power is used for ill.
Yeah, I geuss "correctness" can get annoying if you make your living by lying.
Wow. Is anyone else kind of struck down by the thought that Fox would actually pay Michelle "Too crazy even for O'Reilly, Rachel Ray is a terrorist sympathizer" Malkin to give her opinion about anything? Then again they did hire Beck despite his proven inability to get ratings and they think their audience is going to buy his impartial centrist routine.
I am not struck down by anything FOX does
I am not struck down by anything... - casey
<i'm off to get a new voodoo doll cause clearly the current one is defective>
I think it's more likely that Michelle "Stinky Tofu Cheese" Malkin is using her husband's money to buy time on Faux Gnus.
Hell, CNN used to pay Glenn Beck to bleat GOP talking points like a badly-trained parrot for an hour a night. So no, Fox paying Malkin to spout crap out of her cake hole doesn't surprise me one bit.
Even if you're a blind partisan and think that your opponent might think such things, you know for sure they would never say it.
This colossal idiocy is what conservatism is. This isn't some sort of dumbed-down conservatism for the rubes. This is conservatism's actual contribution to public debate.
From Reich's January 9 testimony (retrieved from the Nexis database):
"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."
Mr. Reich was discussing infrastructure spending. I want the buildings our children go to school in and the roads and bridges we all travel to be built by the most qualified and competent people available, and I want it done by the companies who can meet or exceed the quality requirements at the lowest possible cost.
If the goal is simply to get money into the hands of "...others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals." then let's not force them into jobs they aren't qualified for nor interested in.
From Reich's January 7 testimony (from Nexis):
"Low-income and low-skilled workers should be put directly to work providing homes and businesses with more efficient land more renewable heating, lighting, cooling, and refrigeration systems; installing solar panels and efficient photovoltaic cells; rehabilitating and renovating older properties, and improving, recycling systems."
If I want any of the above jobs done I will hire a professional, not a "low-skilled worker". I don't care about race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or previous income level. I want good quality at a good price. When you want "heating, lighting, cooling, and refrigeration systems" do you call contractors who specialize in these items or an out-of-work receptionist?
I can only imagine what your reaction would be if a republican made the same comment about any other race. My guess is that most of you would be up in arms over this and calling for the republican's resignation. The way Reich made his staetment is what is alraming.Racism is ugly no matter who is being discriminated against.
Ok, I've watched the youtube videos of Reich and he did NOT state that white males should be excluded. He was very clear in his message. He was saying that we should take care that the infrastructure projects should not JUST go to white males. I challenge you to produce exact words from him that say anything different.
You ought to see what Rangel said in response.
Here's an idea. Let's hire the BEST people for the jobs. No set-asides, no percentage of jobs to certain 'aggrieved' ethnic groups. What is wrong with that?
Robert Reich needs to stay in the classroom. His ideas do not work in the REAL world
The real world is in tatters, and you signed off on it.
Conservatism is a thrice-proven failure.
Yes, it is in tatters thanks to people like Reich who think they can manipulate people into behaving a certain way by enacting inane policy.
Conservatism a failure?
New Deal, War on Poverty, Vietnam War, Mortgage Bubble...need I go on about LIBERAL failure?
Sorry to bother you. I didn't realize you don't even know who's been making policy the past 8 years. (And no it wasn't Harry Reid the quivering jellyfish.)
The New Deal was a success. The war on poverty has failed, but the reason is debatable. The Vietnam War was a bipartisan failure, but more of the blame falls on the conservative side. The mortgage bubble was a failure of responsible regulation and oversight, which puts it in the conservative column.
Yup, conservatism is a failure.
The Vietnam War more a conservative failure? Hillarious. A war entered into by a democrat president, continued by his democrat sucessor and ended too early by a cowardly democratic congress which led to a genocide.....darn those cons! Let's not forget what created the original problem in the mortgage industry, subprime lending to undeserving recipients. Pretty much the same concept as giving jobs to people who do not deserve them (aka "unskilled individuals"). PLease don't forget who took the vast majority of lobbying money from Fannie/Freddie/countrywide, etc., Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barrack Obama and the other Dems. Liberalism failed in these circumstances much the same way the Bush bailout (which is a liberal NOT conservative policy) has failed to solve the problem the mortgage bubble created. Have no fear though we'll just keep printing money the way the Bush admin did ("Change we can believe in?") and increase our national debt and eventually drive up inflation...brilliant.
The Vietnam War was started by a Democratic president but that doesn't mean it was a liberal principle. Also, the war was ended by a Republican president, Nixon. The violence that took place afterwards was unfortunate but it really wasn't that different then when the Americans were there. But hey, Vietnam is a pretty stable country, friendly to the US. Although not a friend to the US, Iraq was pretty stable before we invaded, and look it now! Anyone can visit safely..........with half the army guarding them like John McCain did.
By the way, President Obama received most Fannie/Freddie from Fannie/Freddie employees. But if you include contributions of directors, officers and lobbyist, many of them donated far more to McCain then Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/09/10/us/politics/2008_FANNIE_GRAPHIC.html
Not to mention that these companies had quite a few ties to Republicans. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
US "Advisors" were in Vietnam long before any Democrat was President. Unless you mean the war was started by French Democrats, you don't know what you are talking about.
Don't forget the $10 million Harry S. Truman (D) gave the French in aid in 1950 to fight the Viet Mihn...
There may have been Democrats involved in our involvement in Vietnam, but it had nothing to do with liberalism. tman418 is correct, the two are not synonomous. And it was not ended too early; it came to an end much too late. The Vietnam fiasco lay right in the conservative lap.
It's a right-wing myth that the cause of subprime lending was forced lending to unqualified borrowers. That was almost entirely financial institutions who saw opportunities to make quick and easy money by using rapidly climbing house prices to market risky loans. They then further inflated the bubble by bundling those loans and selling them to other companies who also saw opportunities for quick, easy money. None of that had anything to do with liberal policies. In fact, many of those actions were taken in direct opposition to liberal policies of reasonable regulation and oversight.
FM/FM was a very small part of the subprime crisis and their supporters sat on both sides of the aisle. You will find no liberal principles or policies that were involved in that part of the collapse.
Bilge-MN posted:
There may have been Democrats involved in our involvement in Vietnam, but it had nothing to do with liberalism... And it was not ended too early; it came to an end much too late. The Vietnam fiasco lay right in the conservative lap.
The Vietnam fiasco lay right in the conservative lap? That is laughable on it's face if it was't such a serious charge. I notice you don't quantify this statement. You can't.
If memory serves me correct, it was a democrat congress that called the shots then. When the Paris peace accords were signed the democrat led congress tucked tail and rengeged from our commitments to the South Vietnamese people. It hampered our ability to to enforce the peace with legislation prohibiting use of military force, then it hampered S. Vietnams's ability to defend itself by reducing military aid. By 1975 Soviet tanks were rolling through Saigon, Kmer Rouge guerillas were storming Phnom Penh and Lao forces sacked Laos.
Leftist and fellow travelers cheered loudly but the bloodbath was just beginning. Yes it was the american left that was complicit in the Vietnam fiasco, not the american right as you weakly assert.
Waiting patiently for your responce...
Memory does not serve you correctly. First of all, while Congress can pass legislation for war during war time, the President is the one who decides overall war strategy, when we start, and when we end. Congress does not "call the shots". The Paris Peace Accords were negotiated by Henry Kissinger and others. It had nothing to do with Congress.
Would like to name this bill that Congress passed itself, as well as the bill number, which prohibited US Forces from doing anything in Vietnam and required them to evacuate (which would be a clone of the non-Congress Paris Peace Accords)? Again, Congress doesn't "call the shots". While they could pass legislation for a withdrawal timetable, the president is the one who will ultimately decide when we will get out.
Ah but memory does serve me correctly. Congress votes on resolutions to FUND and Go to war. Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?
Kissinger during the Paris accords, negotiated two things. The first was of a military nature. A cease-fire, followed by AMERICAN (NOT NVA) troops. There was a creation of two bodies, the Joint Military Commisssion and the International Commission on Control and Supervision, to verify compliance.
The second was of a political nature. The main gist was so S Vietnam could have free elections and it set up a couple of councils, National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord. The US was to assist with financial aid for postwar reconstruction.
It was doomed to fail. Remember how N Vietnam didn't have to withdrawl troops? That was a little sticking point. Remember how you said that the Democrat Congress didn't call the shots? The House Democratic Caucus voted 154-75 on 2 Jan 73 to cut off all funds for military operations in Indochina...not just Vietnam. The Senate followed suit two days later 36-12. This tied Nixon's hands and they could not negotiate for better terms with Hanoi. Is it clear now?
I can't find the exact bill, but this will point you in the right direction:
Congressional restrictions on funding war
Remember the left holds this up as a shining moment for the anti-war brigades and fellow travelers. One more thing...don't confuse Iraq/Afghan policy with Vietnam. It is not the same.
The fiasco to which I'm referring is our entire involvement in that war. It was based on the idiotic a communist is a communist is a communist paranoia that was the province of the right. The NV communists were their own version and they were not initially allied with any communist superpower. If we hadn't involved ourselves in that conflict they would have continued to maintain their paranoid separation from any communist superpowers. As our involvement grew they found it necessary to seek outside help. That's what turned it into a superpower standoff.
It would have been an isolated regional conflict of the sort the US had made a habit of staying out of for most of our history. We had no vital national interests at stake. Our involvement was because of right wing paranoia as were our step-by-step escalations. It was a quagmire that we were nowhere close to "winning." Actually conquering the enemy there would have required an increase in forces and resources that would have very seriously weakened our country. Cutting our losses was the best thing that could be done for the country's long term prospects.
Fair enough Bill...you were against the war. If protecting our country against foreign enemies is paranoia then guilty as charged. I guess turning a blind eye to fellow travelers and vapid responces to threats during the Cold War is squarely in the corner of the left.
Let's clear a couple of things up though. Our involvement was NOT because of RIGHT WING escalations. Truman sent aid to the French. Ike sent advisors. Kennedy sent 16,000 COMBAT troops, the first major escalation in the war. In the next four years Johnson sent 550,000 troops. By 1968 we were losing 300 troops a week. Now let's take a look at the math shall we. Three dems : 1 Republican...tell me how the RIGHT was escalating this war?
I see where you were able to mix "quagmire" in there also. Keep those tired left wing talking points coming...just back them up with facts next time.
Vietnam posed no actual threat to the US. If we had completely ignored the region we would not have suffered as a result. There were no dominoes set to fall.
You keep confusing Democrat with liberal. They are not synonymous. Those escalations came from Democratic presidents but they did NOT reflect liberal philosophy. Do you understand yet?
The quagmire wasn't a talking point. It was a sad, bloody reality.
T-Bone,
Your ignorance amuses me. Despite the fact that it does no good to rehash Vietnam, it is often necessary to inform idiots like yourself when you act as a parrot of folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly. The Vietnam War lies in the hands of our government. It isn't the fault of a particular party. It is the fault of a type of thinking which pervaded our government and continues in some circles to this day. This draconian fear of Communism and our desire to make others like us is the real culprit.
The reality here is that you and these other misinformed idiots still believe that we somehow could have won the Vietnam War. I guess we could have if our nation would have suported a military action on the scale of WWII. We could have committed millions of troops and occupied the North. This would have essentially ended the fighting in the South but of course we would then have encountered a much more vast guerilla war in the North. Another consequence of such an action would be that we would still be there taking casualities, not to mention such actions could have certainly escalated to full scale war with the Soviet Union. Of course that is only one option. The second would have been to simply employ nuclear weaponry on the North. Undoubtedly this would have brought them to their knees and we could have had the opportunity of rebuilding the entire country (after it was safe enough to enter without radiatio suites).
You don't seem to understand anything about that war. You have obviously done some selected reading and have chosen to listen to hard line right wing chicken hawks who have convinced you that our leaving caued the deaths of millions at the hands of the North and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. While it is true that we basically neutralized the VietCong in the South following Tet, it remains a historical fact that the NVA were a hardened and massive force which we would have fought and fought and fought until we either left or engaged in the two options I gave you above. We could not have defeated them without widening the war, as it was nearly impossible to cut off their supply lines through Laos and Cambodia. They would have kept coming and we would have kept killing them and keeping them from overunning the South, at a cost of course. Congress and Nixon did the right thing. Our nation was weary of sending our young men into that meat grinder to protect a majority peasant population who could care less who was ruling the country. The Khmer Rouge could have still killed those people even if our forces were in Vietnam unless of course we widened the war, which seems to be a common ideology of people like you.......wars and escalating wars.
It does no good to rehash Vietnam...interesting...those who don't know their history are destined to repeat it...sound familiar achris?
Name calling and slandering with the ol' Limbaugh/Hannity tag gets you big points on this site I'm sure, but it almost always means you've lost the debate.
I have to say your dissertation is pretty good although long winded and leaning to the opinion side of the fence. Care to show us some hard numbers to back up your projections?
You can carry the water for the left any way you choose, but the FACT remains that when we reneged our promise to the SV and pulled out, Cambodia and Laos fell like a house of cards.
You also don't seem to have your facts straight on what was happenenig on the ground. When we left in '73 OUR position militarily was one of stregth. There was a basic stalemate on the battlefield and the SV Army had stregth in numbers. The NVA offensive in '72 had weakend them though and they could not exploit their gains. The NVA lost 190,000 troops in it's '72 offensive, they were depleted, not the awsome fighting machine the left likes to trot out.
South Vietnam controlled 80% of the country. All the communications and commerce. When the pressure was on the NVA could have been beaten. Unfortunately the US was fighting a two front war. The one on the battlefielf and the one at home.
BTW, I have done some "selected" [sic} reading on this subject. I sugest you do the same as you're about as far off base on this as you can be. You do carry the talking points nicely though!
Here are some of my books to get you started:
Murder of a Gentle Land; Anthony Paul, Planning a Tragedy; Larry Berman, Big Story: How the American Press and Television Rported and Interpreted the Crisis of TET; Peter Braestup, Many Reasons Why; Anthony Moncrieff, From Colonialism to Communism; Hoang Van Chi, Vietnam from Cease-fire to Capitulation; Col. Willieam E. LeGro, Why We WEre in Vietnam; Norman Podhoretz, Peace is Not At Hand; Sir Robert Thompson, Final Collapse; Gen. Cao Van Vien
Study hard!
Well, I could read those books you have mentioned, but I tend to consider myself a history buff when it comes to Vietnam. I feel compelled to try to understand a war in which I served two tours and got a free ride home during Tet thanks to a Chicom.
Laos and Cambodia fell because it was going to happen anyway. As I said before, unless we werre prepared to significantly widen the war it was a foregone conclusion. Now we can debate the merits of widening the war, but I kind of figure that 50,000 + dead Americans with the prospect of many more pretty much solves such a question.
Your conclusion that in 73' we were in a position of strength is a common misperception. You have conviently left out the fact that although the South Vietnamese armed forces had significant numbers you seem to forget that they were mainly conscripts at that time and their battle effectiveness is widely documented to be untrustworthy at best. An effective Army, given the massive funding and equipment given to them by us would have been able to easily produce at least a stalemate for a long perios of time. I am confused here sir. You tout the ARVN and then blame their demise on our unwillingness to bomb the hell of the North because they were unable to drive3 of the PAVN, but alas, NVA mechanized divisions simply rolled over them at will. Desertion and cowardice were commonplace, Heck, I myself seen plenty of scared ARVN kids who were forcibly drafted run like hell when the shooting started and that was in 66' and 68!!!! Your indication that the NVA losses in 72 depleted and made their forces worthless lacks any factual perspective. The reality is that the NVA had one particular strength.......a cause. Historical hindsight tells us that the NVA were one of the most ardent and resourceful forces to ever man the battlefield. The Easter offensive you speak of was certainly not an indication of the willingness nor the effectiveness of ARVN. It took our B-52' about 18,000 sorties not including the massive naval air support to neutralize the offensive. Trust me, a loss of 190,000 to PAVN was likely a setback but if you think or have been led to believe that the North couldn't muster replacements superior to the ARVN than you have been sadly misled in your reading. You assert that the ARVN controlled 80% of the South which is true considering that throughout the war most of that 80% never mattered strategically. The NVA would not have been beaten son, unless we massed a WWII like force and moved North. One would think that in all your reading you would have understood that the tons and tons of bombs dropped on supply routes were ineffective. The NVA kept coming and coming. They were willing to face the massive casualties and we weren't and I am damn glad for it. What positive result would have come from us taking another 50 to 100 thousand casualties to occupy the NOrth for an indefinite time and face certain and extensive guerilla actions? There is one thing all of your selective reading will never get across to you. The reality on the ground (which you speak of) was that you can't fight offensively from defensive positions. ARVN and American officers more often than not embellished not only body counts but situational assessments. It was the nature of the beast. No matter how rosy these men you read from try to paint it, it was a useless and needless war.
But don't take it from me, I was only there. You gon on thinking that we could have strolled right into Hanoi without any long term insurgency and that China would not have just decided to come on over just like they did in Korea.
Read Stanley Karnow's Vietnam:A History. In this book Karnow reveals the reality of the entire depressing scenario. He writes "the Communists, imbued with an almost fanatical sense of dedication to a reuinfied Vietnam under their control, saw the war agains the United States and its South Vietnamese ally as a continuation of two thousand years of resistance to Chinese and later French rule. They were prepared to accept almost limitless casualties to achieve their goal." Ho Chi Mihn said to the French "You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds; you will lose and I will win."
So in the end, you can deny that you don't parrot the talking points I hear myself come right from the mouths of people like Hannity and O'Reilly anytime Vietnam is discussed. If you don't it is a scary coincidence that the three of you think exactly alike. But, what burns me up even more is the fact that both of those men never had the courage to serve their country. I ain't saying your like that, but one thing is for sure. Many of you who continually speak of beign able to win Vietnam speak in "only if" scenarios. But how would you really know if that war should been won when you speak from such a subjective viewpoint?
The fact remains that Reich did not, as sigtek and so many right-wingers claim, speak in favor of excluding white males from stimulus contracts. He didn't even speak of racial quotas. All he spoke in favor of was ensuring that lower economic groups and women are not excluded from the process. He spoke in favor of making efforts to ensure that those who are suffering most from this economic downturn get some relief. What's wrong with that?
Reich didn't speak of racial quotas?
"Require contractors to set aside 20 percent of jobs for such groups." - Reich
Sounds pretty much like racial quotas to me.
Then your reading comprehension skills are pretty poor.
Make sure the poor and long-term unemployed get a portion of those jobs. To lower-income Americans -- including women and minorities, and the long-term unemployed -- are especially hard hit by this recession.
Those are the "such groups" to which he referred. The poor and long-term unemployed. As an aside he mentioned that those would include women and minorities, but he made no mention of gender or racial quotas. It's extremely clear to anyone with the ability to read and comprehend.
You're obviously wrong. Will you admit it?
Jan. 7---- 20 percent to be set aside for such groups------- How much more clear can it get? You are obviously wrong and I know we won't get an admission from you. You'll just go to another thread like you never posted the above post.
That's what I'm wondering, how much more clear could Reich have been? He says exactly what comprises "such groups" and it's the poor and long-termed unemployed. No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, that does not specify racial or gender quotas. It's right there in his words and they DON'T say anything about racial quotas.
In addition, his words say NOTHING about excluding white males, which was the original claim being made. You won't find anything in his words urging such exclusion, especially when he made statements to show to indicate that that was specifically NOT what he intended to say.
I'm correct and if you can read Reich's words you can see that I am. He says nothing about excluding white males and says nothing about racial or gender quotas. Will you admit that fact? Or will you maybe back off another step and claim that he was implying that even if he didn't specifically say that?
Bill, PLEASE watch that clip again
Bill, I'll try to explain this is ways even you can understand. By "setting aside" 20% of the jobs off the top you are artificially creating a ceiling for the jobs available. America is a meritocracy if 90% of the most qualified individuals for these jobs are white males you will be using racial/sexist quotas to exclude 10% of white males. Simply put these jobs should be available for those who deserve them based on their ability not to foster good feelings from guilt stricken liberals. If Reich's goals are carried out it will inevitably lead to higher cost to the taxpayers to train any "unskilled" individuals or substandard projects and longer construction times.
Actually both of you are wrong.
"I'd suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people withincomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. And at least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training. In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades apprenticeships -- wich must be fully available to women and minorities."
So, the women and minorities comment was just about training, rather than setting aside the jobs.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/stimulus-how-to-create-jobs-without.html
You have no idea what Reich was saying. He made the point that we had a great deal of flexibility in what jobs were created. We could make a point of creating jobs that would create employment for the poor and long-term unemployed that would provide them relief while still providing for our national needs. As a simple aside he commented that those jobs would provide assistance to women and minorities.
He said NOTHING about racial or gender quotas. THAT IS A LIE. He said NOTHING about giving skilled jobs to unskilled workers. THAT IS A LIE.
Try reading what Reich's actual words say. Quit applying meanings to them that are only the product of your paranoid imagination. If you try really, really hard I'm sure you can do it.
I really respect Bob Reich but were you and I watching the same hearing? I was floored to hear it put that way. Disappointed in NJ
He singled out a segment of society based on the color of their skin and gender, then realized what an ignorant remark it was and then tried to backtrack. I heard the speech and I challenge you to deny just that. You're one of the apologists I expected to chime in.
He didn't say anything about excluding white males. He went out of his way to clarify that point. That's not backtracking because he didn't say anything from which to backtrack. His only fault was that he possibly underestimated how dishonest the right was willing to be with his words. As it turns out, they were willing to be extremely dishonest.
It's not being an apologist to point out that others are lying about his words. What it says about the liars is another matter.
Then what's your explanation for the singling out of white males? When someone goes to the extent of mentioning a particular group of people based on the color of their skin, there must be a logical explanation. His whole speech could have gone without that remark and we wouldn't be talking about it(the speech) today. So what gives? Why was it necassary to mention white males in the way he did?
Why mention white males? Because he underestimated how dishonest the right was willing to be with his words. All he was that there would be more benefit to be gained making sure that some of those contracts went to the poor and unemployed, groups that are suffering. There would certainly be a good number of white males in those groups and he said nothing about excluding them. He did not say that 20% should go to women and minorities, he just said that they would be represented in the poor and unemployed.
He also did NOT say that white males should be excluded, which is what he's being charged with saying by those who are ignorant or liars.
Or perhaps you believe that the contracts should all go to white males? That's the only reason for disagreeing with Reich, because that's the only thing he said shouldn't happen.
You're dancing around the obvious, Bill. He mentioned white males because white males are the bane of liberalism. They are the group feminists and liberal groups have blamed all of society's ills on. Sorry I had to explain it to you. You just could not find it within your shallow liberal self to admit the truth. I have no doubt Mr. Reichhhhhhhhh experienced years of anguish because of his envy of the media image of tall, successful white males. His painful experiences of life come gushing out in his blame oriented rhetoric. He truly despises white males as all of liberal society does. We've had a history of society dominated by white males in politics and government and since the dawn of the Phil Donohue era, this trend has been admonished and decried as evil. There have been endless attacks on white male society for decades now, particularly from feminists. All you had to do is just admit that this is the reason for Mr. Reichhhhhhhhhh's statement and we coulda been done with it, but nooooooooo. Ya made me do it.
You're dancing around the obvious, Bill. He mentioned white males because white males are the bane of liberalism. They are the group feminists and liberal groups have blamed all of society's ills on. - sigtek
I see what the problem is. You're not arguing from reality, you're coming from a paranoid delusional place where the bizarre parody of liberalism that you've been taught about exists in your head. It doesn't matter what Reich's actual words were to you, you're going to find a meaning in them that fits your sick preconceptions about what you think he meant.
At least you've made a small step of progress. You're not trying to argue anymore that Reich actually said anything about excluding white males. It's not much but it's something. Maybe someday you can come to accept that his words simply meant what he stated.
"Why mention white males? Because he underestimated how dishonest the right was willing to be with his words."
Is that your paranoid delusional place for the bizarre parody of conservatism
No, that's right in line with the evidence. We have multiple examples of right-wingers claiming he wanted to exclude white males when he said nothing of the sort. There's nothing delusional about observed reality.
"But if there aren't enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out."
That is from HIS blog site ( http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/stimulus-how-to-create-jobs-without.html ). He says that if there aren't enough skilled workers he will skip hiring white guys and send unemployed, women and minorities to training to do the job whites are already trained in. For the simple reason that there are too many skilled white guys doing that work. So, in essence, he is going to send skilled white males to the unemployment line and find unemployed women/minorities to train and hire. He isn't changing the unemployment numbers, just who's standing in line. But, I guess he isn't intending to change unemployment numbers, he is intending on getting minorities and women working at the expense of white workers. Which sounds very racist/sexist to me.
what jobsites have you been riding by? Im on them and for the most part - I cant understand much of what is said, I will after I brush up on my Spanish------I HOPE!
He says that if there aren't enough skilled workers he will skip hiring white guys and send unemployed, women and minorities to training to do the job whites are already trained in. - Philib
NO. He doesn't say that. None of his words say that. Read what he says after the paragraph you cited and he explains what he means. We can make sure that a significant portion of the stimulus money provides jobs that involve low skilled labor. AND HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT EXCLUDING WHITE MALES. None of you right-wing liars (I wasn't going to use that word, but you've been making false claims about Reich's words all weekend without ever backing them up) has been able to show that he said anything of the sort. It wasn't stated explicitly and it wasn't implied.
HE ALSO SAID NOTHING ABOUT TARGETING JOBS FOR WOMEN AND MINORITIES. He said that we need to make sure that some of the jobs (and 20% is a fairly modest portion) are of a nature that can be done by lower- and unskilled workers. JUST AS AN ASIDE he commented that such a requirement would provide some relief to women and minorities. It would also help white males in those categories.
We have flexibility. There are more projects that could be proposed than would ever be funded. There is nothing wrong with requiring that some of those projects that are selected provide jobs that lower skilled workers can do so that they get relief. That's the case that Reich laid out. Why is that so hard to understand? I suspect you do understand it but simply don't want to give up your false interpretation because it's so much easier to criticize.
"AND HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT EXCLUDING WHITE MALES."
Continueing at Reich's site: "In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades apprenticeships -- wich(sic) must be fully available to women and minorities." If he meant whites were to be included, he wouldn't have said that. He would have said; 'fully available to all'.
"None of his words say that. Read what he says after the paragraph you cited and he explains what he means."
I read it and he still stesses 'low income / low skilled (including women)' workers. With that inference added to his previous statement, he insinuates that only minorities and women are low income / low skilled people. If you're trying to show Reich is not a racist, you're doing a bad job. With each statement you point out, he begins to sound more and more racist.
"(I wasn't going to use that word, but you've been making false claims about Reich's words all weekend without ever backing them up) "
You shouldn't have used it, then. I have provided additional words by Reich that sensibly demonstrate what he meant when he said everything he said. It is you who is inserting "meanings" into his words without being able to back any of it up with quotes from Reich. That's fine, though, I understand you know exactly what Reich is thinking every given moment and have the ability to tell all of us "what he meant". Which apparantly is much different than what he says.
Now for the tough one: "I'd suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people withincomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level"
He suggests giving 20% of the critical construction jobs to people who don't want to work. And, just what exactly is 200% below federal poverty? Isn't poverty around $19K? That would make 200% below that around ???. Is he thinking of hiring burger flippers and baby sitters as the infrastructure rebuilders? HOW is that going to help the economy?
"There is nothing wrong with requiring that some of those projects that are selected provide jobs that lower skilled workers can do so that they get relief. That's the case that Reich laid out."
You're right, there's nothing wrong with that. If only he hadn't said 'except experienced white males'. This entire mmfa complaint about right-wingers claiming racism from Reich would have been completely gone if Reich hadn't included 'no whites' in his plan to save our economy.
The funny thing is Reich now has the audacity to come out with an open letter to the RW'rs who have been railing his plan. Here's an excerpt from his open letter: " In a time like this, when tempers are riding high and many Americans are close to panic about their jobs and finances, you have a special responsibility to consider the accuracy of what you say and the consequences of inflammatory and erroneous statements. "
Ah ha ha ha ha. He says they should be more careful about the "accuracy" of what they say, and of the "consequences of inflammatory and erroneous statements". Mr Reich should be very embarrassed when HE makes statements that would even allow people to think he is excluding whites from a job program. He tells others to be more careful with what they say, but sees nothing wrong with the errant miss-speakings of his own.
Yeah, sure, Reich should have been fully aware that people would take his actual words and apply meanings to them that his words don't support. He should have been prepared for media figures who would MANUFACTURE DISGUSTING LIES about what he actually said.
Um, philib, exactly how does someone phrase things so that people can't OUTRIGHT LIE about what you actually said?
"Reich should have been fully aware that people would take his actual words and apply meanings to them that his words don't support."
You mean like what you are doing when you say: 'what he meant was..."?
I'm not the one who kept saying "what he meant was ..." I kept going back to his actual words, what he actually said. You and sigtek are the ones who kept saying "what he meant ..." "he implied ..." "he insinuated ..." "you have to read between the lines."
I dealt with the man's words. You guys kept pretending they meant something else.
For good measure: Reich did not say anything about excluding white males. You can't find words from him that say that. Reich did not talk about racial or gender quotas. You can't find words from him that say that. Reich said nothing about using unskilled workers for skilled jobs. He said nothing of the sort.
It's you guys who have had to expand on his actual words to pretend those meanings lay underneath.
It's called "reading between the lines" Bill. That's the reason this whole controversy started. Mr Reich made a Freudian slip, revealing a liberal agenda as old as dirt.
That's not reading between the lines. That's reading false meaning into very clear words. You just find more satisfaction lying about what Reich "actually meant" than taking his words as he stated them.
He mentioned white males for no apparant reason except for what I just stated which is what raised the red flags. You still have avoided answering the simple question of why he even mentioned white males in his speech. It's simple, just explain why he mentioned white males.
........and if you can't explain it, just say so. I'd respect that a whole lot more than a bunch of hollow excuses of what he really meant.
I've avoided nothing. I've been explaining to those who can't comprehend plain English what his words clearly stated. YOU are the person who tried to say what Reich "really meant," attributing meanings to his statements that aren't supported by the actual words. It's a sign of the weakness of your case that you can't produce words from him that say what you claim he meant.
As for why he mentioned white males, he was simply stating that they should not be the only group to benefit. Do you think that they should be? There is an undeniable history of such projects going to cronies who are overwhelmingly white males. It was simple assurance that it wouldn't happen this time.
And, once again, he specifically stated that he was not excluding that group, which is the original lie put forth by right-wingers who you claimed were correct.
Come on, you can do it. Work up the courage to admit that those righties in the media were lying. All the evidence is clear and right in front of you. Make that big step.
They saw the same red flag I did. Mentioning a segment of society by virtue of their skin color alone constitutes an approach to bigotry. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for the mentioning of white males. It was a negative comment that could have been avoided but his true colors came shining through. If there is a undeniable history of these types of projects going to overwhelmingly white males, then I would have respected his right to say just that, provided he was specific in proof. But he didn't do that. Hence, the controversy.
You mean they imagined the same red flag you did. Since when does the mere mention of race constitute bigotry? No, for it to be bigotry there would need to be something else. It could be levelling criticisms on the basis of race or proclamations of superiority on that basis. Neither of those were present in Reich's words. It would be bigotry if discrimination on that basis was urged, but there was none of that in Reich's words, explicit or implied. He was stating that discrimination would not take place.
I saw nothing negative in what he said. He didn't have one word of criticism of white males, nor did he say that white males should be excluded. All of his words, the entire message, was very positive in nature. Any negativity you detect is purely the product of your paranoia.
Get over it. There is no anti-white male bias inherent in liberalism. That's nothing but a fantasy born of self-pity over imagined persecution.
There is no anti-white male bias inherent in liberalism. Oh, really. It is the mantra of liberalism. Liberal males are phsychologically neutered in their belief there is no difference between men and women and that men and women are, by nature( according to Gloria Steinham), interchangable in society. Your second statement makes the assumption that I am white. That would make you as bigoted as Mr. Reichhhhhhhhhhh.
Wow, you really are deeply immersed in your fantasies, aren't you? I'm probably done here, given that you can't seem to discuss anything based on real words and actions. You keep reverting to your imagination to make claims of what Reich meant or what liberals believe. You seem to feel no need to back up those bizarre impressions.
If you wish the last word you may have it. Unless you want to actually discuss facts and reality, I'm done with you.
You're very patient, Bill. But then, I'm just a liberal white male who apparently is the bane of himself.
I always love when the wingnuts argue their badly cropped quote against the more complete version. Comes with a worldview based on limited information, I guess.
Of course men and women are interchangeable in society, sigtekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk (what is the point in doing that?) They deserve every opportunity that males have. Nor is there any one job males inherently do better. Simply put, we liberals believe in feminism, the radical notion that women are, um, what do you call them? Oh yeah, people.
Women certainly do deserve every opportunity that men do. I've never disputed that. Are men and women interchangable in society? No way! Women have proved themselves, without the help of noodniks like Mr. Reich, that they can do just about any job a man can do. Mr. Reich suggested replacing white males with women and minotities, a rather bold statement considering many jobs white males do require strength and stamina the average female does not posess. Most skill levels required by the jobs Mr. Reich referred to were instilled in males from childhood so his segmenting of available applicants is alarmingly ignorant. Now, show me any man, black, white or otherwise who can nurture a child from the git-go to 18 the way only a women can do and I'll concede your point.
I worked with a boy who lived with his father his entire life and he said he was glad to have him in his life, and that his father always used to make him his school lunches, and he is a really good kid.
I'd say that is probably game, set, match BillJ. I have yet to read or hear a more concise explanation of from what basis folks like sigtek form their arguments. Excellent analysis.
How in the world do you expect someone to apologize for something that was never done?
Don't expect your personal delusions to have been mass delusions. No one else heard that except you.
Then what the heck are we discussing? Did I alone create this controversy?
The only reason Malkin and her ilk get away with this stuff is because the people who listen to them are too dumb to check other sources for what was really said.
What other sources need to be checked for "what he really said"? I heard what he actually said. He singled out a segment of society based on the color of their skin. Had he said, "these jobs shouldn't go to just African-American males" can you imagine the outrage for such a remark?
Had he said, "these jobs shouldn't go to just African-American males" can you imagine the outrage for such a remark? (Sigtek)
Not if AA males were the majority group and had historically monopolized the market. You can't really be having trouble understanding that, can you?
I do see your point in that regard, Col., but the problem still persists and has yet to be honostly answered is why he targeted white males in the first place? Your point is well taken and had Mr. Reichhhhhhhh stated that in his speech in the first place, this whole controversy would not have taken place. I gotta ask you, cuz i've already confessed my keyboard ignorance, what is a format box? And what constitutes good or bad?
What sort of stupid prejudice do you have against the ancestors whose name Dr Reich inherited and carries quite well?
Unlike your unfathomable MMfA handle, Dr Reich did not choose his name.
It's his annoying speech pattern of slurring and shhhhhushhhing. My handle is a composite of job referrence, initials and the rest was left up to MMFA. Soooooooooooo stinkin' what EZ. Your handle is certainly misleading.
Mr. Reich responds.http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/open-letter-to-rush-limbaugh-sean.html
I think in the words of Rev. Lowery, he wanted the 'red-man to get ahead man' or rather for the 'white man to take a hike man!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4
God of our weary years, God of our silent tears, thou who has brought us thus far along the way, thou who has by thy might led us into the light, keep us forever in the path, we pray, lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met thee, lest our hearts, drunk with the wine of the world, we forget thee. Shadowed beneath thy hand may we forever stand -- true to thee, O God, and true to our native land.
We truly give thanks for the glorious experience we've shared this day. We pray now, O Lord, for your blessing upon thy servant, Barack Obama, the 44th president of these United States, his family and his administration. He has come to this high office at a low moment in the national and, indeed, the global fiscal climate. But because we know you got the whole world in your hand, we pray for not only our nation, but for the community of nations. Our faith does not shrink, though pressed by the flood of mortal ills.
For we know that, Lord, you're able and you're willing to work through faithful leadership to restore stability, mend our brokenness, heal our wounds and deliver us from the exploitation of the poor or the least of these and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these.
We thank you for the empowering of thy servant, our 44th president, to inspire our nation to believe that, yes, we can work together to achieve a more perfect union. And while we have sown the seeds of greed -- the wind of greed and corruption, and even as we reap the whirlwind of social and economic disruption, we seek forgiveness and we come in a spirit of unity and solidarity to commit our support to our president by our willingness to make sacrifices, to respect your creation, to turn to each other and not on each other.
And now, Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance.
And as we leave this mountaintop, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family. Let us take that power back to our homes, our workplaces, our churches, our temples, our mosques, or wherever we seek your will.
Bless President Barack, First Lady Michelle. Look over our little, angelic Sasha and Malia.
We go now to walk together, children, pledging that we won't get weary in the difficult days ahead. We know you will not leave us alone, with your hands of power and your heart of love.
Help us then, now, Lord, to work for that day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors, when every man and every woman shall sit under his or her own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid; when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream.
Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right.
Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen.
AUDIENCE: Amen!
REV. LOWERY: Say amen --
AUDIENCE: Amen!
REV. LOWERY: -- and amen.
AUDIENCE: Amen! (Cheers, applause.)
How bout using Reich's words: "ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY: I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high school people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well."
Sounds like he intends to have unskilled workers do the job of building bridges that skilled workers could do better. Anyone remember what happens when bridges are built under standards? (Minneapolis)
I think skilled workers should be the ones building the new infrastructure because they are skilled. Find skilled black/red/yellow/women laborers, but he specifically said he doesn't need white and/or skilled workers to do the work. I hope they give us a list of the jobs these underqualified workers work on, so we can avoid using their product.
P.S. What does a sermon by Lowery have to do with the subject of Reich wanting unskilled workers building our bridges? Very trollish.
Amen, philib. Mr. Reichhhhhhhhh wants skilled jobs going to unskilled people, regardless of the color of their skin or gender and once again singled out a segment of society based on the color of their skin. All in all, the miniscule Mr. Reichhhhhhhhhhhh has demonstrated the lefts aim at populating jobs with whomever fills a quota. When the bridges collapse and the roads have to be re-done and when people die from these types of policies, Mr Reichhhhhhhh will cower back into obscurity waiting for the problems to be fixed and then re-emerge from his hollow tree, unscathed.
Mr. Reichhhhhhhhh wants skilled jobs going to unskilled people - sigtek
That's a lie, but it's also probably a coming right wing talking point. He said nothing about having the unskilled do skilled jobs. If you listen to or read ALL of what he said his meaning is clear. He wants part of the the stimulus funding to go to job training. You know, skill building, which also serves as an investment in our country's future. When he mentioned the skilled he was saying that they simply shouldn't get ALL of the funding as they are not the group currently doing the most suffering. However, under his proposal they could still get up to 80% of the contracts. Possibly more if those are the firms that are providing the training.
There was NOTHING in what he said about having the unskilled doing jobs that require skill. That's simply another case of ignorance or dishonesty.
What did he mean by "that these jobs not simply go to high school people who are already professionals"? It sounds like he doesn't want the jobs going to those who are already trained (skilled). So, you're saying he wants them going to freshly trained individuals (not white) and they will get their experience 'on the job'. That is certainly refreshing to know.
With a name like BillJ-MN, it sounds like you may live in Minnesota. Do YOU remember why that bridge failed? Because of inferior workmanship. Is that what you prefer when they replace that bridge? Oh, wait, it's already done---by trained professionals. I'll bet there was a mix of black/white in that construction crew.
Exactly, Phil. I have, to this day, never seen a job site with any degree of population that did not have a refreshing mix of black, white brown and red and that is why I am so concerned, as is the so called right wing media, as to why Mr. Reichhhhhhhhhh even mentioned white males.
What did he mean by "that these jobs not simply go to high school people who are already professionals"? - philib
I already explained that. It's in his choice of words. When he says "not simply" that means that those are not the only groups that should get the contracts.
It sounds like he doesn't want the jobs going to those who are already trained (skilled). - philib
No, not if you're able to comprehend what you read. He wants job training to be part of the stimulus funding. There is nothing about excluding those who already have the skills. It's just about making sure that those who are suffering most from the economic downturn receive some benefit.
So, you're saying he wants them going to freshly trained individuals (not white) and they will get their experience 'on the job'. That is certainly refreshing to know. - philib
First, there is nothing about excluding whites from the training. I don't see where you got that misperception, but i suspect it stems from some racial paranoia. Secondly, there is nothing about having projects done only by the unskilled. He very clearly meant that training would occur on the job. How else does any trainee anywhere learn the job? Are you seriously ridiculing people learning on the job?
Where did you get the idea that inferior workmanship was the cause of the 35W bridge collapse? It was inferior materials (the gusset plates) and cheapness in followup maintenance. The workers building the bridge did the work they were told to do and did it well. That has never been brought into question. It was reasonable for them to assume that the engineers who designed the bridge properly calculated all of the stresses and tolerances properly. Whatever case you were trying to make doesn't hold water.
FWIW, my daughter crossed over that bridge a little more than an hour before it fell.
"It was inferior materials (the gusset plates) and cheapness in followup maintenance."
Not inferior... incorrect.
I'll grant you that inferior was not the right word to use with regard to the materials. I should have said that the gusset plates that were used were inadequate to the task. That is backed up by the investigation. Regardless, it was not inferior workmanship as you asserted. You have nothing to support that claim.
It's funny that that was the only thing you found to criticize among all the things I said.
Well, I think the workers deserve some of the blame. They must have known that some gussets were thinner than others. But, yes, it probably isn't the workers fault. It was more in the management side of things. Who will be managing these new workers? Experienced or freshly trained?
Actually, I haven't read all the things you've written, so it may not be so funny after all. ;)
Where did you get the idea some plates were thinner than others? I'm sure the workers assumed the plan for the bridge was properly designed. They installed the gusset plates that were specified and did so properly.
"FWIW, my daughter crossed over that bridge a little more than an hour before it fell."
I'm glad she's ok. I also crossed that bridge (I think) that Sunday. I traveled to Rochester for the Blind Baseball World Series that week.
"First, there is nothing about excluding whites from the training. I don't see where you got that misperception, but i suspect it stems from some racial paranoia."
I figure, if they're not going to hire white workers, why would they include themselves into training? (but, you're right, he didn't say whites couldn't train) But, why would they if they're not going to get hired? So, my meaning was, they probably won't be a large factor in the training part of that equation. You gotta remember these will be short term jobs for most. Not all who train to do those jobs can or want to continue doing them after a year or two. Sure, there will always be a demand for more qualified workers, but not everyone excels/enjoys that kind of work. So, I think the 'base' or 'pool', they intend to develop more workers from, will show a dramatic decrease of white participation. Which, there is nothing wrong with as long as qualified workers excel. I don't care what color the qualified worker is. But, it seems like he is changing the expected stereotype (in a racial manner) for the type of job that an individual should have. I guess it could be a racial paranoia, but I think that encouraging one class of people while specifically un-encouraging another class (for one job category) is either creating a new stereotype or changing one from one to the other. Shouldn't the qualified be able to excel in their field no matter what race he/she is? But to encourage one over the other doesn't sound right.
"With a name like BillJ-MN, it sounds like you may live in Minnesota."
It also sounds like his last name begins with a J and his first name is William.
"Do YOU remember why that bridge failed?Because of inferior workmanship."
BZZZT, wrong answer. It was because the republican governor failed to allocate money for needed upkeep and repairs.
"upkeep and repairs" don't fix inferior workmanship/materials. BTW, where are the union workers on this subject? Looks like Mr. Reichhhhhhhhhh's scabs will be crossing picket lines!
But no one who investigated the cause of the collapse found it to be inferior workmanship. JimmyCraghorn was correct. There was a problem with the design, but it would have lasted longer with proper maintenance.
No, that's not correct. There was no problem with the design. It was all on the incorrect parts used at that key point. All the maintanance in the world wouldn't have stopped that from happening. It should have been found at each inspection.
The design specified the parts used, including the gusset plates. From all I've read, it was built to design. At every inspection is was probably assumed the the parts that were specified in the design had been determined then to have been adequate for the purpose. The purpose of the inspections was to look for wear, tear, stress and damage. However, it is a fact that prior inspections did give the bridge fairly low ratings. Next to nothing was done about those poor inspection reports.
"On November 13, 2008, the NTSB released the findings of its investigation. The primary cause was the under-sized gusset plates, at 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick."
That's from the wikipedia explanation of what happened. I had read that the design called for 1" thick gussets. But for whatever reason the 1/2" thick ones were used. If the design called for thinning ones, then every bridge of the same design would be falling after so many years. I've heard there are over 13,000 bridges built with that design, no other reports of gusset plate failures have been publicized.
"no other reports of gusset plate failures have been publicized."
http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2007/08/bridge_design_links_lake_count.html
I did find that one. But, it's only related because it was the same part failure. Which in this story they conclude that other similar bridges should have been more aware of potential failure of the exact same part.
Also; I meant 'thinner ones.
That was the design problem. It was determined that the design SHOULD have required 1 inch gusset plates, but the design ACTUALLY called for 1/2 inch plates. If you can show me anyplace that says the original design called for 1 inch plates I'll apologize, but I can't find anyplace that states that.
It was a design problem. The investigation also could find no records showing that the stress and tolerance calculations that should have been done actually were back when the bridge was designed. Your early effort to blame it on the workers is completely unfounded. The investigation laid none of the blame on them.
Ok, if you want to believe that the design called for too thin plates you can. If you think the builder wasn't trying to save money by going with insufficient parts thinking 'nothing can happen-it's the strongest part of the bridge', you can. If you think the workers (who probably built more than one bridge), didn't notice the parts being used were cheaper than other times they'd done that, you can believe that. I don't believe that. I think the design called for proper parts, but the builder decided to use less expensive parts and that the workers may have noticed the difference, but chose to say nothing.
With all the bridges (of that type) that are currently in use in the US and that is the only one to fall because the gusset plates are too thin? You're really stretching it by believeing that the builder did the proper job using called for parts. Even the link I provided suggests a possible similar circumstance--using too thin gusset plates where they were minimally acceptable, that means the builder knew what was needed, but chose to use the cheaper ones.
Man, you really do shut your eyes to reality when the facts contradict you. It's not what I think, it's what the facts show. The NTSB and the University of MN, doing separate research, both concluded that it was a DESIGN problem. Not a problem with the builder or the workers, but a problem with the original DESIGN. It was DESIGNED to use 1/2 gusset plates. The investigations determined that the DESIGN should have called for 1 inch plates.
It's not the job of the builders and workers to recalculate the stresses and tolerances. It's not what they're trained to do. It's reasonable for them to assume that the plans they get on which they do their construction have had those calculations done.
I challenge you to find anyplace where it says that the original design called for 1 inch gusset plates. This was a very thorough investigation and it doesn't even HINT at builder error. It doesn't even HINT that cheaper parts were substituted by the builder. It states very clearly that the problem lay with the original design.
You have no evidence supporting you. All you're falling back on is your own imagination of what you're willing to believe. Reality doesn't bend to achieve your acceptance.
Beatdown #2. Philib gets his spanking at the hands of BillJ.
"The NTSB and the University of MN, doing separate research, both concluded that it was a DESIGN problem."
Ok, that's your stance. Now, provide proof of that. I've provided what was determined by the NTSB. You claim I am wrong. Back that up with proof. Show me the design called for 1/2" gussets. In fact, show me where the NTSB blames the 1/2" gussets as "design error". What they found was that 1/2" gussets weren't enough to hold the additional traffic weight, 2" additional concrete that had been poured over the years and construction crew equiptment weight that all added up to more than the bridge was built to handle. So, the design was not incorrect, the state took the overall weight of the bridge to beyond design specs.
Sorry, page, no spanking here.
Here is the NTSB report. Here is an excerpt:
The investigation discovered that the original design process led to a serious error in sizing of some of the gusset plates in the main trusses. ... The Safety Board obtained copies of the original design and fabrication drawings, as well as a partial set of design calculations from both Jacobs Engineering and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), and compared the design documents with the actual bridge structure. So far, this comparison has indicated that the superstructure of the bridge was generally built as specified in the design ... The gusset plates that were undersized on the bridge were undersized on the drawings.
There's more, but it all fully supports me and contradicts you.
Give me a link to that. You know there were about 3 or 4 preliminary findings publicised by the NTSB. Is your from the 'final' report or the January one?
Ok, say we accept the 1/2" gussets were called for on the design, you still haven't shown they were an incorrect design that failed to account for the additional weight that wasn't accounted for at design time. You haven't proved your case, yet. Provide the design specs that show the design accounted for the additional weight/traffic added over time. If you can't prove the design accounted for the additional weight, you cannot claim problem.
Example; a truck is designed to carry X amount of weight. If you overload that truck by another amount over X and the truck fails, whose fault is it? Design or load?
I provided the report stating that the problem lay with the design, just as I had stated in the beginning. I provided the evidence. You claimed (for whatever reason) that it wasn't design, that it was the construction. I showed that the investigation showed it was built to design.
I proved my case and disproved yours. It really is that simple.
No! You provided 'a' report. The final report said the gussets were too thin. Where in your proof does it show the design was to hold the additional weight of 2" more concrete throughout the bridge+additional traffic+addition weight caused by the construction projects? You've proved nothing except you don't want to admit you're wrong.
You showed the bridge was built to design, then backed off when asked if the design was to hold all that additional weight. Where's your proof of that design problem? Don't worry, I know you don't have that proof. Probably won't look for it, because (gasp) it would prove you wrong.
Actually, we both are wrong. You blame design error, and I blame cheap constructors. Turns out NTSB says the state caused the collapse by overloading the bridge beyond capabilities.
Siggy,
Why are you threatened by Mr. Reich's stature? This is about the 3rd or 4th post where you mention his height. Did you lose a woman to an elf or something?
Nope. I believe it is the crux of his apparant disdain for white males. I believe it was and is Mr. Reichhhhhhhhhhhhhhh's being threatened by the stature of the average white male.
...............however, my first wife was overweight and she did have a thing for Ernie Keebler. Ya know, Jimmy, you may be on to something. Deep down I may harbor feelings of ill will towards those of diminished stature. Gotta go, Dr. Phil is on.
................come to think of it, shortcake was her favorite dessert. Looks like a good bit of therapy is just around the corner for this mental midget. ooooooops, there I go again.
Wow. You're not only illiterate, you're a bigot as well.
You must be jealous of the fact that a towering intellect such as that of Dr Reich makes you look very short in many other ways.
Thanks for jumping in late, EZ. Illiteracy and bigotry are what I do best. I'm at the top of the illiteracy heap because I can't seem to comprehend why a top spokeperson from the Obama administration would choose to target a specific group of Americans for job qualification based solely on the color of their skin and their genetic sex traits. I guess I lead the pack in bigotry because I insensatively referred to the esteemable Mr. Reichhhhhhh's height depravation. Mr. Reich's "towering intellect" has left him unavailable since the Clinton's left office. So much for his unprecedent input.
Really? Then sigtek, you won't mind lettng us know from where you earned your Ph.d and we are all just chomping at the bit to read your disertation. What do you mean by "unavailable?" Is being a professor at UC-B constitute as being 'unavailable?" Don't try to fool yourself sigtek, you wouldn't last 5 minutes trying to match wits against a person like Reich.
I am assuming UC-B is Berkeley and if that is the case, unavailable doesn't begin to describe his whereabouts. Abstract thinking is nurtured, coddled and encouraged so Mr. Reich's comments come as no surprise. The homeland of Timothy Leary and anti-establishment has graduated the cream-o'-the-crop in liberalism. Thanks for sharing his whereabouts for the last 8 years.
I'm sure he'll be happy to provide his disertation as soon as Obama will provide his, along with his other school records.
As soon as President Obama makes his disertation available, along with his other school records, I'm sure that sigtek will be happy to make his available as well.
P.S. What does a sermon by Lowery have to do with the subject of Reich wanting unskilled workers building our bridges? Very trollish.
You're just now figuring out that Proudconservative is a troll? that's pretty slow, even for a dittohead.
BTW, HI Pearlene, good to see you.
encouragingchickenstocrosstheroadinfrontofhim,
I wasn't trolling, just introducing Mr. Reich's words to the discussion. Someone just ahead of me called those who weren't defending Reich as too stupid to look at other sources. I think the introduction was a humorous way of demonstrating leftist-liberal hypocracy once again. It was the dear 'oyster irritant' that presented Rev. Lowery's speech as a whole.
I think there's a difference between providing a link to show a point and re-printing his entire speach. Otherwise, I would have replied to PC.
rev Lowery:
It seems to me that WHITE did embrace RIGHT? How am I wrong here? This is as racist as it gets. I know Lowery forged his iron in the fires of the civil rights movement, but should he not take Barry's lead and not make inflammatory statements like this?
A new day has dawned and it's time for dinosaurs like Lowery to ride into the sunset.
Who's "Barry?" Do you mean the Honorable Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States?
I doubt someone as shortsighted as you knows the man well enough to cal him by his childhood nickname. And I am not surprised that you ignored the Inaugural call to put aside childish things. Without childish things you would have no debating tactics to use.
makingtheeasylookhard,
Now, now oh one who has put away childish things himself. Don't be too quick to judge TBone, his reference to the president's nickname was pretty tame considering the slanderous names used to describe the former president on this site.
So take a deep breath, count to 10, think happy leftist thoughts and stop making your refutations all to easy to refute.
PS. Come now, do you really think that your post reaches the level of 'adult' debate for which you were reaching?
I am neither Democrat or Republican. I just hope everyone can calm down and stop hyperventilating. Yes there are things that have been stretched, but there was something there to be stretched. Also, I think some of the suggestions made are a little comical. Some jobs really do take some skill. I don't think this is going to happen but evidently this is what the Repubs are upset about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4
I watched the video...he said nothing about tax funded jobs awarded by merit, which would be the fairest award system, since all colors pay taxes, rather he planned to include minorities, adding that it would be likely to discriminate against white male construction workers, in order to get the color coded quotas he wanted. VERY obviously he thinks minority "inclusion" necessitates white discrimination and what could be more racist than that, both in his blatantly racist willingless to exclude whites, solely on the basis of irrelevant skin color, and in his equally racist presumption of black inferiority in qualifications for the tasks. Like most liberals, he's a racist, using the stereotypes of white superiority/universal white wealth and black inferiority/universal black poverty to infer that utilizing TAXES paid by ALL to enrich blacks by penalizing whites will magically result in racial equality, rather than race riots.
Now that is a comprehensive view of Mr. Reichhhhhhhhhh's bigotry! The mere notion that minorities need his "help" to get a job insinuates minority inferiority. That is the worst form of racism on earth, not only bigoted but patronizing.
It's the same view by many liberal whites that since they assisted in electing the first black president, a huge chunk of racism is erased in one fell swoop. I think many in the elitist white media believe the same. Very patronizing.
It's the same view by many liberal whites that since they assisted in electing the first black president, a huge chunk of racism is erased in one fell swoop.
I don't think anybody's suggested anything like that. Racists didn't vote for Obama, and if anything I've heard louder racism in the past few months.
The idea that acknowledging disadvantage minorities still face is "patronizing" or ascribing inferiority to those minorities is about the most pitiful bit of dishonest rationalizing of racism imaginable.
But it sounds good when Rush Limbaugh says it, right?
Don't ascribe what someone else says to me, Col. The fact is that much of what liberal white America does in the name of balancing the playing field, is blatantly racist in that it assumes African-Americans are incapable of doing just that on their own accord. Sure, there is no doubt that with a majority of businesses in America being owned/run by white folks and corporations headed by white males/females that there is a greater admission standard for African-Americans. But the underlying patronizing attitude of democrats and liberals, evident by their policies in general, is insulting to an entire race of people capable of doing anything as well as anybody else without that helping hand so grandly extended by schnooks like Robert Reichhhhhhhhh.
Siggggggggggggggggggg has now populated an entire city with straw men.
After putting words in Reich's mouth that he never said, he is upset when someone confuses one wingnut with another and ascribes words to Siggggggggggggg that he claims he never said.
I think Sigggggggggggggg needs an irony recognition supplement. He is sorely lacking.
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggeez.
"Racists didn't vote for Obama, and if anything I've heard louder racism in the past few months."
Yes, they did. More than enough to get him elected. And, that would be why you hear louder racism these past few months.
Not one word or interpretation you picked out of that is supported by Reich's words. He said nothing in favor of racial quotas. He said nothing about discriminating against or excluding whites. There was nothing said or implied about any kinds of racial superiority/inferiority. The bit about race riots was pulled straight out of your nether regions. You added nothing to the discussion.
My two cents: I was poised to come her and rant about Larry Kudlow's mention of this in the closing minutes on his show today (ABC Radio) without the decency to include a clip of the speech. I don't think very highly of Larry Kudlow, the faux economist who's been WRONG about almost everything economic since I've been listening to him; so I wouldn't put it past him to drop this into the closing minutes, two minutes to be exact, just to let the pot boil over. But alas, the statement Reich makes are a poor choice of words indeed.
I have alot of respect for Mr. Reich and his blog. On balance he and his blog have provided invaluable insight into the byzantine world of economic principles where conservatives will LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH to tell the American public that cutting taxes raises tax revenue, ala Larry Kudlow. But from where I stand white, black, blue or green is beside the point. Perhaps what Mr. Reich should have said was that the stimulus money needs to be sure to include those who could very easily be left out of the recovery. This could have dire effect. The last thing we want is a crime wave. Which would be sure to follow an economic stimulus that excludes whole segments of our populatin. Bye the bye, where I live alot of constructions workers are Portugeese, Armenian, and yes a spattering of minorities.
But Reich DOES NOT speak for Obama. If I could be Barack Obama for a moment I would say to the trained construction workers, could you please Mentor a disadvantged youth, black, green or blue in the construction trade. Let's think outside the box here. I implore all who visit this site and read my post, let US not turn this attempt at recovery into Reconstruction II. It would surely be the demise of our great nation. And to be sure, there are those who would love to see nothing less. I know because I've seen them, they live in gated communites with armed guards in Boca Raton, FL and have 150 foots boats and could care a rats ass about the rest of US.
Best regards to ALL.
My posts pale in contrast to yours. You couldn't be more correct.
Your posts pale in contrast to transparentcy.
Boo-hoo. I'm gonna curl up and die. I can't take these insults from someone whose moniker defies their wit.
I totally agree.
First time to the site. Wow. Pass the Kool-Aid. You people are pretty good at spewing your own opinions in the name of putting an end to "conservative misinformation". There is a post stating that someone "added nothing to the discussion". I think you all are doing a good job of this on your own. Happy flagging (and pass the kool-aid again).
Nothing will happen to Media Matter, WHAT you should be concerned about is what will happen to your heroes like Rush, Hannity, and their ilk once they are forced out of buisness and find themselves homeless.
Nothing will happen to Media Matter, WHAT you should be concerned about is what will happen to your heroes like Rush, Hannity, and their ilk once they are forced out of buisness and find themselves homeless.
Sorry about the double posts, don't know what is going on here.
It is amazing to me how the couple of conservatives here can read things into speeches and reports that simply aren't there. It gives a whole new meaning to "spin."
Ah..we read and heard this:
Require contractors to set aside 20 percent of jobs for such groups. All contracts entered into with stimulus Ends -- either by federal, state, or local governments -- should require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
That's a set-aside designed to EXCLUDE people
Buzz-Don't for a second think that Hannity, Malkin and Rush are our "heroes" in content, but they do represent an alternative to the likes of the NY Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle, DailyKos, Move-on media outlets of socialism. That being written, it is most interesting how Reich is responding to the media blitz against him...he even addresses it on his blog. Spinning away at his own comments can NOT bury them...his comments were NOT taken out of context. What he is suggesting is that qualifications don't matter, we're going to target the minority worker, even if they are less qualified. This is Affirmative Action at the level of the blue collared worker. Now...are you suggesting that the Fairness Doctrine will be used to stifle contrarian points of view? That's pretty scary, if that IS what you're promoting, because it would/should include the far-left media outlets as well. If it doesn't, then we're in a totalitarian State, bordering on anarchy. The fact that BO even brought up Rush's name indicates that he's concerned about Limbaugh's impact...as he should be.
This is simply a "spread-the-wealth" ploy for BO's Presidency. It is like affirmative action for the blue collared worker...social engineering, with racism at it's core. Reich is certainly trying to cover his tracks on this one...but his words were NOT taken out of context, so he's got his watch-dogs attacking Malkin, Hannity and Rush. Pathetic in its transparency.