From: cbc1@Ra.MsState.Edu (christopher b carey)
Subject: Re: New Generations of Conservatism-Welfare Myths
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:35:49 GMT

<FKR@psuvm.psu.edu>  Fred Rozenblad writes:

>Ok.  Here we go on schooling the ignorant again.  In article
><cbc1.712393335@Ra.MsState.edu> Chris Carey writes:

>> Where in the article that you posted, does the Black show up?  I'm tired
>> of YOU PEOPLE taking the anything that relates to welfare, and
>> automatically assuming that it only means blacks and other minorities.
>> I, for one, saw no mention of any minorities in your original post of the
>> article.  Where is it???  Despite that, I'll aks what rights this
>> violates.??

>I'll go very slow so that even you can understand this.  One, it violations
>a person right to privacy.  Different from jobs where the public trust must
>be entrusted (ie: transportation, surgical doctors, military, etc), private
>citizens should not be subjected to big-brother tactics; or would you
>suggest that the bills of rights (and any other fundamental constitutional
>rights ALL US citizens are entitled to) are null and void for welfare
>recipients.

No, just drug users.  Now, to find the druggies, you gotta test some
people.  These people are getting money from Uncle Sam, i.e. you and me,
and I for one don't want someone who's getting money from me to go and buy
drugs with it.

>Now to deal w/ your other questions, the bill is designed for urban areas
>where mainly Blacks and Puerto Ricans live.  I stated in an earlier, post
>that implicit in this legislation, is that fact the representative is
>assuming only Blacks and Puerto Rican are receiving the welfare in the
>cities, are the drugs users.  Pls reread the article.  The motivation behind
>this bill is clearly racist.  But I don't know if rereading would help you
>to ask these questions you're asking.  If you saw no mention of any
>minorities, one doesn't need to.  It's implicitly there.

It's also implicit that you are a racist, or at least harbor racist beliefs
since you automatically assume that only blacks and puerto ricans live
in urban areas.  If I say that a lot of lazy people are on welfare, what
color do you assume I'm talking about????  

>I've also said that drugs are free flowing across this state.  That's
>because rural areas, now, present a good avenue for dealers to route their
>traffic, pick up new markets in those areas, and divert some heat away from
>the city as far as cracking down on drug traffic.  Rural areas are getting
>worse as a result of this.  The War-on-Drugs (WOD) goes after high profile
>types (ie: minorities that are affluent paying things w/ cash, etc), this
>bill is motivated under that disguise.  Sure, maybe some ppl who pay for
>luxury items w/ cash "may" be drug dealers, but this is not assumed if one
>is white. And one is assumed guilty, beforehand.

I'd like to see some examples of this "argument".  What proof do you have
that people who pay for luxury items with cash and are black are treated
differently than whites who pay for luxury items with cash?

>> Where did the post???  Either you left it out, or you are making a lot
>> of shit up!

>This phenomena of drugs entering small towns and increasing the respective
>crime rates was on CNN news about 2 days ago.  My post came from a local
>newspaper which got it article from Pa's state wire service (AP).

>I, again, refer you to the  paragraphs where I responded to your 1st
>group of comments.

>> Well, they could take the money they aren't paying the druggie, and use it
>> to test more people.

>Think again.  1st, welfare officials haven't even determined how
>many recipients are on drugs.  If it turns out that most welfare recipients
>aren't on  drugs, then what?  The program would be in red, and tax payers will
>have to foot the bill.  Wrong answer.

I'd pay tax money just to prove you right!  Hell, that'd mean that there isn't
the drug problem with the welfare recipients that most people believe.

If this were true, it'd surprise the hell out of a lot of people, and really
confuse the media.  Which isn't all that hard to do, but the media always
spouts off about the drug problems in the inner city.  This program will either
prove or disprove the medias claims.  It'll also change the way a lot of people
think, if you are right.  

>> I saw no stereotypical reasons used.

>You probably didn't.  Welcome to the William Franklin (Birch) Society.

It's because none were used in the original post.  Or maybe I missed one that
was "implicit".

>> I don't care if the druggie is mauve in color, I don't want the fucker
>> getting a handout from the government so that he/she can go get some
>> more drugs.

>I agree w/ you here (unfortunatelty), but that is not how this bill will legis-
>lated. Inherently, it assumes drugs are big city problem.  It further suggests,
>because of demographics, the welfare recipients will be mainly minority and
>urban.  I explained that is not necessarily the case.  What about those
>rural areas mainly populated by whites?

This bill assumes drugs are a big city problem because there are more people in
a big city, they are in a smaller space, and this allows the feds to catch
more of the druggies.  In rural areas, the people are more spread out, and
fewer are caught, the problem seems less intense.

Also, the way you presented the bill, it sounded like it was going to enforce
drug testing for the WHOLE state.  If there is somewhere in the bill that
states that it only affects the big cities, then that's different.

>I can't understand how you can still not see this.  Maybe you should be a
>participant in the study recently conducted on the Oprah Winfrey show.  That
>show divided the audience based on eye color.  The brown eyes and the blue
>eyes.  The show also gave the brown eyed folx "privileges" the blue eyes
>didn't have.  The result was for approximately 1 hr, some folx understood
>the effects of racism and bigotry.  Maybe that lesson will clear up your
>vision problems.  If not, then I guess there's no hope for you.

Yeah, I saw a version of that done on kids.  It was very interesting.
There was this one guy who just refused to see the point.  He still thought
that somehow, blacks were his inferiors.  I don't think this, and I've never
stated it on this board, so I don't see why I should be introduced to 
forced bigotry.  

I haven't used racist arguments or language anymore than you have, or
the author of the bill did.

>BTW, I did not ignore your "you people" response, but ignorance like that
>does not make me angry. It's show your own IQ level. We went thru this be-
>fore with you on that Ross Perot Statement Thread. And you still don't get
>it. I doubt if anyone can give any clues.

Yeah, I figured your eagle eye wouldn't miss something important like that!
So, which group of people did I mean???

>*** "This space reserved for a new quote." ***
How about something from Malcom X???

As something not related.
I didn't notice this reply until someone else replied to this reply.
Is my newsreader screwed???

Chris Carey
--
Got those wishing I was out of school so I could see my girl on
a regular basis blues.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american