Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:22:37 EDT
From: <FKR@psuvm.psu.edu>  Fred Rozenblad
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re New Generations of Conservatism-Welfare Myths

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.

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.

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.

Again, in the rural area, drugs are a problem and well as whites being on
welfare, at least in this state.  I'm sure Mississippi is no different.

I can could care less about any personal problems you have w/ someone's
complaint. That's your problem.


>> Two, the bill assumes, again that the metropolitan areas (Philadelphia,
>> Pittsburgh, etc) are where all the drug problems are.  This, too, is
>> wrong because drugs are flowing freely across the state and the routes
>> are thru many of the small towns in Pa.  There was a news article of a
>> small town in Georgia (I forgot the name) which is experiencing a rise in
>> crime rate as a result of increased drug traffic thru the town.  The same
>> things holds in this state.

> 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.

>> Three, the cost.  The author admittedthere was no study doene on the cost
>> of rehab and conducting the drug tests.  Right now, Pa is in somewhat of
>> a fiscal crisis.  Philadelphia almost went bankrupt and the city is
>> having problems meeting its yearly budget.  Since the state has
>> tightened its purse strings, I have no idea where the money is going to
>> come from to cover the drug test.  It doesn't look like it will.

> 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 saw no stereotypical reasons used.

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

> 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?

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.

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.

*** "This space reserved for a new quote." ***

 Fred Rozenblad-"Kickin the 3"
 FKR@psuvm.psu.edu