1996-12-12 - Re: Redlining

Header Data

From: “Matthew J. Miszewski” <mjmiski@execpc.com>
To: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Message Hash: 4f5dbdbbe842b11c7fc0afdd731c37a07158d2dd8bff67e628a40c27d6bd396f
Message ID: <>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-12 05:19:58 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:19:58 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "Matthew J. Miszewski" <mjmiski@execpc.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:19:58 -0800 (PST)
To: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Subject: Re: Redlining
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>You don't have time to explain your beliefs, but you do apparently
>have the time to call me an idiot and, now, to tell me that I am
>intellectually dishonest.  Since you don't know much about me, the
>best you can claim is that I am inconsistent.  I am afraid I cannot
>accept an apology which is prefaced by an insult.

Get over it Red.  Fine.  I called your ideas idiotic.  I called you
intellectually dishonest.  Admitedly ad hominem. Can we bypass it now?

>I would not propose committing fraud.  I do not understand who would

You already have.

>>If I wanted to I could repeatedly issue heart-wrenching stories of
>>poverty in America (similar, of course, to politicians using "real
>>world examples" in speeches).  You seem to assume that this would be
>No, this is exactly what I've been asking for.  In fact, I explicitly
>suggested that anecdotal evidence based on your experience would have

I try very hard *not* to simply apply my personal experiences to entire
classes.  I devalue personal stories when discussing policies and try,
_try_ to examine facts.

>No, the point I am making is that it should be legal to be unpleasant
>so long as you are minding your business.  So, employment
>discrimination should be legal, but burning a cross in somebody's lawn
>is a shooting offense.  (Preferably on the lawn in question soon after
>the defense.)

Some of us see little difference.  Employment discrimination causes many
social problems that you causally associate with personal flaws within the
people affected.  I place the blame on the people discriminating.  You
blame the people being discriminated against.  Maybe there is a degree of
blame to go around.

>I generally favor governmental interference when somebody is not being
>left alone and is being interfered with in some way by others.  

I am curious as to what governmental interference you do accept.
>What puzzles me is that when I mentioned the failure of poor people to
>pursue these beneficial practices you said my comments were "idiotic".
>Now you appear to be saying that I was right, but that poor people
>lack the self-confidence to do these things.  Please explain.

My belief is that poor people lack some of the resources to effectuate
these practices.  Among these are self-confidence as well as a perception
of inability.  Other reasons stem from the very discrimination that I have
rallied against.  You are "right" in that these practices can eliviate
poverty if they are implemented (meaning that people have the will and

>No, please tell me about your political philosophy.  I am not asking
>which political party you vote for - I am more interested in why you
>vote for it.

Actually, i vote to maximize the influence that i have over public policy.
That of course is not always consistent with my personal political
philosophy.  I could benefit from a remailer at this point and so my
discussion must go .....

>I am curious why people hire an African-American person in the first
>place if they are just going to fire them later.  That doesn't make
>sense to me.  (And, no, I am not being sarcastic, I would like to hear
>an explanation.)

Generally agency.  Hiring is sometimes done by one department and
discriminatory firing by another.  The principle is held responsible.
Sometimes it is direct.  Employers may feel that hiring certain minority
groups allows them to offer lower pay scales.  Then when they have a bad
day, they sometimes deal with their anxiety in illegal ways.  In reality, I
dont think racism can be reasoned away.

>I think the personal harm is in the minds of your clients.  If you are
>fired and your manager says "it's because you're black", this does not
>have to be depressing.

You are right that it does not have to.  And to many it is not.  To some it
is.  It is yet another obstacle to overcome.  The obstacles do keep
building up.  The best way to deal with it is to train everyone to overcome
it.  I also favor other avenues to help.

>I also fail to understand why anybody would want to work for a racist,
>even if you can force the relationship on the employer.

That often is the problem when it comes to remedy.  No one wants to go back
to work.  You do your best to make whole, where no make whole relief can be

>Red Rackham


Version: 2.6.2