Has Arizona gone completely nuts?

[discojoe]

White history month is every month, baby.

First, please don't condescendingly refer to me as baby.

Second, the purpose of history class is not to teach about "white" or "black" history; rather, it is to learn about the important events that have shaped society so that people will have a solid foundation of contextual knowledge with which to judge current events. Adding a particular race's history into the curriculum for the purpose of "fairness" is not conducive to actual learning, especially given how politically motivated the curriculum is. Why am I being forced to learn something just to make a group of people feel better?

Third, there is not any equivalent, official or de facto, of "white history month." In my college history class, I learned about Western Civilization, and the curriculum, for blatantly politically correct purposes, constantly mentioned African Civilization and women. So it's not like our classes don't already inject black history into the curriculum.

Fourth, you may wish to consider why a hypothetical history class would primarily talk about the history of Caucasian peoples. Might it have something to do with societal contribution?

By the way, my role model is a black person, so I'd like to offer you a preemptive STFU in the event of any racism accusations.

[Existential Potato]

Hard to believe this kind of thing surprises people, as it's not like racial profiling isn't already present in other states as an unwritten guideline.

Anyway, all of a school's classes are on a political agenda; the removal of black history would only end up angering folks and wouldn't solve any of the problem, as it would be replaced with more BS.

[Krig the Viking]

The way I heard it, the law allows police to ask for identification from people they have already stopped for other reasons (speeding, jaywalking, murder, etc.), and whom they have reason to believe may be an illegal immigrant (i.e., something more substantial than "He looks kinda Hispanic"). It does not allow them to just stop people randomly on the street for no reason, it just allows them to ask for proof of immigration status in addition to driver's license, etc.

At least, that's what I heard, I haven't really looked into it.

[Edit: The real problem, of course, is the overly high minimum wage and heavy tax burden that makes it worth it for employers to risk breaking the law to hire illegal immigrants.]

[GallopingQwerty]

The way I heard it, the law allows police to ask for identification from people they have already stopped for other reasons (speeding, jaywalking, murder, etc.), and whom they have reason to believe may be an illegal immigrant (i.e., something more substantial than "He looks kinda Hispanic"). It does not allow them to just stop people randomly on the street for no reason, it just allows them to ask for proof of immigration status in addition to driver's license, etc.

At least, that's what I heard, I haven't really looked into it.

I wish that were true for all officers.

Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling | Phoenix News | Arizona News | azfamily.com | Featured Videos

[GallopingQwerty]

[Edit: The real problem, of course, is the overly high minimum wage and heavy tax burden that makes it worth it for employers to risk breaking the law to hire illegal immigrants.]

I'll agree with the crappy tax structure, but not the overly high minimum wage part. At least here in CA, it's just about impossible to live on minimum wage as it is. If they cut it down even further we'd have even more problems with poverty and people with jobs forced to live on the streets than we already do.

[Crispy]

Higher minimum wage salary = Less people receiving any wage salary.

[discojoe]

Higher minimum wage salary = Less people receiving any wage salary.

wage =/= salary.

[GallopingQwerty]

Either way, this law in AZ is a direct result of people being afraid and angry. It's so much easier to point to people who have no legal recourse and say "Hey, this whole mess is THEIR fault! Get 'em!" when it's really the result of a shoddy system and decades of abusing that system.

This law should not exist as it does: it is target the wrong people, and only creates a bigger tax burden on AZ than they already have. Plus it has the dubious distinction of not solving any of their problems at all, and in fact adds new ones involving harassing legal citizens because their skin is brown (which will equal loads of lawsuits, thus further taxing the system).

If they really want to solve their problems, they need to target the folks who have actually done them harm and move with that.

[marooned]

I always though Black History Month was sort of insulting. I just wish history would be taught as it is. It doesn't need to revolve solely around old white guys however, so I agree on that. The history books I had in high school were retarded... war and old white guys were the key focus... other than that there might be a page on "what were black people doing in the 1920s?" or something, which I found even more insulting than not including that page. The problem is that the old white guy history is considered the "real" history and everything else seems to be considered "minority issues" and I don't understand why these distinctions are needed. I also don't understand why "US History" in the classes I took in high school seemed to mostly only be about presidents and wars... I mean it's a retarded representation of history considering that history is literally everything that happened in the past... I'd probably be more interested in reading people's diaries from a time period than reading "and then president X did this, and then X law was passed, and then tensions rose in X location and then X conflict broke out" I mean that could be covered on a timeline... it's a look at history as a series of wars and political actions, which is fine, I'd just rather it be titled that.

[Crispy]

wage =/= salary.

You know what I meant! Minimum wage is bad etc.

[Krig the Viking]

I'll agree with the crappy tax structure, but not the overly high minimum wage part. At least here in CA, it's just about impossible to live on minimum wage as it is. If they cut it down even further we'd have even more problems with poverty and people with jobs forced to live on the streets than we already do.

Ah, but if employers didn't have to pay their employees as much, they would be able to charge less for their product and/or service, no? That's one of the main reasons the North American auto industry is in trouble -- powerful unions have driven up employee wages, forcing the companies to either jack up the prices of their cars to unaffordable levels, or start producing cheaper cars for the same price to cut costs. Both courses of action result in lower sales, and lower sales mean not being able to pay the bills, which means layoffs and factory closures.
Lower wages = lower price for the final product. Applied across the board, that means a lower cost of living in general.

[xerx]

Save your Confederate money boys!

[GallopingQwerty]

Ah, but if employers didn't have to pay their employees as much, they would be able to charge less for their product and/or service, no?

Yeah, but you're living in a dream world if you think they would. Supply and demand will always dictate prices: as long as people are willing to pay more, the prices will stay high. Just look at the huge uproar over gas prices in the US: when enough people stopped buying gas, they drastically reduced the rate. However, since then it has slowly climbed back up again (almost to $4 per gallon just like it was last year)... the oil companies are getting the same record profits they did last year, but because no one is boycotting the pumps they see no reason to bring prices down to a level that would help our economy improve on a large scale.

They keep the prices high because they can. The same would be true even if employers suddenly were allowed to pay their employees less.

[mu4]

Ah, but if employers didn't have to pay their employees as much, they would be able to charge less for their product and/or service, no? That's one of the main reasons the North American auto industry is in trouble -- powerful unions have driven up employee wages, forcing the companies to either jack up the prices of their cars to unaffordable levels, or start producing cheaper cars for the same price to cut costs. Both courses of action result in lower sales, and lower sales mean not being able to pay the bills, which means layoffs and factory closures.
Lower wages = lower price for the final product. Applied across the board, that means a lower cost of living in general.

Actually if you look at what happened to unions. McCarthyism took the intellectual force for the unions out of this country, they went into exile or were imprisoned leaving organized crime and people backed by them to fill in for them. They started to adopt techniques and practices used by organized crime and formed into what we have today, a militant and aggressive organization more bullies then negotiators for their constituents. Kinda of reminds me of America in general.

If you look at the rhetoric of people like McCarthy, it's always the same, these people are taking your jobs, these people are committing crimes, but it's often also rooted in their fear, insecurities and displaced res-sentiment. It doesn't take a immigrant or even a illegal immigrant for crime to happen or for their jobs to be taken as long as they do a poor job.

Any call of tolerance for civil rights and minorities rights has been usually associated with communism, liberalism and various other "left-wing" sympathies in the US. These people aren't "patriotic", are "leeches" and what not, the truth is that a big portion of the people buying into this form of rhetoric are the leeches, but they channel their ressentiment towards others, often even more stressed and despairing then themselves. In other words, the character of a bully.

[discojoe]

The way I heard it, the law allows police to ask for identification from people they have already stopped for other reasons (speeding, jaywalking, murder, etc.), and whom they have reason to believe may be an illegal immigrant (i.e., something more substantial than "He looks kinda Hispanic"). It does not allow them to just stop people randomly on the street for no reason, it just allows them to ask for proof of immigration status in addition to driver's license, etc.

At least, that's what I heard, I haven't really looked into it.

[Edit: The real problem, of course, is the overly high minimum wage and heavy tax burden that makes it worth it for employers to risk breaking the law to hire illegal immigrants.]

It's infuriating to me that the minimum wage law has priced legal residents out of work, while illegal immigrants swoop in to fill the supply shortage.

[GallopingQwerty]

It's infuriating to me that the minimum wage law has priced legal residents out of work, while illegal immigrants swoop in to fill the supply shortage.

Oh c'mon man, they don't "swoop", they're just willing to take the crappy jobs for crappy pay. I have friends who have been out of work for a year and they still wouldn't take the pay that the day laborers would.

So again I ask, whose fault is it? The folks who will take any work so they can feed their families, or the employers who deliberately go after them to save money?

[discojoe]

Oh c'mon man, they don't "swoop", they're just willing to take the crappy jobs for crappy pay.

OK, put aside the word swoop.

The reality of minimum wage is that it prices people out of work. Yeah, it's good for the people who find a job, but when you're on the inside looking out, things usually look pretty good.

There are plenty of people who would be willing to work crappy jobs for crappy pay, but they can't because the law says that they must be hired for a minimum wage. This is why illegal immigrants find it so lucrative to come here. Minimum wage is essentially a subsidy of illegal immigration.

I have friends who have been out of work for a year and they still wouldn't take the pay that the day laborers would.

That's because many Americans will not work low paying jobs on principle, but there are still many who will.

So again I ask, whose fault is it? The folks who will take any work so they can feed their families, or the employers who deliberately go after them to save money?

Minimum wage is the fault of the government.

[Eldanen]

First, please don't condescendingly refer to me as baby.

Second, the purpose of history class is not to teach about "white" or "black" history; rather, it is to learn about the important events that have shaped society so that people will have a solid foundation of contextual knowledge with which to judge current events. Adding a particular race's history into the curriculum for the purpose of "fairness" is not conducive to actual learning, especially given how politically motivated the curriculum is. Why am I being forced to learn something just to make a group of people feel better?

Third, there is not any equivalent, official or de facto, of "white history month." In my college history class, I learned about Western Civilization, and the curriculum, for blatantly politically correct purposes, constantly mentioned African Civilization and women. So it's not like our classes don't already inject black history into the curriculum.

Fourth, you may wish to consider why a hypothetical history class would primarily talk about the history of Caucasian peoples. Might it have something to do with societal contribution?

By the way, my role model is a black person, so I'd like to offer you a preemptive STFU in the event of any racism accusations.

Actually, I was agreeing with you, lol.