Tired_Old_Man

I don't know if this would qualify as an "Indian Health Services" job, but Maybe you can get a job in Connecticut at one of the Indian Casenos taking care of the people who pass out when they hit the jackpot or go into shock when the nightmare caused by dreams of hitting the jackpot hits them. :faint:

BTW-I pay the cost of the GYN visit and Pap-Smear every year anyway. The cost is worth it to keep my wife of 39 years around. We have almost 11 years to go to reach our 50th Wedding Anniversary. The Quest to reach that milestone was one of the main reason for my decision to get a Lap-Band, so I am not going to let the stupidity, ignorance and arrogance of my Medical Plan administrators stop me from reaching our "Big Day".

As a man, I have very little first hand knowledge of Pap-Smears. But I do have first hand knowledge that it is not covered by my Employee Provided Medical Insurance Plan. So many other more expensive and less important items are covered. Is this just another slap in the face to women by male dominated policy makers? :girl_hug:

You weren't asking me, but I also watch FOX for the same reason. They are laughing right in the faces of their viewers when they call the most biased, one sided news shows: "Fair and Balance" and When Bill O'Reilly refers to his show as the "No-Spin Zone". A more Realistic name for "Mr. O" might be "The Spinning Top" or at least the "Top Spinner". If you haven't seen it, rent "OutFoxed-Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"

It would be easy for the Republicans if Hillary becomes president. They will not have to learn anything new (God forbid). They will start saying, "everything is Clinton's fault" again. :faint:

Flag s were first used as a way of coordinating battles. In a way it was the way of knowing who was with you and who was again' you. That is why (hold your breath for the drum roll) I do not pledge allegiance to the flag at any meetings or events. I might just as well pledge allegiance to a F16 fighter plane, M16 rifle or an M1 tank. I would willingly pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the USA, but not to a piece of cloth who's purpose was an implement of war. I would die to protect our constitution, while many of those who claim to love the flag and who claim they would give their live for the flag, want to change the constitution and thereby gut it of the freedoms that it guarantees us. Flags today are often used for the purpose of browbeating. “Either you love the flag or you are not a true American” or “Either you love the flag or you are not a patriot”. I don't love clothe. I love freedom and humanity.

You need to either use a spreadsheet to do the calculations or a calculator set up to figure out loan payments. They have those types of calculators on web-sites that entice you to refinance your home. Just put it the sum owed on your loan as the price of a house with the interest rate and then the sum that would be owed if you take the course as the price of the house. This is more a math question than a nursing question.

YES Because I had: Diabetes High Blood pressure Heart Problems Knee Problems Ankle Problems Kidney problems Liver problems Problems making love to my wife Problems getting in and out of my car and truck Problems doing work around the house And now most of those problems are gone or much better.

by Heather Wokusch Since Congress recently handed Bush the power to identify American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely without charge, it's worth examining the administration's record of prisoner abuse as well as the building of stateside detention centers. As Texas governor (from 1995-2000) Bush oversaw the executions of 152 prisoners, and thus became the most-killing governor in the history of the United States. Ethnic minorities, many of whom did not have access to proper legal representation, comprised a large percentage of those Bush put to death, and in one particularly egregious example, Bush executed an immigrant who hadn't even seen a consular official from his own country (as is required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the US was a signatory). Bush's explanation: "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?" Governor Bush also flouted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by choosing to execute juvenile offenders, a practice shared at the time only by Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Significantly, in 1998 a full 92% of the juvenile offenders on Bush's death row were ethnic minorities. Conditions inside Texan prisons during Bush's reign were so notorious that federal Judge William Wayne Justice wrote, "Many inmates credibly testified to the existence of violence, rape and extortion in the prison system and about their own suffering from such abysmal conditions." In September 1996, for example, a videotaped raid on inmates at a county jail in Texas showed guards using stun guns and an attack dog on prisoners, who were later dragged face-down back to their cells. Funding of mental health programs during Bush's reign was so poor that Texan prisons had a sizeable number of mentally-impaired inmates; defying international human rights standards, these inmates ended up on death row. For instance, a prisoner named Emile Duhamel, with severe psychological disabilities and an IQ of 56, died in his Texan death-row jail cell in July 1998. Authorities blamed "natural causes" but a lack of air conditioning in cells that topped 100 degrees Fahrenheit in a summer heat wave may have killed Duhamel instead. How many other Texan prisoners died of such neglect during Bush's governorship is unclear. As president, Bush presides over a prison population topping two million people, giving America the dubious distinction of having a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country. When considering that (based on 2003 figures) the US has three times more prisoners per capita than Iran and seven times more than Germany, the nation looks more like a Gulag than the Land of the Free. The White House has also stifled investigation into the roughly 760 aliens (mainly Muslim men) the US government rounded up post-9/11, ostensibly for immigration violations. Amnesty International reports that 9/11 detainees have suffered "a pattern of physical and verbal abuse by some corrections officers" and a denial of "basic human rights." Then of course, there's Guantanamo, where the US is holding hundreds of detainees in top secrecy and without access to courts, legal counsel or family visits. Add to that the thousands of Afghans and Iraqis the US has imprisoned (including a large percentage of innocent civilians) and countless US secret prisons across the globe, and it looks as if incarceration is the nation's best export. While Abu Ghraib may have left administration officials falling over themselves with protestations of compassion, it's worth remembering that the Bush White House has fought hard against the International Convention Against Torture, especially a proposal to establish voluntary inspections of prisons and detention centers in signatory countries, such as the United States. Put it all together, and last week's passage of the Military Commissions Act is ominous for those in the US. As Bruce Ackerman noted recently in The Los Angeles Times, the legislation "authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any protections of the Bill of Rights." The vague criteria for being labeled an enemy combatant (taking part in "hostilities against the United States") don't help either. Would that include anti-war protestors? People who criticize Bush? Unclear. In 2002, wacko former Attorney General John Ashcroft called for the indefinite detainment of US citizens he considered to be "enemy combatants," and while widely criticized at the time, Congress went ahead and fulfilled Ashcroft's nefarious vision last week. Ashcroft had also called for stateside internment camps, and accordingly, in January 2006 the US government awarded a Halliburton subsidiary $385 million to build detention centers to be used for, "an unexpected influx of immigrants or to house people after a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space." New programs that require additional detention space. Hmm. The disgraceful Military Commissions Act and the building of domestic internment camps are yet more examples of blowback from the administration's so-called war on terror, and we ignore these increasing assaults on our civil liberties at our own peril. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1004-35.htm

You are I assume white and I also assume that the customers were. If I am wrong, much of what I say may not apply, but much still will. What angers me is that people only see and mention things when other races or groups are involved. Many years ago, I had a part time job driving a delivery truck for an auto-parts store. Our machine shop had done some work on a V8 engine and I had to deliver it to the customer. One of the more senior men was assigned to go with me because it took two people to unload the big Cadilac engine. The other man was driving. He was a WASP and in a hurry to make the delivery and get back to the store. We traveled some heavily congested streets and the highway where there was a lot of construction that required unusual lane changes and merges. The area we were in is one of the most intergated areas in NY. A car with a Black driver cut in front of us at one of the merge points, and my coworkered yelled out, "Those niggers can't drive for $hit". Later we had a dash for the open lane with a man wearing a Yamaca and my driver yelled out, "those Jew ba$tards can't drive for $hit" and of course when when a man's car wearing a turbine came close it was "those towel heads can't drive for $hit" and I also heard "Damn women can't drive for $hit", Damn chinks can't drive for $hit", and so on and so on. BUT When he had to jam his brakes on to avoid a car of a nondescript white man, I did not hear "those white ba$tars can't drive for $hit". When I asked him why he said, "That idiot can't drive for $hit" instead of mentioning his race, he was too dumbfounded to give me an answer and then claimed that he was not predjudiced. I imagine if an obese person had walked in front of us at a stop sign or when we had the green light, I would have heard, "Those fat slobs can't walk for $hit" or "those fat slobs think they own the street". He only saw differences in the people who made him mad.

Symbols of hate, if not known to be symbols of hate by the viewer, may not effect people in a hateful way. When I was a child, I used to draw Nazi insignias on pieces of paper. I had no idea what it was, except that I had seen it in movies. When I was told what it meant, I stopped. Many people in the USA today, proudly wear that symbol. My father died in Berlin fighting against the people who flew that symbol on their flag. Many of the soldiers who fought under that symbol in WW11 were not as evil as the people who live in the USA in 2006 and who fly that symbol on a flag. Many of the German soldiers were drafted into military service and were brainwashed that they were defending Germany. I would say all of the Americans who fly the Nazi banner in the 21st century espouse the ideas that the banner represents and many of those same people also fly the confederate flag right next to their Nazi flag. If you flew the Confederate Flag at your school because it was what the school expected you to do, but you had no hatred of Blacks, nor condoned slavery or the idea that whites are superior, of course you are guilty of nothing. If you espoused the principles of slavery or the superiority of the white race, whether behind a confederate flag or Nazi flag, then you have only yourself to blame and only you can make amends for that. What was in a person's heart as a child is often governed by their parents and/or their peers. What is an adult's heart is the responsibility of that adult. Failure to grow is not totally the fault of the childhood experience, but the failure to reason, learn and challenge the past.

They never knew hate, and knowing of it would not have saved them. A few days after the tragedy, one of the World News TV shows was discussing the "strange idea" that these people, the Amish community and the family members of the victims had forgiven the killer and had invited the wife of the killer to the funerals and to help her grieve. Yes, it is a "strange idea". An idea that I believe was preached about 2000 years ago by a carpenter. We are a nations of Christians who know very little of and follow very little of the teachings of Christ. I am glad that the Amish set an example for the rest of us with their "strange idea".

Habeas Fascismus: The Terrorists Win By Michael I Niman ArtVoice (etc.) 10/5/06 Last week was one that will go down in infamy as one of the most important and shameful weeks in western history. While future Americans might not be allowed to freely discuss such subversive topics as history, school children in other countries will learn what happened in the last week of September, 2006. A mere five years after a band of razor wielding two-bit terrorists declared war on America by destroying the World Trade Center, both houses of the US Congress finished their job and voted to end all pretenses of democracy and begin the transition to an imperial form of governance backed by state terror. Habeas Corpus: 1215-2006 On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of last week, while most Americans were busy discussing the possibilities of the new football season, the US Senate and Congress voted on and passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Of course, unless you’re reading The Christian Science Monitor or Al Jazeerah, you probably weren’t even privy to the proper name of the bill that ended our 791 year-old British-American legal tradition of Habeas Corpus – the foundation of all human rights legislation since before the Magna Carta. Habeas Corpus, which is Latin for “you may have the body,” is, according to the US Supreme Court, “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” It is the basic requirement, formerly at least rhetorically respected, by almost every legal system on earth, that states that people who are arrested must be charged with a crime, and eventually have their day in court to defend themselves. The British Parliament adopted Habeas Corpus as the law of the land across the empire in 1679, while historians trace the first appearance of Habeas Corpus in British law to 1215. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 ends all of that, placing the United States at the bottom of the dung heap when it comes to legal protections of the most basic of human rights – the right not to be “disappeared” by one’s own government. On the subject of disappearances, it seems all references to The Military Commissions Act of 2006 were preemptively disappeared before the bill was voted on. Talk about obfuscation – according to a Lexis/Nexis database search of all major US newspapers, only five articles mentioned the bill by name, and of the five, only two mentioned it before it was voted on. Quisling Genuflection to Fascism Bill of 2006 The rest of the US press, according to another Lexis/Nexis search, made up euphemistically loaded names for the bill, such as The Detainee Bill, Interrogation Legislation, or the Terror Bill, as if this law would only affect “terrorists.” Of course, all this confusion made it quite difficult to locate a copy of the actual bill before it was voted on, and to locate a roll call for the vote after it was passed. It shouldn’t require a sleuth to find out something as simple as the name of the bill that essentially ends our pretenses toward democracy. In any event, I’ll join the rest of the press corps and rename the bill for my own purposes as well, hereon in calling it the Quisling Genuflection to Fascism Bill of 2006, which I’ll simply gloss as the “Quisling Act.” According to the New York Times, the Quisling Act (s3930) creates an undefined category of people called “enemy combatants,” a designation which can be arbitrarily doled out by the Bush administration or their minions. According to The Times, once designated as an enemy combatant, a person can be subjected “to arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal.” The bill strips the legislative branch of government of any oversight over disappearances ordained by an imperial presidency. According to The Times, All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him [sic.] an illegal combatant . . .” With the elimination of Habeas Corpus, the Times points out, the disappeared “would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment.” And while in prison, the Quisling Act allows for the disappeared to be tortured and gives the Bush administration the legal authority to decide what does and does not constitute torture, while drawing the line only at rape, murder, waterboarding and a few other of the more vile acts American interrogators have recently been accused of. Of course, if someone else, say the “democratic” government of Iraq, waterboards a prisoner, the Quisling Act states that any testimony obtained can be used as evidence in American courts. The bill doesn’t specifically mention beating detainees with pikes, stretching them on racks, or feeding them to lions – so the ultimate determination as to whether those forms of interrogation would be prohibited lies with the imperial president. A Law to Negate the Rule of Law The Quisling Act brings the US into uncharted legal territory. It essence, it is a law to negate the rule of law. According to legal scholars, the Bush administration can designate US citizens as enemy combatants using purposely vague guidelines under which someone can be disappeared for lending an undefined sort of material aid to a group or person unilaterally determined by the Bush administration to fall under the “terrorism” rubric. The Bush administration can also determine someone to be an enemy combatant for “purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States.” Of course, this term is not defined. And if you are disappeared for allegedly providing such support, you will not have the right to argue that you didn’t. It gets worse. Recent laws have attempted to define terrorism in corporate friendly terms so that anyone protesting against commercial activities could be designated a terrorist. Utah, for example, passed a “commercial terrorism” bill that identified anyone picketing a business with the intent of discouraging people from entering it, as engaging in terrorism. Under this law, for instance, the now celebrated 1960 sit-in at a segregated North Carolina Woolworth’s lunch counter would be considered terrorism. If that law and the new Quisling Act were in place in 1960, the four black civil rights heroes who demanded their right to be served lunch along with white patrons would have simply been disappeared off to gulags. A federal court struck down Utah’s law in 2001 and many people are certain that the Supreme Court will strike down the Quisling Act. But, in case you haven’t noticed, the courts are a changing. The Supreme Court has nine members. Four of them, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Bush appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, have already shown themselves to line up with the Bush junta even when this meant undermining the rule of law. One more Bush appointee, and this could happen if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, and the Supreme Court could swing to becoming a 5-4 rubber stamp for whatever insanity the Bush administration sends their way. Predictive Assassination So lets go back and revisit what constitutes a terrorist supporter – someone who, under the laws passed this week, can be disappeared into a system of secret Gulags. Journalist Robert Parry points out that in a recent speech given by George W. Bush in the lead-up to the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, he blamed the Russian revolution and the rise of the Nazis on the fact that no one took out Lenin when he first stated publishing pamphlets on communism, or Hitler, when he first started writing about Nazism. Hence, it appears, Bush is now advocating preemptive strikes against speech – what Parry calls, the end of free speech and free thought. According to Parry, Bush’s fantasy of “wiping out some future Lenin or Hitler would require killing or imprisoning anyone who wrote about political change in a way that rulers considered objectionable at that time.” Such “predictive assassination,” Parry argues, might kill, along with a Hitler or a Lenin, a Mandela or a Jefferson. And if you’re wondering who the new targets for predictive assassination might be, you don’t have to look too far. In the same September 5 th speech (available at whitehouse.gov), Bush warns that intelligence evidence shows “al Qaeda intends to [launch], in [bin Laden’s] words, ‘a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.’" Bush goes on to explain that such a campaign would paint the War on Terror as causing financial losses and casualties, ultimately, with the aim of – and he explains that these are bin Laden’s words – "creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan." Duck and Cover Get it. It’s the free press, reporting ridiculous notions about the costs of war, and perhaps its ineffectiveness at making us safer from anything, that are out there supporting hostilities against the United States by spreading what Bush deems as al Qaeda propaganda – or more accurately, by reporting the news of the day. How much more clear does the writing on the wall have to be? Why were we supposed to think it was a joke when Bush, early in his judicially imposed presidency, said that things would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as he was the dictator. The Quisling Act isn’t about locking up terrorists. We’ve always done that. It’s about locking up innocent people. People who can’t be convicted of a crime because there’s no evidence that they committed a crime. This is the only new class of people who will be detained under this new law – people who were never, nor would they likely ever be, convicted of a crime. This is a bill about locking up innocent people and terrorizing the population by holding the threat of disappearance and torture over our heads. The Senate approved the Quisling Act 65-34, with 12 Democrats joining in with an almost unanimous pack of Republicans. The Congress approved it 250-170, with 34 Democrats supporting the Republican mob.

We have had threads in this forum recently on politics that did not get out of hand even though the threads went on for days. So I both hope and think we can discuss this issue without name calling. I lived in the North for 58 years. I worked in Queens which is a Borough of NY City for 35 years and lived in another Borough, Brooklyn for about 54 years. Most of my co-workers were from the more conservative Long Island. I went to college for almost 3 years in the middle of Pennsylvania. I now live on the Treasure coast of Florida. There is not much difference in the places that I have lived. In each of the places, if there were no Blacks around, whites would have no problem with making an anti-Black racial slur or an anti-Black comment or criticism. If there were Blacks within sight, but out of earshot, many whites would cover their mouth and lower their voice before making those kinds of remarks. The only difference I have noticed is here in Florida, some people like to fly their confederate flags or have confederate flag stickers on their cars/trucks or wear tee-shirts with confederate flag pictures. Some of the tee-shirts with the confederate flags on them also have challenging remarks. I saw one recently that said, "If this flag bothers you, you can kiss my a$$”. Another had drawings of a confederate flag and Jesus kneeling on the front along with writing saying "Two things we need back in our schools: the confederate flag and Jesus Christ" on the back. Another confederate flag shirt said, "If this flag bothers you, then you don't know your history". I thought the confederate flag was the flag of the states which tried to succeed from the United States of America and therefor was in opposition to the USA and that the soldiers carrying the confederate flag were shooting at the people who carried the American flag. I guess it confuses me because it seems that the same states that support the American flag anti-desegregation constitutional amendment most fervently also support the confederate flag most often. It seems like many of the people I meet from the South are still fighting the "Civil War" or the “War between the States" as they like to call it and are supporting both flags, though not the principles of both of the warring parties. I struck up a conversation with one of the confederate flag tee-shirt wearers and one who was selling them along with shirts with Jim Crow symbolisms at a kiosk in the largest mall in my area of Florida. They both told me that they like the ideas that the designs express and it sends a message to certain people and those people that support those people. Neither would specify which "certain people" they were referring to, but since one was a salesman and the other was shopping, they didn't know each other, but they seemed to know that they agreed with each other, it must have been common knowledge. We can debate whether it is better that these things are left unsaid or whether it was better when people knew who their enemies were. I don't think there is any debate about the level of overt violence. It is way down. But many people use code-words now. Many politicians know and use the code-words. They are not like the George Wallace's of 30 years ago who came right out and said things. That is both good and bad. People don't have to hear the words as much, but many decent people are fooled when politicians use words that seem ok, normal and decent to them, but have hidden meanings to those in the know. It is a shame that a person can be preaching hate to one person and preaching good political philosophy to the person right next to him while saying one thing. Is it better to be sneaky or out in the open? Is it better for people to hear the hate who have no knowledge of those kinds of hate? Or is it better for some people to remain ignorant of their enemies, while other people do not even know that there is a war (of words and ideas) going on?

I want my wife, son and daughter-in-law to read it. :faint:

A carrot, an egg and a cup of coffee You will never look at a cup of coffee the same way again. A young woman went to her mother, and told her about her life and how things were so hard for her. She did not know how she was going to make it and wanted to give up. She was tired of fighting and struggling. It seemed that as one problem was solved, a new one arose. Her mother took her to the kitchen. She filled three pots with Water And placed each on a high fire. Soon each pot came to a boil. In the first pot, she placed carrots, in the second, she placed eggs and in the last one, she placed ground coffee Beans. She let them sit and boil, without saying a word. In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the Carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She pulled the eggs out and placed them in another bowl. Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a third bowl. Turning to her daughter, she asked, "Tell me, what do you see?" "Carrots, eggs and coffee," she replied. Her mother brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft. The mother then asked the daughter to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hard-boiled egg. Finally, the mother asked the daughter to sip the coffee. The daughter smiled, as she inhaled its rich aroma. The daughter then asked, "What does it mean, mother?" Her mother explained that each of these objects had faced the same Adversity: Boiling water, and each had reacted differently. The carrot went in strong, hard and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, it softened and became weak. The egg had been fragile. Its thin outer shell had protected its liquid interior, but after sitting in the boiling water, its inside became hardened. The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they were in the boiling water, they had changed the water. "Which are you?" she asked her daughter. "When adversity knocks on your door, how do you respond? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean?" Think of this: Which am I? Am I the carrot that seems strong, but with pain and adversity, do I wilt and become soft, and lose my strength? Am I the egg that starts with a malleable heart, and then changes with the heat? Did I have a Fluid spirit, but after a death, a breakup, a financial hardship or some other trial, have I become hardened and stiff? Does my shell look the same, but on the inside am I bitter and tough, with a stiff spirit and hardened heart? Or am I like the coffee bean? The bean actually changes the hot water, the very circumstance that brings the pain. When the water gets hot, It releases the fragrance and flavor of the bean. If you are like the bean, when things are at their worst, you get better and change the situation around you. When the hour is the darkest and trials are their greatest, do you elevate yourself to another level? How do you handle adversity? Are you a carrot, an egg or a coffee bean? Count your blessings, not your problems.

I do not think diversity has run amok. I think things are being done which are foolish and I sometimes wonder if people who are against diversity sometimes set things up to discredit diversity. Why put someone who speaks broken English in a job that requires fluent English and good language skills? I doubt that the company wants to go out of business, but maybe the department head doesn't like Mexicans, so he puts a Mexican on the customer service line that one reaches when you select "One" for English. Not just any Mexican, but the one with the heaviest accent and worst conversational skills. I was speaking to an Hispanic on a customer service call about trying to straighten out a bill. She was having a hard time understanding my name, so I spelled it out phonetically. Let's pretend my name is Thomas Manual. I said Michael, Alpha, Nancy, Utah, Alpha, Larry and she replied what is your next name after Nancy? She thought my name was "Michael Alpha Nancy Utah Alpha Larry". That has nothing to do with diversity. It is about choosing the wrong people for the wrong job.

From TOM to TommyO: How Could I ever think that anyone with my name would be full of hot air. I think that your opinion is just as valid as mine, though I think you are wrong. I have been called an anarchist. I dislike authority for authority's sake, but I would never rebel just to rebel. Yes, Carlene hit the nail on the head when she assumed that my point was that people who speak different forms of the same language are as unable to work together as people who speak different languages. I would never say you were full of hot air. If you called me a jerk or worse, I would still not say you are full of hot air. I would just speak around the insulting comment. Before I went to work for the airline the I stayed at for 35 years, I was told by a friend that worked there, that they did not allow beards on new hires. I had had a beard for the previous 7 or 8 years and both me and my wife liked it, but she was a mother to be who had to stop working because of her pregnancy and the starting pay was over twice what I was making as an electrical assistant and had medical benefits. I could have stuck to my guns, went for the interview and been turned down, but I had a family to consider. After I passed my probation, I grew my beard back. About 7 years later, I applied for a promotion to maintenance instructor (which is management) and I told me perspective Manager that I would not shave off my beard. I got the job because of my talent. About a year later, the son of one of the mechanics that worked there applied and got a job as a mechanic. I had met the son as a young teen when I visited his father's home many years earlier and he was impressed with me because of my flashy (and very fast) motorcycle and because of my Tee-shirt with a picture of a lawn with a sign saying, "KEEP ON THE GRASS". One day, I heard some of the other instructors saying, “too bad that he (the son) was not going to pass probation since he is already a better mechanic than his father”. I asked why and one instructor rubbed his face in the beard area. I went to the son and said, “if you trust me after all these years, shave”. I could not go into too many details, but he shaved, passed his probation and had many years of earning top dollar with good benefits, raised a family and bought a home. IMHO, one must decide which battles are worth fighting and which are not. If someone needs to speak a dialect of English to survive in his rough and tumble neighborhood, fine do it. But if he wants to escape that neighborhood and its poverty and crime, learning to speak properly is not too much to ask. TOM PS: My name is not TOM, but I still would never insinuate that you are full of hot air.

If you have not seen it yet, may I recommend that you rent the DVD of the Oscar winning movie "Crash". One of its main points is that people who are discriminated against are no less likely to discriminate against other people.

We can pretend that we do not see race or think about race. We can pretend that race is of little importance and the big problems are solved. In the USA, we have got to a point where certain comedians can make a certain joke, but another can not. Chris Rock makes a lot of jokes putting down certain commonly accepted ideas that Blacks are supposed to have as well as those of whites, but if Jay Leno would make the same exact jokes in a concert he would be labeled a racist. In one of Chris Rocks' movies, he comes back to life (after Heaven has made a mistake) as an old white man. While in a store with a Black woman, he sings along to the radio and when the word "nigger" comes up, he continues singing and gets punched in the face for singing that word. In an episode of "Girlfriends" which is a Black version of "Sex in the City", one of the 4 main characters is a girl with a white mother and Black father. Her half-sister who is all white is visiting for a party and when all the girls sing along to a song and the word "nigger" comes up, she continues singing and is told off for singing that word by the biracial half sister, who in turn gets told off by the (supposedly all Black) other cast members. At what point can you say "nigger" ? Is 1/2 Black enough? NO. Note even if you are not trying to pass for white. How about 3/4 Black? Does it depend on how light you are? Well, Bill Cosby can say the word. Recently when he criticized Black male teenagers for their dress and attitude, he caused an uproar. He is one of the few people in the USA who can make the statements that he made with only a modicum of criticism. He was criticized by some Blacks for giving whites ammunition to use against them. And it was picked up by many Republicans. I heard a Republican first quote Bill Cosby and then Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I dream of the day when little children will be judged not by the color of their skin...". I wish people could be judged by their intent. But while Bill Cosby may be just a comedian to some, he is a de facto spokesman for the Black community and as one who knows the value of education and the need to meet some of society's rules to succeed, he was one of the few who could start a needed dialog.

We can pretend that we are not talking about race. But when I made the mistake of using Ebonics to make a point about grammar, then all succeeding discussion about Ebonics had racial overtones. There is a thread called "What color/race do you see" in the "Lap-Band Talk Lounge" that some of this thread might be better moved into. In the USA, we have got to a point where certain comedians can make a certain joke, but another can not. Chris Rock makes a lot of jokes putting down certain commonly accepted ideas that Blacks are supposed to have as well as those of whites, but if Jay Leno would make the same exact jokes in a concert he would be labeled a racist. In one of Chris Rocks' movies, he comes back to life (after Heaven has made a mistake) as an old white man. While in a store with a Black woman, he sings along to the radio and when the word "nigger" comes up, he continues singing and gets punched in the face for singing that word. In an episode of "Girlfriends" which is a Black version of "Sex in the City", one of the 4 main characters is a girl with a white mother and Black father. Her half-sister who is all white is visiting for a party and when all the girls sing along to a song and the he word "nigger" comes up, she continues singing and told off for singing that word by the biracial half sister, who in turn gets told off by the (supposedly all Black) other cast members. At what point can you say "nigger" ? Is 1/2 Black enough? NO. Note even if you are not trying to pass for white. How about 3/4 Black? Does it depend on how light you are? Well, Bill Cosby can say the word. He is one of the few people in the USA who can make the statements that he made with only a modicum of criticism. He was criticized by some Blacks for giving whites ammunition to use against them. And it was picked up by many Republicans. I heard a Republican first quote Bill Cosby and then Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I dream of the day when little children will be judged not by the color of their skin...". I wish people could be judged by their intent. But while Bill Cosby may be just a comedian to some, he is a de facto spokesman for the Black community and as one who knows the value of education and the need to meet some of society's rules to succeed, he was one of the few who could start a needed dialog. I was watching TV news, the other night and they showed an American soldier in Iraq. he had just captured an Iraqi and told him to get down. The Iraqi did not understand English so he yelled louder and then louder to lay down. I don't understand why the Iraqi did not understand, they both could speak and hear, so why should a little thing like language get in the way?

I am not using "life and death" matters as a "red herring" or a scare technique. Please explain to me how I as a aircraft mechanic crew-chief could give my subordinate an instruction if we do not agree on the definition of the words or the usage of grammar that I use to give the instruction. I also would like to know how we are supposed to agree on the instructions in the aircraft manufacturer's maintenance manual if we do not agree on the definition of the words or the usage of grammar that are used in the instruction. I made a big mistake in my opening post by bringing in Ebonics. I was actually interesting in the relatively new usage of sentences like the McDonald's ad. I had said that "I am loving it" is not the same as "I love it" and wanted an English teacher to comment on it. I uses Ebonics as a stepping stone to show a possible progression between the standard English, the McDonald's type English and the Ebonics. It is my opinion that language is needed for communication. Communication is more important to me than the freedom to say whatever word you want in place of any other word or in any order. Here is a real red herring. It is also a joke as was the "3 Mile Island" story. A man is in a theater and yells "Fire, Fire". There is a stampede and dozens of people are injured. The police and fire department respond and when no fire is found the man is arrested for disturbing the peace and causing a riot. At trial he explains to the judge that when a good looking actress walked onto the screen, he yelled, "Fire, Fire" because she looked so "hot". It is what all his friends say when they see a "hot" looking babe. No, it never happened, just like the "3 Mile Island" story never happened. If you go back to my post on page 6 of this thread, you will see that I said that it was a joke made about the "3 Mile Island" incident. I only used the "3 Mile Island" joke to illustrate a point. The airplane story was true about a mechanic saying "bad" when he meant very, very, good. But during a televised debate on English, the "Fire, Fire" in the theater story was given to the debaters to ponder. Some said that the man should be found guilty and some said he was not guilty. If we can't agree that he is guilty, it may mean that we actually are agreeing on everything in this thread, but because we don't agree on the same language usage, when you say right I think that means left. So when you say, " I do not believe that the English language should, or can be regulated" I understand that to mean "We had better regulate English language or else the civilized world will come to an end”. See how easy agreement is. But that depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

Paddy had been drinking at his local Dublin pub all day and most of the night. Mick, the bartender, says "You'll not be drinking any more tonight,Paddy". Paddy replies "OK Mick, I'll be on my way, den." Paddy spins around on his stool and steps off. He falls flat on his face. "Shoite" he says and pulls himself up by the stool and dusts himself off. He takes a step towards the door and falls flat on his face. "Shoite, shoite!" he cries. He looks to the doorway and says to himself that if he can just get to the door and some fresh air, he'll be fine. He belly crawls to the door and shimmies up to the door frame. He sticks his head outside and takes a deep breath of fresh air, feels much betterm and takes a step out onto the pavement. He falls flat on his face. "Bejesus . . I'm fockin' focked," says he. He can see his house just a few doors down, and crawls to the front door, shimmies up the door frame, opens the door, and collapses inside. He takes a look up the stairs and says "No fockin' way." But he crawls up the stairs to his bedroom door and says "I can make it to the bed." Again he pulls himself up by the doorframe, takes a step into the room, and falls flat on his face. He says "Fock this, I gotta stop drinking," and falls into bed. The next morning, his wife Jess comes into the room carrying a cup of coffee and says, "Get up Paddy. Did you have a bit to drink last night?" Paddy says, "I did, Jess, I did. I was fockin' pissed, and how did you know?" "Mick the bartender phoned . . .You left your wheelchair at the pub."

I was going to give my opinion on race relations in the USA, but then I realized that most Americans that I speak to are totally confused about race. A coworker started to tell me a joke. He said, “There was a Jew, a Black and a Puerto Rican walking down the street...” but I stopped him and asked how many people there were? I told you, “a Jew, a Black and a Puerto Rican”. I said, “you described one person by his religion, one by his race and one by his land of birth. But it could be all one person.” I asked him if he remembered Sammy Davis Jr. and he said that he did. So I said, “I saw a Jew and a Black man walking down the street. How many people are there?” He said “Two”. “No, it was Sammy Davis Jr.” He was a Jew and a Black man. Most Blacks that I know are part white. I know a man who everyone says is Black, but I went to his house for a party and three of his four grand-parents where white. He married a white woman and had a child, so why is that child considered Black if 7 of the 8 grand-parents are white? That thinking makes it seem like Black is a impurity spoiling the white race. If a Puerto Rican is totally light in color they are called an Hispanic. Hispanic is not a race. If a Puerto Rican has Black skin, why is he not Black? Then we get into the other funny one; calling Blacks Afro-American. Peter Jennings, a few months before his death was reading a story on “ABC World News Tonight” about HIV-AIDS in Africa and he said, “40,000,000 Afro-Americans have HIV-AIDS in Africa” then paused and realized that the writer was trying to say that “40,000,000 Blacks have HIV-AIDS in Africa”, so Peter Jennings corrected the line because the people in Africa are not Afro-Americans, they may be Black, but not Afro-Americans. Think about this. If a Black man moves from Nigeria to the USA and becomes a citizen, does his race change from Black to Afro-American at his swearing in ceremony? Is a person from Egypt who has white skin an Afro-American if he becomes a US citizen? Is a white man from South Africa an Afro-American if he becomes a US citizen? Yes. But they are not Black. Let's see what people accuse me of after this post. That may give me a good idea about race relations in the USA.

I believe the point of the story was that in the USA, if someone who is not Black relates a negative thought about Blacks, then they are called racist. So by retelling a story told my a prominent Black man with a negative twist on modern Blacks, the poster would not be accused of racism. It is a shame that honesty or integrity of a story that discusses a racial issue must be judged first by race of the person telling the story. But it is a fact of modern day life in the USA.