mr contrite

JESSE JACKSON'S tears as he watched Barack Obama's victory speech said it all. The face of the aging civil rights leader - a man who witnessed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and twice ran for president himself - conveyed pride and amazement in Obama's accomplishment.

It was also a reminder that Obama's victory closes the curtain on the old civil rights movement. A new era began with the election of America's first black president.

The feeling of being witness to a very special moment in American politics permeated election night. "This is an historic election, and I recognize the significance it has for African-Americans," declared Republican candidate John McCain in his concession speech. ". . . We both realize that we have come a long way from the injustices that once stained our nation's reputation."

Obama campaigned as an African-American candidate without a race-based agenda. Yet exactly what it means for the country to be led by a so-called "post-racial" president is still unclear. While Obama's victory is bound to alter the conversation about race between black and white Americans, it doesn't immediately solve the problems that long motivated civil rights leaders.

How might Obama's remarkable achievement affect policy? During a debate in Philadelphia with Hillary Clinton, Obama said in response to a question that his own daughters do not deserve affirmative action because of their economic privilege. As president, will he lead the way from race-based to class-based policies?

Some black leaders say Obama's political success means it's time to shift away from the dialogue of victimhood.

"Racism is no longer the primary obstacle to black progress. With the election of a black man whose middle name is Hussein, the rhetoric of white racism is off the table," declared the Rev. Eugene Rivers, a Boston-based minister with a national agenda and a history of taking controversial stands. "Black people don't want to hear it. White people don't want to hear it. . . . The old school is over."

By "old school," Rivers is referring to what he calls the "professional protest leadership" represented by civil rights activists like Jackson. That worldview, said Rivers, calls for "decrying inequality" and blaming white racism for all the problems of African-Americans.

Kevin Peterson, a Boston community activist who runs the Ella J. Baker House in Dorchester, also calls for a new brand of black leadership. "Obama's success this political cycle represents a new style," Peterson said. "The notion that black people need to employ racially polarizing stances is now extinct. There are more effective ways to get things done for our communities than being accusatory."

At the same time, major disparities in income and education continue to separate black and white America; gang violence takes the lives of black teenagers in cities across America; and a generation of black men call prison their home. Community leaders want these problems solved somehow.

Said the Rev. Mark Scott, another Boston-based minister, "You can't say it's because of racism. You can't just say, 'Pull your pants up.' You have to ask, 'What work are we going to do to close the gaps?' "

During the campaign, Obama was forced to break with the racially polarizing rhetoric of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In his speech on race, Obama faulted Wright for failing to recognize the country's racial progress. However, he did not cut Wright loose until the minister reignited the controversy with more polarizing remarks.

Obama did not escape criticism for some of his own remarks, including a reference to his grandmother as "a typical white person." But he stayed away from the inflammatory rhetoric of the past.

Last summer, Jackson was caught on videotape making crude remarks about Obama and accusing the presidential candidate of "talking down to black people." He was scolded by his son, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., who served as co-chairman of Obama's presidential campaign and is now being mentioned as a contender for Obama's US Senate seat.

With Obama's victory, the torch is passing to a new generation of black leaders. But they still face some of the same old challenges.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/06/closing_the_door_on_victimhood

But your dislike of him apparently has nothing to do with him being black! Yet her like for him, must be for that reason.

 

Did you even consider for tiny weeny second, that maybe it's because he's a democrat and not a republican? Or that he is smart, organised, presidential...

.. not simply because he's black.

So remind me again why do people think you are a racist?

I have never said i dislike him, i admitted to a feeling of unease that i am unable to pinpoint, and also said that if it was because of his colour it would be easy for me to say that was the reason, but that is not the reason.

If he was able to bring increased stability to the world, as leader of the most powerful nation on earth, i would be the first to admit my gut instinct was wrong, but i just have a gnawing feeling that he is not going to be the great politician that the mass hysteria felt by many americans believe him to be.

He is up on a pedestal now, and the higher the expectation, the harder the fall.

Perhaps Oprah Winfrey's more concerned about America's future and the future of the world as a whole than lining her own pockets? An attitude that we would ALL do well in following

 

StarSparkle

Or perhaps it is simply because he is black.

Both vegetarians and Muslims are people whose beliefs impact on what they eat.

I'm curious as to why you would accomadate the vegetarians beliefs but those of the Muslims

I dare say that if they slit the throat of a live vegetable objections would be raised, but considering vegetarians and non vegetarians can eat the produce, regardless of where it is processed, your argument is pointless.

Simple - we don't. In the case of Halal in schools I think you'll find it only occurs in schools with significant nubers of Muslim pupils in which case it becomes a simple matter of economics - it's cheaper to have the meat option as halal rather than provide two options.

In any case, why , if you're not bothered about eating halal meat at your local curry house would you be bothered about having it for your school dinner?

Is there this much fuss about 'bending over backwards' to accomadate vegetarians?

Errr.....no.

What would you class as significant numbers? a minority or majority, because they introduced it in a school in Oxford without informing the parents, and that at a school that did not have a majority of muslim pupils, and surely if economics are the main concern than non-halal meat would be the cheaper option, rather than having to purchase two meat options.

Is it because he's black and he doesn't fit with your world view.

Nothing to do with colour, that would have been easy for me to say, but in this case no, its just something about him, his campaign and his attitude, plus the adoration he seems to recieve from americans, i watched Oprah Winfrey cheering at his victory, yet she is one who will be hit hardest by his taxation plans, strange reaction from some.

No doubt China and Russia will be testing him out too.

No doubt, but it is more than likely to be sabre rattling rather than direct action, countries such as China and Russia know the consequences of direct action, whereas al qaeda dont care.

Another good source of tips for vouchers, codes and money off tips for supermarket shopping (and many other things) is Moneysavingexpert.

Personally i feel an unease about obama, cant put my finger on it, but something just doesnt feel right, perhaps it is my belief that with him in power, alqaeda will feel that now is the time to increase their terrorist activities, to test out the new president.

You heard right. Did you also hear overall crime and overall violent crime remain down on last year ?

Senior police chiefs admitted the problems affected all 43 forces in England and Wales.

In the latest quarterly figures published yesterday the category of ‘most serious violence against the person’ had leapt by 22 percent year on year.

It rose from 4,500 in the second quarter last year to 5,500 in the same period this year, equivalent to around 60 a day.

Figures for serious stabbings rose 29 percent, from 1,253 in the second quarter of 2007 to 1,616 in 2008 — equivalent to an extra 1,500 stabbings each year.

Use of knives in sexual offences was counted separately for the first time, revealing there were 8,610 incidents in the three months to June — equivalent to 34,440 per year, or almost 100 offences per day.

Recorded gun crime was down 6 percent, from 9,862 in the year to June 2007 to 9,306 the following year.

Between 2007 and 2008 recorded drug crimes were up 8 percent, with 59,000 cases logged by police in the second quarter of this year, up from 55,600.

Considering the reduction iin crime was the cornerstone in arguments on previous threads, i feel fully vindicated.

After being castigated on numerous occasions for suggesting that there had been an in crease in serious crime in this country or for suggesting that there was any link in the rise in crime and the mass immigration we have had, figures out seem to show that many Police forces had been misreporting the number of serious crimes in this country over the last decade, and that, contrary to the belief of one particular poster, serious crime HAS risen by 22% over the last year, now considering that poster tried to link the (alleged) fall in crime to the high immigration numbers, would he now be prepared to admit his mistake? if not, then he must believe that the rise in serious crime MUST be, in some way, linked to immigration.

Too little too late from the unions who spent too long in promoting the rights of foreign labour, whilst ignoring the British worker, now the recession is here it seems hypocritical of them to protest at foreign labour.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7685894.stm

I seem to remember a certain poster mentioning a job he had applied for, went for the interview, never got the job, but admitted going for the job in a tracksuit, or some other unsuitable apparel.

How am I lying, all along I've indicated the claimant count and indicated that those who are unemployed and not claiming it are in the main choosing to do this.

 

Anyway, back to the conundrum you seem unable to solve. Are you now advocating that if migrant workers weren't here then you'd force those choosing not to work and not to cklaim back to work, and can we feel safe in the knowledge that when all the Surgeons, Doctors and Dentists have gone, that or treatment will be undertaken by the "Contrite Youth"those under 18's living at hom with their parents.

 

Truly astounding logic yet again!

I dont believe i have ever stated that all immigrants should go home, i have replied in context with your assumption that if all immigrants went home there would be a shortfall in the number of workers, and clearly shown that is not the case, and as the thread is regarding a curb on immigration to all intents and purposes our argument is slightly off topic, but whilst we are on this subject, what would your opinion on immigrant workers be if the estimates of 3 million unemployed by the end of next year, of which a great many would be claiming JSA, and the figures for those seeking work outnumbers immigrant workers?

Ok you've either deliberately lied or you've failed to read what i said, fact is I referred to the claimant count which you changed to the numbers of unemployed.

 

Again on the part that deals with the difference between the two, read what i said and you'll find that I indicated that this is generally through the persons choice.

 

So once again the conundrum that tears your argument on migrant workers apart goes unsolved.

 

Moving way from stats how about a real life example for you.

 

A number of weeks ago I had to have a wisdom tooth removed, this was done by a Polish dentist to my satisfaction., so in the world of Contritism where we have no immigrants next Monday morning, who will carry out these operations?

You are the one lying, or at best deliberately trying to be misleading, the comparison of figures clearly shows that there are more unemployed than immigrant workers, and just because you quote figures for claimants, as opposed for the true unemployment figures, does not mean you are correct, in fact it clearly shows that you are bereft of any reasonable response to my points put to you.

As for the Polish dentist, firstly hasnt it been stated that the immigrant workers take all the low paid jobs the British dont want, Dentistry, low paid?

and secondly, if the Polish dentist was no more, use a British one

I think you've been reading the Daily Mail for too long as you are starting to resort to lying in order to win an argument.

 

I would appreciate it if you could start posting accurate reactions to my comments.

 

For the umpteenth time the figures I quoted were the claimant count, there are a whole host of reasons why people can be unemployed and receive no JSA, these are generally of their own choice and unless you intend forcing people to work when they don't want to, then your argument is completely lost.

 

So once again, how do you intend filling the 900,000 shortfall in workers if you get your wish.

 

Options available to you now (updated)

 

Make those who through their own choice don't want to work

Make the sick work

Make us work longer hours

Start children at an earlier age

Well seeing as the accusations of lying are being levelled at me, i feel it only fair that i can accuse you of lying by falsely claiming that the difference between the claimant count and the unemployment figure is down to those not wishing to work, one example i used was of under 18s, lets see you refute that one.

British unemployment today posted its biggest rise since the country's last recession 17 years ago as the financial crisis filtered through to the jobs market.

Official figures showed unemployment measured by International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards rose by 164,000 in the three months to August from the previous quarter to stand at 1.79 million. The rise took the jobless rate up half a percentage point to 5.7%, also the biggest jump since July 1991.

"These numbers are truly horrendous and much worse than I had feared," said David Blanchflower, a labour market expert and member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.

He told guardian.co.uk his earlier prediction that unemployment would rise to 2 million by Christmas now looked conservative. "Unemployment will be above 2 million by Christmas. I am particularly worried at the 56,000 rise in the number of young unemployed people. These are school leavers who are unable to get a job or claim benefits, which is why the claimant count has not risen even faster than it has," he said.

The number of Britons out of work and claiming jobless benefits rose by 31,800 last month to 939,000, the eighth monthly increase in a row, and August's rise was revised higher to 35,700. The City had expected a 35,000 increase for September.

This so-called claimant count measure is always lower than the broader, internationally recognised ILO measure which includes people not claiming benefits, because some unemployed people are not entitled to claim benefits, or choose not to do so.

There may be a smattering of truth in what you allege, but it certainly does not stretch to the full 900,000 difference between the claimant count, and the ILO figures, it would be nice to get an apology for the comment on me lying, although i wont be holding my breath.

So long as the figures used are consistent and are what they claim to be and are the same across the period of time allowing a comparison, then there shouldn't be a problem.

 

I don't see how the difference between JSA claimants and the ILO figures makes any difference to the argument that Titanic was making.

It is not like what happened under Thatcher when the the way the figures were reported seemed to change regularly, as if specifically to make it look like there were less people made unemployed by the economic disaster that her VAT tax rises inflicted on our industries.

Using those figures in this context gives a false impression.

Which British people?

So let us assume for one moment that Mr Contrite gets his wish and by next Monday all the migrant workers have gone home through choice.

By my reckoning our position would then be:

608,000 vacancies would still be there

930,000 people would be getting paid for looking for work

1.2 million new jobs would be created from people going home

So where are we to find the 900,000 "British people" we'd need from?

From an earlier post from Titanic

I remember the figures being contentious (more so than today) in the 1980s.

 

I suspect the figures have always been contentious with some people wanting the numbers to include or exclude certain people.The number of unemployed according to the latest release is given as 1.79 million.

 

The 5.7% is the ILO unemployment rate, the 1.79 million is the ILO unemployment numbers.

 

I don't know where the 900 thousand has come from.

Thankyou, precisely what i was trying to put over, it is impossible to have a debate when one poster continues to claim that we have less than 1 million unemployed, and blindly refuses to admit that the figures are skewed to look better for the govt, the 900,000 was whatever the figure for those claiming JSA, couldnt be bothered going back to check the precise figure so it is probably incorrect on my part.

My point is to use the figure to try and justify immigration, whilst blindly ignoring the real unemployment figures, does him no favours, and hopefully he will move away from the stupidity of cherry picking one set of figures to justify his argument.

The figures in your article don't correspond with the Govt figures, is the article you have copied and pasted from current?

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2008/oct/stat151008.asp

The post was highlighting the different ways in which unemployment figures are portrayed, and the final paragraph stated.

Even back in 2001 the figures were contentious, the actual figures may have changed over the last 7 years, but the way that the unemployed are classified hasnt, yet you still prefer to believe the lower figures.

OK for classification purposes, what is the rate of unemployment?

900,000 or 5.7% or 1.79 million?

Unemployment dipped below the 1m mark this morning, for the first time in more than 25 years. Cabinet heavy hitters were out in force to celebrate what the prime minister called a significant milestone on the road to full employment.

However, the figures are not as good as they look. For a start, the government is focusing on the claimant count, that is, the number of people out of work and claiming benefit. This is the measure Labour slated in opposition as a misleading guide to the true length of the dole queue.

The government's preferred measure, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition, which includes all those available and looking for work, but not necessarily on benefits, is much higher, at 1.5m. This is still the lowest figure on record but not the one ministers chose to highlight.

Perish the thought that the approaching election has anything to do with the claimant count coming back into fashion.

Even the ILO definition of unemployment does not give a true guide to the state of the labour market because it focuses on those people who are "work-ready". It therefore excludes vast swathes of the population who do not have jobs, including those with family responsibilities who nevertheless want to work, others who have given up hope of finding work and still more who are sick and disabled.

If all these people are thrown into the calculation, labour market experts reckon that the true level of joblessness is nearer to 3m, not 1m.

Even back in 2001 the figures were contentious, the actual figures may have changed over the last 7 years, but the way that the unemployed are classified hasnt, yet you still prefer to believe the lower figures.

People under 18, if living away from home and not in full-time education can claim JSA. People whose partners earn too much! Now you're plumbing the depths. Would that include stay at home parents? One of the cornerstones of social fabric? Please.

 

More to the point, these people are not classed as unemployed at all, and never have been, so in future, be truthful about the real costs, and facts about unemployment.

So would you like to explain the difference between the 900.000 or whatever the figure is claiming JSA, and the figure of 1.79 million unemployed that we have now? so 900,000 unemployed (govt statistics) are not really unemployed? And what of under 18s living at home NOT in full time education, are they not unemployed, and apparently in certain cases over 55s are also excluded from claiming JSA.

I wonder how they will handle suspected cancer cases? GPs at the moment are encouarged not to mess about and get people referred ASAP as the sooner the better with most cancers.

The situation must have changed over the last decade or so because when my dad was finally referred, after 8 months of being told he had IBS, it was too late, and the cancer had spread, the secondary cancer was what killed him.

Difficult call for GPs, and 2 personal incidents should lead me to oppose the paying of GPs for not referring, but maybe (and impossible to prove) if the scheme had been in place back then, my dads cancer may have been detected sooner, based on his symptons, and he might still be here today.

IMMIGRANTS are squeezing hundreds of thousands of British workers out of jobs, official figures show.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/66805

Looks like im not the only one who feels this is the case.

At first glance i felt the same way, but upon explanation, i can see the merits, apparently many doctors are referring patients to specialists for illnesses that the GP could treat at the surgery without the need for specialist treatment, maybe the GPs are fearful of failing to spot a serious illness, and pass the buck by sending the patient further up the medical ladder, although my own recent experience of the GPs referring me to a consultant leads me to believe that the GPs are already reluctant to refer a patient, and it was only after 3 weeks and 4 different GP visits did i get the referral i needed to see a consultant and get an MRI scan, which resulted in surgery.