Fifty protesters gathered at the Rotunda at UVa on Saturday to demand that the University pay subcontracted workers a living wage of $8.65/hour. To accomplish this, UVa would have to require of all contractors (such as Aramark, Morrisons and ServiceMaster) that they increase the pay of their employees at UVa. In Sunday’s Progress, UVa Board of Visitors member Terence Ross said that the living wage would be on the agenda for the next BOV meeting, but the Board Secretary says that isn’t true. Josh Goodman has the story in today’s Cavalier Daily.
News and meta-news about Charlottesville, VA, since 2001.
Sideblog
Police announced this afternoon that their investigation into what was initially believed to be a fatal fire on Rugby Avenue is now a homicide investigation. #
The Virginia Supreme Court has denied George Huguely’s appeal. His second-degree murder conviction will stand, WRIC reports. #
In a carefully worded story, and not citing specific sources, WTVR reports that forensic evidence belonging to Jesse Matthew Jr., the main suspect in the disappearance of Hannah Graham, matches forensic evidence collected during the investigation of Morgan Harrington’s 2009 murder. #
In the wake of Hannah Graham’s disappearance, and the evidence that came from private security footage, city officials are revisiting the question of installing security cameras on the downtown mall. #
Both Charlottesville Registrar Sheri Iachetta and former Electoral Board member Stephanie Commander have turned themselves in to the police on
four six and four felony counts of embezzlement, respectively. #Ten years ago, the National Institutes of Health budget doubled and schools like the University of Virginia built massive new research facilities. A decade later, those buildings remain largely underutilized. NPR visits UVA in this story on the effect of federal binge and spurge spending in the sciences. #
In 2012, Council approved a new student housing complex on West Main—now some council members are questioning whether what they were shown matches what was built. #
The Architectural Review Board has approved a bike-themed mural on West Market, below the McGuffey Art Center, although at least one member expressed concerns that it might look like the bicyclists were riding away from Charlottesville’s downtown. #
City Police Chief Tim Longo is meeting with city leaders to work on protocols regarding the use of military surplus police weapons in Charlottesville. #
A 100-year-old Colonnades resident received military honors for her service in the WWII Women’s Army Corps #
-
Archive for Sideblog »
From Loper’s website: photos, commentary, local City politicos to be seen . . . a big *yawn* on this story.
I wonder just how many of those activists hold themselves to the standards that they want the U held to. I am guessing that bunches of them make purchases all of the time (read: gasoline, food, paper, hotels, cars, clothing, schooling etc., etc.) without putting in the complete investigative and compliance/enforcement effort that they want U-Va to put in.
Besides, what is the moral difference between someone who works for a U-Va. subcontractor and someone who works for a U-Va. supplier? And a subcontractor’s supplier?
To those that are with me, hollar kid. To those against me — balderdash!
I wonder just how many of those activists hold themselves to the standards that they want the U held to. I am guessing that bunches of them make purchases all of the time (read: gasoline, food, paper, hotels, cars, clothing, schooling etc., etc.) without putting in the complete investigative and compliance/enforcement effort that they want U-Va to put in.
I wonder just how many balanced-budget activists hold themselves up to the standards that they want the U.S. Government held to. I’m guessing that bunches of them make purchases and receive checks all the time (read: groceries, rent, paychecks, cable bill, etc.) without putting in the complete investigating and compliance/enforcement effort regarding balancing their personal books and tracking their expenses that they want USA to put in.
Looks to me like a bunch of ex-hippies who never really decided to join the real world who didn’t have anything better to do on a Saturday afternoon. They don’t understand (or maybe don’t want to understand) that it might be more productive to not only recognize a problem, but also to come up with feasible solutions, and to work with those in charge to get those plans implemented than it is to simply demand a solution for said problem. I’ve got news for these folks: 50 middle-aged farts holding signs on a Saturday afternoon ain’t changing nobody’s mind.
As a budget balance guy with Quicken- I can assure you that you don’t want to overcharge me. For example when my dsl modem went down and sprint wanted $200 for a new one- I changed to cable got a free modem and reduced my monthly expense. And yes I am aware of adelphia’s problems. Do I investigate my water bill- no not to anythng but usage amounts. I have no other choices. After serious investigation I did however move my bank to the UVA credit union. And if I want to blow money on PowerPuff action figures(Mojo Jojo) made in a county I where I can’t visit the factory that’s is a real problem.
But Waldo’s previous statements misses the point. In personal economic’s it’s my money and with goverment budgets it’s also my money. Also most budget hawk’s point to excess not the expected. Politician’s get elected to spend MY money for the common good. They are suppose to be stewards of the people purse. Anything less leads to scandal.
PO
My problem isn’t with either of these two arguments… my problem is the rather weak economics behind the “living wage” debate. The answer isn’t in forcing the free market to artifically inflate labor costs… the government should be providing incentives and/or programs to get people out of low-paying jobs. No one gets into a minimum-wage job with the intention of staying there… everyone wants to move on to something that pays better.
Also, no one ever takes into account the small business side of the equation… there are several small local businesses that get shut out of contracts because of “living wage” clauses, which then has a bad effect on entrepreneurship in the local economy.
At it’s heart, living wage is a nice concept. However, there are too many activists and not enough people with the economic or business backgrounds who are truly thinking out these proposals.
And, not to beat a dead horse, but why the hell don’t you just focus on minimum wage laws? Also, do the living wage proposals take into account part-time employees like Joe Frat who needs a few hours during the week? Do they take into account Sally Mother who is putting in some extra hours while the kids are at school? How does one determine who is really needing the living wage?
It’s rather short-sighted (knee-jerk bleeding-heart liberal, as well) to simply throw out this blanket statement that Joe LocalBusinessOwner should increase his labor costs for everyone when it’s only a small few that need it. And what do those small few really need: a couple of dollars more per hour to do manual labor, or the education and/or training to move into more meaningful work?
Living wage = weak band-aid to a more serious problem.
-Politically Independent Anonymous
Fifty protesters gathered at the Rotunda at UVa on Saturday to demand that the University rescind the recent tuition and fee increases caused by the decision to pay subcontracted workers a living wage of $8.65/hour.
But Waldo’s previous statements misses the point. In personal economic’s it’s my money and with goverment budgets it’s also my money.
I was being sarcastic to make the point that you made better than I did: that we must hold our government to higher standards than we hold ourselves, because they serve a greater good.
Excellent point! No one ever stops to figure out what the consequences of one of these “issue du jour” protests is really about.
-Politically Independent Anonymous
Waldo, if I can offer a general comment, I find it fascinating and disturbing how conservative the viewpoints of most of your readers tend to be. The knee-jerk right-wing reactions that several of your most recent postings have elicited (as exemplified by this living wage story, the Rob Schilling story, the suburban sprawl story, etc.) really have me wondering how ideologically broad your readership is. Thankfully your usual posters are not representative of the vast majority of Charlottesville residents, and they tend to be a fairly small group of folks who seem to have nothing better to do than post their opinions on your site. I guess the liberals in this town are too busy working to troll your site while the conservatives have lots of time on their hands, thanks to their trust funds….
Waldo, if I can offer a general comment, I find it fascinating and disturbing how conservative the viewpoints of most of your readers tend to be.
Actually, this is a rather recent development, within the past few weeks. The readership started with friends and family, all liberal, and I’ve long lamented the liberal perspective that has defined cvillenews.com readers. (Though not without exception.) It’s not that I object to that perspective — heck, it’s my own! — but that a bunch of people saying “yeah, I know” to one another are unlikely to engage in particularly interesting discussion.
It appears that conservatives have just recently learned that cvillenews.com can be an interesting method of reaching civically-inclined Charlottesvillians, no doubt motivated in part by a desire to get the word out about Council candidate Rob Schilling.
In any case, you’ll notice that the more conservative posters tend to be Anonymous Cowards, raising the question of whether you’re reading the perspective of a single active poster or a large number of people. I suggest that it’s the former rather than the latter. Either way, I’m glad to see a little diversity of opinion. If you’ll give me a hand, we can battle these forces of Republican evil together. ;)
Yeah, God forbid there should be equal opinions voiced by someone other than your political affiliation.
Mmmm… I love the smell of the First Amendment in the morning.
-Politically Independent Anonymous
(p.s. — It seems to me that now that there’s a balance between conservative AND liberal viewpoints in these comments, now you’re afraid of… oh no… INTELLECTUAL DEBATE regarding the issues posted on this site.)
(p.p.s. — We’re not all Republicans, and we aren’t all Trustafarians… some of us actually work for a living. Thanks for the open mind.)
I’m not a democrat because I like to keep the money I make. I’m not a republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs.
For those who feel they need a living wage I have two words, LEARN TO FUCKING TYPE.
“we must hold our government to higher standards than we hold ourselves, because they serve a greater good.”
Government should be held to a higher standard, but not selectively, as is often the case. Politicians tend to have standards much lower than most, while their constituents either have similar low standards or are ambivalent towards their morals.
My question is – Does this standard apply to government at all times, or simply when convenient?
—jd
In this town most unearned fortunes are the property of liberals and most self made are the providence of conservative. Most of the trust funder’s I know are serious Dem’s who are classic “limousine liberal’s”. Liberal are probably to busy protesting to empty rooms on the Lawn to protest on this site. I think your real problem is that you find conservative thought disturbing. You can’t defeat it with fact so you try to win with “feelings”.
Of course your level of arrogance”Thankfully your usual posters are not representative of the vast majority of Charlottesville residents” represents classic liberal thought. Because you want to do good does not mean that you will. As Marx said’ “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”
The most troubling is “while the conservatives have lots of time on their hands”. This shows a fanatastic combination of class envy, ignorance, and self loathing that one hopes that the writer meant this screed as flame bait.
Pray tell true warrior of the people how do you find the time to visit this fomerly pristine wilderness for liberals? Trust fund perhaps or just an allownace from dad?
And remember to make sure and not leave on the CAPS lock! It can look like your shouting and that just won’t do when you want a job that pays more than $8.65.
Good luck with the job search,
Your Truly,
Mr. Manners
I have watched some serious conservatives on this board for months and some of them have given Waldo quite a lashing from time to time.
So Waldo I couldn’t tell if your complaining or not about this increase in the otherside. Blessing or curse?
I have watched some serious conservatives on this board for months and some of them have given Waldo quite a lashing from time to time.
Like I said — with some notable exceptions. But conservatives have long been outnumbered by liberals on cvillenews.com.
So Waldo I couldn’t tell if your complaining or not about this increase in the otherside. Blessing or curse?
Blessing, absolutely. That was why I wrote:
“I’ve long lamented the liberal perspective that has defined cvillenews.com readers. (Though not without exception.) It’s not that I object to that perspective — heck, it’s my own! — but that a bunch of people saying “yeah, I know” to one another are unlikely to engage in particularly interesting discussion. “
In this town most unearned fortunes are the property of liberals and most self made are the providence of conservative.
I haven’t seen any surveys so I don’t know what the truth is and I suspect that the Anonymous writer doesn’t either. I do know that I tend to come down to the left of center on many issues and I also know that I work hard for my money. I also know that the repeal of the inheritance tax (“death tax” to the sloganeers) has been a centerpiece of the Republican agenda in this country. The way folks accumulate unearned family wealth is through inheritance, isn’t it?
I enjoy engaging in intellectually honest dialogue with folks of opposing views and appreciate the opportunity to do so at this forum. I don’t appreciate name-calling and mud-slinging, however.
References by the above-poster to “limousine liberal’s” (sic) and “liberals (being) to (sic) busy protesting to empty rooms on the Lawn” do not represent conservative thought. That’s nothing but name-calling and sloganeering.
By the way, somebody who wanted to play the Anonymous poster’s game might say that the attribution of the reference “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” to Marx is typical of conservative mis-statement intended to mislead. Actually, it’s generally attributed to Samuel Johnson, who was quoted by his biographer, Boswell, as saying “Hell is paved with good intentions.” Note, no prefatory “the road to…” Boswell’s editor, Malone, added a footnote indicating this is a ‘proverbial sentence,’ and quoting an earlier 1651 source (yet still not in the common wording).
But, the truth is, our Anoymous poster is no convervative thinker, and his error doesn’t reflect on conservatives. He’s just a regurgitator of Rush Limbaugh phrases. We can’t enage in dialogue with name-callers.
Harry Landers
Waldo –
Idea for poll: What sort of political leaning do you have?
a) Conservative
b) Moderate
c) Liberal
or
a) Republican
b) Independent
c) Democrat
d) Libertarian
e) Green
agreed.
if you dont like your job, get a new one.
simple as that.
On my statements regarding the fortunes of Charlottesville are clearly my own observation and not empirical in any way. However it still what I know and the fact that you are unaware does not changes its truth.
On the death tax elimination, a red herring to be sure, you have no idea what so ever on what I think based on anything you read. So if you think we aren’t having a conversation it may be because you complaining about subjects not even mentioned.
And as to limousine liberals that is what I find many trust fund owners to be. There are many times when name calling is proper. For example “evildoer’s” comes to mind. Have you read the post being responded to?
As to muddying the waters with the Karl Marx “misquote” is classic. In Das Kapital the quote from my translation is “The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make money, without producing at all”. That is accurate and fits the discussion I was having. That you are unhappy with my quoting it is another red herring. It’s not an english paper, your not an english PHD, and it’s my bibliography.
As to “just a regurgitator of Rush Limbaugh phrases” I am unsure since I don’t listen to the radio at work, is perhaps a compliment or an insult. I do know that “regurgitator” is not a real word. I would have expected more from someone so particular about where a quote is from.
To paraphrase Harry, “We can’t enage(sic) in dialogue with people who use the word “regurgitator”
What if you have leanings? To answer your questions please add “it depends”.
What is “liberal?” How is “conservative” defined? Are we talking locally or nationally? In national and state politics, I’ve never voted for a Republican candidate, and can’t see myself being convinced to do so, so I consider myself a ‘thoughtful’ liberal. Here in Charlottesville, I feel like a damn right-winger when I look around at what looks to me like a mini-socialist wannabe-city-state. So relative to those who I’ve heard from in town, I’d have to call myself an ‘uneasy’ conservative.
I think I have a point in there somewhere
But Waldo’s previous statements misses the point. In personal economic’s it’s my money and with goverment budgets it’s also my money.
Nope — it’s our money. That is, tax receipts belong the local, state, or national community. I guess this is what you mean (later) with your phrase “the people’s [sic] purse”.
The point is that you wouldn’t be making the money you do, and a fraction of which you pay in taxes, were it not for community support.
As part of your money-making endeavors, do you drive on public roads? In a vehicle that burns fuel kept artificially cheap at the pump by Defense Department dollars and corporate subsidies? Do you use the mail or telephone? Can you work because you have been kept healthy by a doctor who trained while on a government supported loan? Are your investements kept safe from fraud investigators, and in market conditions made more secure by government policies?
And so on, and so on, and on . . .
So that’s the deal you continue to enjoy. The community creates conditions where you can earn money, and in return you are obliged to contribute a fraction of your take to the ongoing maintainence of the community. Unless, of course, you are writing from a planet with a population of one.
Both of these comments are valid. How would you change the suggested poll? Would you word the question to be more about your average political tendency, or would you word it to say “relative to Charlottesville?” Both would make interesting poll questions.
I actually looked up the quote and found it here. http://www.workersliberty.org/wlmags/capital/ex4a.htm
It does seem to be Karl Marx. So what’s the problem with quoting Marx even if Marx is using a quote from someone one else. Seems to me that the real problem is the use of the word “way” vs. “road”, I can’t believe on a message board it makes a bit of difference.
and thr johnson cite is here http://www.samueljohnson.com/apocryph.html#6 .
When did this board become the perfect quote club. Both of you are just too serious about the whole thing. And neither advances their cause very well.
Nope it’s still my money, it is also our money. There is no contradiction in this statement. You simply bring up a point that no one mentioned. Just because it’s my money doesn’t mean I get to dictate where it’s spent, that’s understood. As a taxpayer I can demand that elected official spend my/our money any way I want. The officials after a fair hearing then make a decision. If I don’t like their decisions I can elect new officials or at least try to.
As long as I vote it will be my money. Some of your post I agree with. But who is OUR? It is a collection of “planets of one”. The end of your post is just a plea for accepting a socialistic point of view. It’s OUR duty to make sure the affairs of government are as democratic as possible, and that includes questioning the necessity of expenses and revenues.
If that is OK with you Harry.
Seems to me that the real problem is the use of the word “way” vs. “road”.
In German — in which Marx wrote — the word weg means both “way” and “road”. Right?
The end of your post is just a plea for accepting a socialistic point of view.
Huh? I’m rather something of fiscal conservative — but I plainly recognize that I wouldn’t be able to make the money I do without local/state/national community help.
But you, perhaps, are solo-mining gold on Mars?
“I plainly recognize that I wouldn’t be able to make the money I do without local/state/national community help.”
I am unsure how restating the one part of your post that everyone agrees to makes sense. That must mean you agree it’s still MY money and if so what was your first post all about.
Most capitalist want less help from the government. Less forms, regulations, and laws. Most socialist believe in the a higher level of “help” then do most capitalist.
That is the difference between us. You welcome this help: I am less trusting of it. And so it goes.
weg-(zum Erfolg) way, road;
Are you responding to imaginary posts? Because I looked in Waldo’s earlier posts for the provocation for your statements, and I found nothing.
You wrote, “Yeah, God forbid there should be equal opinions voiced by someone other than your political affiliation.”
That implies that Waldo doesn’t want conservatives posting on cvillenews.com. Where does he say that?
You wrote, “Mmmm… I love the smell of the First Amendment in the morning.”
This suggests that freedom of speech is somehow at issue here–please explain how on earth that is the case.
You wrote “(p.s. — It seems to me that now that there’s a balance between conservative AND liberal viewpoints in these comments, now you’re afraid of… oh no… INTELLECTUAL DEBATE regarding the issues posted on this site.)”
Where is anyone saying that the recent prominence of conservative viewpoints is a bad thing and should end? Please show me where.
I don’t call it INTELLECTUAL DEBATE (to borrow your caps) to misread someone else’s post and trump up some indignant response to statements that were never made.
That is the difference between us. You welcome . . .
You don’t know me!
I am unsure how restating the one part of your post that everyone agrees to makes sense.
I suppose I was trying to respond to this bit in your previous post: The end of your post is just a plea for accepting a socialistic point of view. Anyhow . . . you keep mining that Mars gold of yours.
Signed — Someone-not-Harry-Whoever
THANK YOU, thank you, for saying it better than I could. Idiots will call this “socialistic” thinking, but please continue making this point anywhere and everywhere you can.
Too many people don’t want to acknowledge that, far from having pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps with no help from “the government,” their achievements have been tboroughly enabled by public programs. It’s not just welfare recipients who benefit from government spending–it’s everyone.
“Most capitalist want less help from the government. Less forms, regulations, and laws.”
Give me a big freaking break. They want less forms, regulations, and laws if those things will cut into their profit margins. They want as many government subsidies, trade policies, and special tax benefits that will help them increase their profit margins. Corporate lobbyists swarm Washington NOT to demand less government overall, but to demand less of certain kinds of government actions and more–much more–of other kinds of government actions.
There are no capitalists who want zero governmental support for business.
Where does he [Waldo] say that? . . . please explain how on earth that is the case. . . .Please show me where.
Cecil,
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for this Anonymous Coward of a FReeper to respond in any way to your questions.
Regards — Belle
You wrote, “As to muddying the waters with the Karl Marx “misquote” is classic. In Das Kapital the quote from my translation is “The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make money, without producing at all”. That is accurate and fits the discussion I was having. That you are unhappy with my quoting it is another red herring. It’s not an english paper, your not an english PHD, and it’s my bibliography.”
Marx may use the quote in Das Kapital, but that doesn’t make it Marx’s quotation–he didn’t originate it (probably neither did Johnson or Boswell–there’s evidence for a 1600s or even an 1100s source for the quote). To attribute it to Marx would be like overhearing me say “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” and then saying “As Cecil said, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” While it’s technically accurate in that I said it, it’s argumentatively (and intellectually) inaccurate to give me credit for the quote as if I originated it. It’s also lazy.
Just because regurgitator isn’t in the dictionary doesn’t mean it’s not a valid word. Regurgitator = one who regurgitates. And I am an English Ph.D.
Just because regurgitator isn’t in the dictionary doesn’t mean it’s not a valid word.
Language: It’s Alive!
Aha!
Reading through the other posts in this thread I’ve just come across who “Harry” is. Well bless him for marking his post with a name.
Signed — Someone-not-Harry
Thanks for the blessings. However, whoever it is on this thread that thinks they’re responding to me, must be confused. I haven’t been a part of this particular conversation.
You’ll know it’s me, because it’ll be signed.
Harry Landers
Daily Progress (04/09/02)
By ERIC SWENSEN
Daily Progress staff writer
A member of the University of Virginia’s governing body denied Monday that he said a discussion about mandating a “living wage” for the school’s contract workers would be on the agenda for the body’s next meeting.
However, Leonard W. Sandridge Jr., UVa’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, said Monday evening that he would meet with one of the leaders of the living wage campaign.
The Daily Progress reported Sunday that Board of Visitors member Terence P. Ross said the item would be included on the agenda for the board’s May 31-June 1 meeting.
Ross said Monday, however, that he had only said that Rector John P. Ackerly III was “considering a 10- to 15-minute presentation on the matter.” Ackerly, along with board member William G. Crutchfield Jr. and UVa administrators, sets the agenda for board meetings.
Ackerly said Monday that the agenda has not been set and would not be in place for 30 days.
Asked if he had considered putting the living wage issue on the agenda for the May meeting, Ackerly said, “Not really, because it’s in the hands of the administration.”
If a living wage discussion were added, Ackerly said, it would be done at one of two sessions held before every meeting to determine the board’s agenda. Dates have not yet been decided for the two sessions to set the agenda for the May meeting, Ackerly added.
Protesters held a rally on the steps of UVa’s Rotunda on Saturday morning, urging the board to require all of the university’s contractors to pay their employees a living wage. Joe Szakos, executive director of the Virginia Organizing Project, a statewide activist group that is pushing the issue, has said contract workers should receive $8.65 an hour or the lowest wage paid to UVa employees, whichever is higher.
Protesters have said the living wage is necessary to enable low-paid workers to afford necessities such as food and health care while also making employees more productive and less likely to quit their jobs, also benefiting employers.
Sandridge countered last week that the school believes contract workers should be paid fairly and that the university seeks out contractors who pay fairly. But he added that contractors should determine wages and that mandating wages for contract employees would defeat the purpose of hiring contractors.
Szakos said he would continue to ask for meetings with Sandridge and Ackerly, adding that he left a phone message Monday for Sandridge.
“We have a serious community problem … people who are working full-time are living in poverty,” Szakos said. “We hope they’ll meet with us to talk about some ways to remedy this problem.”
Monday evening, Sandridge said he had replied to Szakos’ message, leaving a voice mail at his office.
“I told him I would meet with him,” Sandridge said.
Szakos said he has not received any response to a letter he sent to Ackerly on April 1.
That’s the title of today’s lead editorial in the Cavalier Daily (04/09/02).
I must say WOW. I real English PhD has taken the time to regurgitate another’s statement. As most English PhD’s, you live on the thoughts of others adding little original thought, just saying the same thing differently. The poster never said that it was an original thought just where he/she became aware of it. There are plenty of places that connect that quote to Marx, where is the rule about it must be original on an internet chat board.
The puzzle I find is you scream bloody murder about a quote which is accurate just not original. Then you defend the construction of a word not officially recognized but properly used, as least in terms of mutual understanding. The contradiction belies a distain for the poster, without any thought of furthering the overall discussion.
So this diatribe comes down to the fact that someone didn’t research a quote before posting on this website?
“And I am an English Ph.D”.
“online no one knows your a dog”
from a New Yorker cartoon, I have no idea if it’s original.
Please disregard the previous post I.
You’ll know it’s me, because it’ll be signed.
Harry Landers
“Too many people don’t want to acknowledge that, far from having pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps with no help from “the government,” their achievements have been tboroughly enabled by public programs”.
The last refuge of a scoundrel is to change discussion to absolutes that have never stated by anyone to make a point. No one has said that all government spending is bad but questioning it is also not a crime. Your screed is ill befitting the PhD you claim to be.
And calling the poster an idiot makes the point even better then I can. You have an English PhD and that’s the best you can do. I would ask for your money back or wait it’s being used for the greater good-never mind!
The contradiction belies a distain [sic] [SIC] . . . . sick!
“Most capitalist want less help from the government. Less forms, regulations, and laws.”
“There are no capitalists who want zero governmental support for business.”
Did you even read the quote you went after? It said most want less.
There is great deal of difference between small and big business regulation. You paint them all with the same brush. I can tell you that there are huge differences between them in terms of regulations. Where in the world did anyone say none,except you?
Language: It’s Alive!
And calling the poster an idiot makes the point even better then I can. You have an English PhD and that’s the best you can do. I would ask for your money back or wait it’s being used for the greater good-never mind!
I think from now on I, for one, will be ignoring this Anonymous Coward of a FReeper (and others of his ilk and flame-bait modus operandi).
While I think anonymous posting can add value to a forum as this, it can also be abused (as I think it is with this particular coward-disruptor). I therefore can’t imagine there would be a technological solution which preserved the anonymous feature and curbed abuse — but perhaps other forums have found solutions, or Waldo might employ some wizardry of his own.
This has got to be the stupidest most god-awful editorial to come out of a local newspaper for some time (and here I thought the Observer was the worst purveyor of dumb-ass right-wing editorial screeds). There are so many bone-headed statements in here that I just don’t know where to begin. I think my favorite one was where the writer talks about all of the poor UVa students who take on debt while in college and thus live under the poverty line themselves. The fact is that UVa is home to many of the most pampered, upper-class students of any university in the country. THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME OF A UVA UNDERGRAD IS OVER $90,000/YEAR. That’s almost twice the national average for families of college students. UVa students know poverty like UVa low-wage workers know respect. It’s a shame how UVa disrespects its workers (and not just with its poverty wages) and it’s an even bigger shame that so many right-wing malcontents on this site and elsewhere in our pampered, upper-class community can justify it with such pablum. Stop yer whinin’ Cav. Daily and all you Chamber of Commerce Republicans, you all make me sick with your idolation of the almighty profit motive. There’s something more important than maximizing profits on the backs of low-wage workers. Jesus knew this well and so should you.
“I think from now on I, for one, will be ignoring this Anonymous Coward of a FReeper (and others of his ilk and flame-bait modus operandi”
great website link-thanks!
By the way how will you tell it’s him?
You get to call him names “Anonymous Coward of a FReeper” because your registered and he can’t call cecil names because he not registered. Oh I get it now.
“We have met the enemy… and he is us”
Pogo
Yeah, I did read the post. Did you not understand my response? He said most capitalists want less help from gov’t. I said no, they don’t want less help–they’re lining up for as much damn help as they can get, in the form of subsidies, preferred trade policies, and other forms of “support.” What they don’t want is to be held to any standard of responsibility to the community, i.e., taxes, regulations, laws.
So what I’m saying, to make it really clear, is that the Anonymous that I responded to (and there are so, so many of you anonymi out there) is wrong and/or naive when he/she writes that most capitalists want less.
–Cecil
The editorials in the Cav Daily are frequently sophmoric, pretentious screeds that demonstrate the immaturity and ignorance of their authors. It doesn’t seem to matter what political leanings the authors have. Left wing or right wing they are often pompous, preachy, and boring sermons written by young and arrogant “scholars”. Hopefully it’s just a rite of passage towards a more humble and reasonable perspective.
Explain to me how I changed the discussion? I replied to the post originally titled Your Money, in which Anonymous explains how “the community creates conditions where you can earn money, and in return you are obliged to contribute a fraction of your take to the ongoing maintainence of the community.” I replied to that post saying, basically, go man go, loved your post, and here’s some more on the same topic.
So explain how I’m changing the topic when what I’m actually doing is adding my thoughts to exactly the topic that Your Money raised? That’s how conversation works–someone makes a point, someone responds, and I’m sorry if my response wasn’t on the topic that _you_ were interested in, but then again I wasn’t responding to you, was I?
Regarding “calling the poster an idiot”–go back and read carefully my post. I wrote “Idiots will call this “socialistic” thinking.” Now, explain to me how the general statement about what idiots in general will do translates into calling a specific poster an idiot (which I’m not doing since I’m not replying to a specific poster whom I think is an idiot–rather, I’m replying to Your Money and commiserating with him/her that there are idiots in the world. Surely I can point out that there are idiots in the world? I feel pretty confident in making that statement).
I’d stay Anonymous too if that was the best I could do.
–Cecil
Your big on the word “screed” today.
“I responded to (and there are so, so many of you anonymi out there) is wrong and/or naive when he/she writes that most capitalists want less. ”
On this we “anonymi” clearly disagree- if it were true where would all the lobbying, you complain about, come from. What you are really saying is that people who “want government off our backs”, are in fact asking government for a “favor” in reducing burdensome regulation.
In fact a guy named Ronald Reagan actually got elected with “wanting government off our backs”, as part of his platform. Elected by large percentage of the electorate. So “most” capitalist still seems accurate to me. Why do you think otherwise?
On this we “anonymi” […]
A diagnosis of MPD, anyone?
Will the real Harry Landers please stand up?
Harry Landers
(You know it’s me because I signed it)
Cecil your killing me, “Idiots will call this “socialistic” thinking”. You may be a English Phd. but your not one in logic. You too cute by half to state that idiot didn’t refer to the poster who mentioned “socialistic” thinking. As Anonymous once said “de nile ain’t just a river in Egypt(sic)”
I glad you just signed your name and didn’t log in. You can always deny it later.
Nope, even though I’m not logged in, I’m taking credit for my posts. (Do we even need to discuss your somewhat compromised position vis-a-vis taking credit for one’s posts, Anonymous?)
And I like how you didn’t respond to the substance of my post–that I can’t be accused of changing the subject when I was in fact pursuing the subject of the post I responded to, and that if I wanted to call someone an idiot (like you, for example), I’d call them an idiot in a post directly responding to that person.
–Cecil
I think otherwise because the anti-Big Government slogans of that “guy named Ronald Reagan” (how quaint and playful) MEAN exactly what I’m saying business/capitalists want: less responsiblity, more favors.
I don’t think we disagree that business/capitalists want as many favors as they can get and as few regulations/responsibilities as possible. Where I disagree is with the deceitful equation of “government” with only the responsibility end of things–when capitalists say “we want less government” they mean we want fewer regulations, taxes, laws. I call this deceitful because, properly understood, “government” includes all the favors as well. If capitalists really wanted less government, they’d be turning down the favors and withdrawing their lobbyists from DC.
THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME OF A UVA UNDERGRAD IS OVER $90,000/YEAR.
so what? This is just another example of class envy by people who think that how much I make has some remote bearing on what I should be charged for a service like education. My earnings would only make a difference if I ask for aid. If I work hard, contribute to society, help the poor, and have a good character what my PARENTS make should not make a “dimes” worth of difference.
“There’s something more important than maximizing profits on the backs of low-wage workers.” What maximizing the cost on the backs of the hard working middle and upper class. I don’t see that Jesus would have much to do with either ideal. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. (Matthew 22.19-21)
I forgot to sign the previous post, which is mine.
–Cecil
I used the word screed once.
Oh, man! For a minute, I thought we had somebody else as articulate and insightful as Cecil. (No sarcasm intended – honest.)
Harry Landers
Wait a minute – you can’t be Harry Landers – I’m Harry Landers!
Harry Landers
“I call this deceitful because, properly understood, “government” includes all the favors as well.”
properly understood by whom, liberals,progressive, luddites?
Only a fan of government would consider the increase of freedom, less laws and rules, as doing business a “favor”.
“If capitalists really wanted less government, they’d be turning down the favors and withdrawing their lobbyists from DC.”
Only if we outlaw all lobbying not just big industry but big labor, teachers unions, trial lawyers, and the lot.
And you had the nerve to call a prior poster naive?
Democracy allows for each side to present their respective cases. It’s rough and tumble and not perfect- just better than anything else.
But lastly you never answer the subject of “most capitalist”. I stated Reagan as an example; you invented (LESS GOVERNMENT = MORE FAVORS). That is the most original thought in this whole string. But if it’s original then most capitalist do favor less government. And so ends another string.
Wait a minute – you can’t be . . .
Methinks the anonymous disruptor is trying to distract us from his/her cowardice.
Just try to ignore him/her.
Do we even need to discuss your somewhat compromised position vis-a-vis taking credit for one’s
Please do!
that was truly incoherent.
Do I hear UNCLE!
You suggest that another poster might weasel out of taking credit for his post (Cecil). But you are not taking credit for your own posts by virtue of your anonymous posting. Your position on the matter is somewhat (a lot) compromised.
Okay, your turn in this discussion.
It was simply a response to an ealier post by belle lambasting the anonymous post. And all post after that Harry Landers, Cecil,et al are thus open to a small amount of ridicule. What does taking credit for a post have to do with it’s worth or validilty? It’s far easier to blast at the form of the post when you can’t answer it’s substance.
not Cecil
not Harry Landers
not belle
I thought so, too.
What do you think: MPD, ESL, or MMR? Or a cocktail of all three?
Perhaps with a dash of ADHD thrown in, seen in the frequency of his rants and inability to react to stimuli in an organized way?
It was simply a response to an ealier post by belle lambasting the anonymous post. And all post [sic] after that [punctuation missing?] Harry Landers, Cecil,et al are thus open to a small amount of ridicule. What does taking credit for a post have to do with it’s [sic] worth or validilty? It’s far easier to blast at the form of the post when you can’t answer it’s [sic] substance.
not Cecil
not Harry Landers
not belle
No kidding!
Can you really complain about someone’s post, which is hard to follow, with an alphabet soup of mental illness links. Though you first link did have a great pop-up link to the new Spiderman movie trailer.I think the trailer says more about the poster then the post did.
You don’t have time to put a simple rant together so you link us to wade though psychology sites. Please say something of your own or just spare us your own ADHD.(no link provided)
cecil, I know it could be anyone, why don’t you just put down your red pen.
punctuation missing? OH MY GOD! Avert your eyes gentle reader. In the future you must
1) sign in so you can be properly tracked.
2) submit all post as to grammar and content.
3)declare openly you various politicial, social, and ethnic affiliations.
4)wait patiently for Waldo to grade your submissions as to their importance.
5)ignore the above list
Happy Postings!
Ok some words were mispelled on purpose just to annoy grammar nazi. That was wrong.
Cecil, I know it could be anyone, why don’t you just put down your red pen.
Punctuation missing? OH MY GOD! Avert your eyes gentle reader. In the future you must
1) sign in so you can be properly tracked.
2) Submit all post as to grammar and content.
3) Declare openly you various political, social, and ethnic affiliations.
4) Wait patiently for Waldo to grade your submissions as to their importance.
5) Ignore the above list
Happy Postings!
mandatory sign-in. With it you could then use the popular “ignore poster” button. This is sometimes called the p-box. A spell checker too. And could you keep it all free-FOREVER!;)
just a thought!
. . . a way to reject requests from IP addresses associated with Western State Hospital.
The “problem” does seem quite localized/individual.
Hahahaha, Job? I’m a trust fund baby.
Damn tootin!
mandatory sign-in. With it you could then use the popular “ignore poster” button. This is sometimes called the p-box. A spell checker too. And could you keep it all free-FOREVER!;)
What’s funny is that you’re posting this from an anonymous account. :)
But it will all be free forever, so that’s something.
Now THAT’S ironic – an anonymous post calling another ananymous post cowardly.
I am NOT Harry Landers
I lobby against mandatory sign-in if that would mean that no one could post anonymously. It’s true that most of the anonymi who’ve been posting lately are not making weighty or insightful comments. But sometimes the flame-bait is bringing out the best in some of your better posters–a Harry Landers, for example, coming up with a reasoned and well-supported argument in response to someone’s comment. Or like when you posted all those excerpts from McDonough et. al. in response to the guy yanking your chain.
So while I think most of the anonymous postings are useless, I’d hate to shut them all out, because I think the liveliness of the board would suffer and we’d be back to a bunch of like-minded non-anonymous posters all agreeing with one another.
Also, no spell-checker–spelling mistakes allow a grammar nazi/English ph.d. like me to tell the wheat from the chaff :)
Or like when you posted all those excerpts from McDonough et. al. [sic] in response to the guy yanking your chain . . . Also, no spell-checker–spelling mistakes allow a grammar nazi/English ph.d. like me to tell the wheat from the chaff :)
And for I et al. (to properly abbreviate the Latin, et alii “and others”) to do the same!
What a pendantic lot we cvillenews.com posters are.
Cecil:
The post I was responding to wasn’t Waldo’s, it was this one:
Waldo, if I can offer a general comment, I find it fascinating and disturbing how conservative the viewpoints of most of your readers tend to be. The knee-jerk right-wing reactions that several of your most recent postings have elicited (as exemplified by this living wage story, the Rob Schilling story, the suburban sprawl story, etc.) really have me wondering how ideologically broad your readership is. Thankfully your usual posters are not representative of the vast majority of Charlottesville residents, and they tend to be a fairly small group of folks who seem to have nothing better to do than post their opinions on your site. I guess the liberals in this town are too busy working to troll your site while the conservatives have lots of time on their hands, thanks to their trust funds….
This post implied that all of us non-liberal, non-Democrats are not welcome in this forum.
It was not meant as an attack on Waldo… on the contrary, Waldo is very supportive of people with differing (or outright opposing) viewpoints from the center or the right, and encourages those viewpoints to be aired in this forum. It’s jack-holes like the one I quoted above that seem to want all of us non-left-leaners to just magically go away, and in the poster’s highly open-minded comment, go back to counting our trust funds.
I apologize for the misplacing of my comment that apparently implied I was replying to Waldo… but hey: thanks for jumping to conclusions and picking a fight!
-Politically Independent Anonymous
“I lobby against mandatory sign-in if that would mean that no one could post anonymously.”
But what does it mean to post anonymously? If I register the name “Mallrat” and post all my comments accordingly, does that make me any less anonymous? No one knows who I am, unless I tell them. Only Waldo has my email address.
Personally, I tentatively support the idea of disallowing Anonymous posts. I don’t know how many threads I’ve seen with 10 different posts by “Anonymous,” and the utter confusion that ensues. Also, I’d really like to get a sense of continuity from some of the “regular” anonymous posters — at least, I *think* they’re regular…it’s hard to tell!
I know sites like Kuro5hin seem to work well with mandatory registration, and I’m guessing that cvillenews.com now has the “momentum” to implement a similar policy.
I’d like to suggest a trial week where no anonymous posts are allowed. Waldo, I know this would mean forcing your mom to register, but it shouldn’t be a problem since she already signs all her posts. ;)
I know sites like Kuro5hin seem to work well with mandatory registration, and I’m guessing that cvillenews.com now has the “momentum” to implement a similar policy.
I’d like to suggest a trial week where no anonymous posts are allowed.
This is something that I think we should discuss down the line, when I’ve been able to upgrade from PHP-Nuke. The registration process with PHP-Nuke — quite frankly — really sucks. My mother has made an account, but she can’t figure out how to log into it. The newer pre-1.0 releases of PostNuke are getting more and more stable, and I think are downright useable these days. I need to upgrade this server’s version of Apache to 2.X and PHP to 4.X (whatever’s newest) prior to that switch, so there’s a bunch that has to be lined up first. Anyhow, yes, that is something that I think we should all look at, but not quite yet.
FYI, I’ve considered switching to Scoop, the system that Rusty developed to run K5, but I think I’d like to stick with the PHP-Nuke/PostNuke family. I know PHP far better than I know Perl, so Slash and Scoop would likely prove somewhat limiting.
This has got to be the stupidest most god-awful editorial to come out of a local newspaper for some time […] There are so many bone-headed statements in here that I just don’t know where to begin.
I certainly agree. I considered writing a letter to the Cav. Daily (but didn’t), not so much to argue with their perspective as to argue with how poorly that they presented it. I’ve read a whole lot of Cavalier Daily editorials over the years, and I can say that this is one of the lamest that I’ve ever witnessed.
BTW, I particularly enjoyed this comment in the above post:
UVa students know poverty like UVa low-wage workers know respect.
Well said.
Cecil here,
“But what does it mean to post anonymously? If I register the name “Mallrat” and post all my comments accordingly, does that make me any less anonymous?”
I’ve actually given this a lot of thought. Obviously, there’s a difference between me posting as “Cecil” and Lloyd Snook (or whatever his first name is) posting as himself–my true identity is still hidden whereas his is not. And yet there’s also a difference between you posting as BurntHombre and you posting as Anonymous. As BurntHombre, you leave an identifiable trail; people can follow your posts and hold you accountable (at least here, at cvillenews) for your statements. If you say one thing in one post, then contradict yourself three posts down the line, readers could call you on it–they’d have a record of what BurntHombre said.
Which is not the same thing as posting under your real name, but which (I believe) is more accountable than posting anonymously.
A trial week of non-anonymity would be interesting–I’d like to see if the number of posts drops sharply.
–Cecil, on the office computer and reluctant to sign in as myself.
I have attempted to determine the peoples will by reviewing the comments. My observation is that most of the commentators went out of their way to NOT be committed to either camp. A lot more of “I’m for” or “I’m agin” (and maybe even a reason)would really be helpful. Regurgitation of economic and/or political truisms certainly don’t help.