ext_306469 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2011-12-13 12:57 pm
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2011-12-13 12:57 pm
What do Prison Inmates and Children Have in Common?
As we know, Newt Gingrich, the current GOP frontrunner has doubled down on his idea of getting rid of all those dumb ol’ child labor laws and paying schoolkids to clean toilets and occasionally mop up vomit in the hallways.
He did amend it slightly from his earlier assertion that “Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school” . Now Gingrich presumably thinks it should involve just laying off some of those unionized janitors. And he has allowed on Curt Sliwa’s radio show, that “kids shouldn’t work in coal mines” or heavy industry.
It’s unclear from the articles quoting from the Sliwa interview whether Gingrich was saying that children should be legally barred from working in coal mines and heavy industry or that we should hope coal mine and factory employers would be nice guys and not hire kids. Since he’s referred to the child labor laws that got children out of mines and mills, as “truly stupid,” I’m going to choose Door Number Two.
At roughly the same time, we’ve learned that the state of Alabama is coping with the labor vacuum left by their draconian anti-illiegal immigrant laws by considering using convict labor instead.
Children, convicts… Both cases involves an essentially helpless, easily exploited work force. Neither kids nor prison inmates are likely to object in any meaningful way when they are overworked or forced into dangerous situations. Not like all those free, voting grown-ups who do things like organizing, striking, or even just speaking up for themselves.
And of course, we can all trust employers not to notice this and take advantage… right?
Now, a lot of people will point out that prison inmates are so much more unattractive than cute, innocent little kids. Fortunately, we have Rush Limbaugh to remind us that we shouldn’t be fooled by children, with their appealing little faces and sad, hungry eyes. They’re really just a bunch of “wanton little waifs and serfs dependant on the state.”
I mean really you give these things food during the school year, they’ll expect to be given food in the summertime too! Any good parent knows that you don’t feed the little beggars after the age of six, but send them out to forage for themselves. How else can they learn dumpster-diving?
In conclusion, for your viewing and listening pleasure – the Old Crow Medicine Show’s version of Woody Guthrie's, Union Maid.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
He did amend it slightly from his earlier assertion that “Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school” . Now Gingrich presumably thinks it should involve just laying off some of those unionized janitors. And he has allowed on Curt Sliwa’s radio show, that “kids shouldn’t work in coal mines” or heavy industry.
It’s unclear from the articles quoting from the Sliwa interview whether Gingrich was saying that children should be legally barred from working in coal mines and heavy industry or that we should hope coal mine and factory employers would be nice guys and not hire kids. Since he’s referred to the child labor laws that got children out of mines and mills, as “truly stupid,” I’m going to choose Door Number Two.
At roughly the same time, we’ve learned that the state of Alabama is coping with the labor vacuum left by their draconian anti-illiegal immigrant laws by considering using convict labor instead.
Children, convicts… Both cases involves an essentially helpless, easily exploited work force. Neither kids nor prison inmates are likely to object in any meaningful way when they are overworked or forced into dangerous situations. Not like all those free, voting grown-ups who do things like organizing, striking, or even just speaking up for themselves.
And of course, we can all trust employers not to notice this and take advantage… right?
Now, a lot of people will point out that prison inmates are so much more unattractive than cute, innocent little kids. Fortunately, we have Rush Limbaugh to remind us that we shouldn’t be fooled by children, with their appealing little faces and sad, hungry eyes. They’re really just a bunch of “wanton little waifs and serfs dependant on the state.”
Rush Limbaugh: If you feed them, if you feed the children three square meals a day during the school year, how can you expect them to feed themselves in the summer?... Okay, the school ends, and of course, how can we expect them to feed themselves in the summer, when they haven’t had to for nine months. So this is how it works, they demand to be fed during the summer – or their acolytes demand that they be fed during the summer. Because after all, we’ve conditioned them to not feeding themselves. Plus their parents don’t have to take responsibility of feeding them. And their parents don’t have to take responsibility of paying, not directly, for them to be fed. So, it’s just natural. “Mr. Limbaugh, these children are simply ill-equipped to feed themselves in the summertime, it’s the only compassionate thing we do!’ Yeah, who made that possible? You… by trying to make people helpless. Wanton little waifs and serfs dependant on the state. Pure and simple.
I mean really you give these things food during the school year, they’ll expect to be given food in the summertime too! Any good parent knows that you don’t feed the little beggars after the age of six, but send them out to forage for themselves. How else can they learn dumpster-diving?
In conclusion, for your viewing and listening pleasure – the Old Crow Medicine Show’s version of Woody Guthrie's, Union Maid.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
no subject
Such as?
there' nothing rational about Gingrich's nasty assumptions about the children of the poor.
Is it about his nasty nasty assumptions about the children of the poor or is it about his nasty assumptions about public shools?
no subject
Being a responsible citizen, for one, with a moderate level of cultural literacy.
S: Is it about his nasty assumptions about the children of the poor or is it about his nasty assumptions about public schools?
It's about his nasty assumptions about the children of the poor, his nasty assumptions about public school employees, and his contempt for child labor laws.
no subject
It's about his nasty assumptions about the children of the poor, his nasty assumptions about public school employees...
what specifically would those assumptions be? why are they false? because right now all I'm seeing is a lot of butt-hurt and not much substance.
no subject
Gingrich said (two weeks ago, in introducing this very plan!) that poor children have no concept of a work ethic because they're surrounded by people who do not perform tasks in exchange for income, except maybe by committing crimes. This is true according to a lot of durable stereotypes, but not actual sources of information like the census.
As for what he thinks of public school employees, this plan involves firing all but one janitor per school in favor of child laborers who "will actually do work," (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/19/gingrich-laws-preventing-child-labor-are-truly-stupid/) because we all know what layabouts those janitors have become since they became unionized.
The irony, of course, is that if this came to pass it would forcibly turn lots of working poor adults into the very unemployed poor people he says are failing our children with their lack of initiative. If I had to guess I'd say the presence of a union is what keeps him from having to consider that a contradiction; by definition they must be working an unfairly low amount for their wages, or something. We all know what a sweet deal it is to get a position as a public school custodian.
Edit: Spelling error.
no subject
That said, there is also the issue of if the schools can't afford to pay the janitor's current rate what should they do?
Also, would you still object to the idea of children haveing to clean if the income issue were removed from the equation?
no subject
As for removing income from the equation, I'd object strictly on the grounds that child labor is illegal for very good reason, and there's nothing about this that makes it a compelling case for an exception to that rule. To be honest, I'd say safety concerns alone make it a good example of why the law was written. With the cleaning chemicals and freshly waxed floors and whatnot, I'd be surprised if it's the kind of job allowed even for minors who can work legally under our current system (where work can begin at age 14, with restrictions).
If kids had to clean as a disciplinary thing for bad behavior, with no money changing hands and the cleaning kept to appropriate amounts without safety risks, that would be fine by me. In fact that happens pretty commonly, if I'm not mistaken, especially if the job is cleaning up a mess for which the kid was directly responsible. I don't think this is what you were asking about, though.
no subject
Some of you keep trying to frame this as a case where Newt suggested that everyone clean up. He didn't. He specifically targeted the children of the poor, said they had no work ethic, and advocated replacing union janitors with children because child labor laws are "stupid."
Why do you keep trying to rewrite Newt's arguments into something more benign?
S: what specifically would those assumptions be?
That the children of the poor "have no work ethic"
S: why are they false?
Many poor families work and work hard.
s: because right now all I'm seeing is a lot of butt-hurt and not much substance.
Maybe you should actually click on the link I provided and read what Newt proposed.
no subject
Why do you keep trying to rewrite Newt's arguments into something more benign?
Career politician is an asshole, water is wet.
I'll pose the same question I did to bikinisquad3000, would you still object to the idea of having the children clean (and getting paid to do so) if the income issue were removed from the equation?
no subject
So you've shifted from claiming there's nothing wrong with what Gingrich proposed to claiming, that of COURSE there's something wrong with what Gingrich proposed, he's a politician and therefore an asshole.
You seem to be arguing here merely for the sake of arguing.
s: I'll pose the same question I did to bikinisquad3000, would you still object to the idea of having the children clean (and getting paid to do so) if the income issue were removed from the equation?
As I've already said, no, if someone proposed that EVERYBODY at the school pitch in once a year to do some cleaning, I would not object.
no subject
A politician's merit as a human being has little bearing on the merit of his proposals. As you can see in my reply to bikinisquad I already conceded that the whole that the whole "poor people have no work ethic" angle is bullshit.
The question remains though, whether or not we should put children to work cleaning their school? I thought that's what all the hubub was about.
Otherwise it's just another example of a politician behaving poorly.