just too bizarre

Subject: just too bizarre

Absolutely Ted. 

And I've met people with holes in their shoes and no food in their cupboard who relate to the super rich.  There is that old adage, Success breeds success. 

Trouble is , their idea of success and mine are world's apart.  Everyone on the merry-go-round wants a shot at the brass ring.  I just enjoy the ride. 

 

Carl Jarvis

----- Original Message -----

From: ted chittenden

To: Blind Democracy Discussion List

Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 10:24 AM

Subject: Re: just too bizarre

Carl:
Maybe. But keep in mind that small business owners very much side with big business owners, especially when it comes to additional costs and regulations. They, like most of the rest of us, fail to see the long-term consequences of their actions, only the short-term benefits to them that may result if certain actions are taken or not.
--
Ted Chittenden

Every story has at least two sides if not more.
---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
Ted,
some big business owners started as small businesses.  Some.  Amazon,
Wal-Mart, Microsoft spring to mind.  Even Bill Boeing's little airplane
factory on the shore's of Lake Washington blossomed into a world dominating
corporation.
But much of the wealth and commerce in this nation is from very old money.
Money and commerce that was fought over back around 1776.  We forget that
the holders of property and factories and banks are not likely to hand them
over to new businesses.  Sure, a very few make it through, but mostly the
successful small businesses stay around the middle class pack.  And they are
as vulnerable as the rest of us.
The ones that do find a crack and are not taken over by the Old Money, are
embraced and welcomed into the Ruling Class.  And if they ever had ties to
the working class, which I personally doubt, they abandon them quickly for
the "new think" of the Empire.  In reality, upward mobility is as much an
American Myth as is the Self-made man.  Always just enough examples to make
it look possible, if you ignore the multiple bodies strewn along the road.

Carl Jarvis

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: ted chittenden
  To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
  Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 4:33 AM
  Subject: Re: just too bizarre


  Carl:
  While I mostly agree with your analysis regarding how we look upon
success, I do think that you and Roger have mixed up the cart and the horse.
All big businesses started out as small businesses, and their owners had
many of the same concerns as small business owners of today. One of my
contentions is that we as humans don't change even when the evidence says
that we must. For example, while it is a very good idea for poor people to
save money they have earned for a rainy day, that axiom does not apply to
the wealthy, because they save so much money that not enough is left over to
grease the wheels of the economy. Yet many wealthy business owners started
out as poor business owners and cannot let go of the spending habits they
learned as small business owners.
  --
  Ted Chittenden

  Every story has at least two sides if not more.
  ---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
  Well said Roger.
  And when I talk with small business owners, they often associate with the
  Corporate Empire, the very system that is pulling them down, and defend
the
  laws that will one day close their small business doors.
  But I am not viewed as "one of the successful".  I actually argued this
with
  a boss of my dad's many years ago.  He was the head of the shop for a
large
  structural steel company.  He waived his had around his home, with it's
many
  rooms and expensive furnishings, and to the large picture windows looking
  out across tailored lawns and flowered gardens.  "This is success", he
said.
  "But I am able to be happy and productive without the need for all of
these
  fancy trimmings", I replied.
  Of course we never found common ground for agreement.
  Two years later a shift in company  policies caused a major shift and the
  elimination of the section managed by my dad's former boss.
  He was heavily invested in company stock that became nearly worthless,
over
  extended and unemployed at an age when most men were looking toward
  retirement rather than a new career.
  His wife called my dad and asked if he could come and talk with her
husband.
  She was afraid for him.  His entire identity had been tied up in that job.
  He could not understand how he had failed the company.
  It was only weeks later that he put a hose up the tail pipe of his car,
  locked the garage doors and committed suicide.
  He was only 57 years old, 20 years my current age.
  I wonder if he ever reflected on our conversation and questioned which of
us
  really was successful?
  Do we put our trust in external things, or do we put our trust in
ourselves?

  Carl Jarvis

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Roger Loran Bailey
    To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
    Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 4:57 PM
    Subject: Re: just too bizarre


    I hope he meant to say big business owners. It is in the interests of
the
  big bourgeoisie to get such rulings for small business owners though.
Those
  rulings can then be extended to the big businesses without bothering their
  own legal departments. It also misdirects the struggles of the victims.

    On 12/23/2012 5:47 PM, R. E. Driscoll Sr wrote:

      I thought that ownership of the judges, elected officials and such was
  committed to the invisible corporate owners and operators.   Am I getting
  confused?

      On 12/23/2012 1:59 PM, Frank Ventura wrote:

  Ted, ditto that is exactally what I was thinking. I think no matter what
  happened to that lady the court was going to rule against her. It is the
  small business owners that own the property and the judges.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
  [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of ted chittenden
  Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 10:54 AM
  To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
  Subject: Re: just too bizarre

  If you stop and think about it, the ruling from the Iowa supreme court is
  what many businesses, particularly small businesses, want to hear. The
  people who start and run these businesses by and large believe that
because
  they own the business they started, they have every right to hire and fire
  whoever they want and for whatever reason they want. In other words, what
we
  have here are greedy individuals coming up against a world that demands
that
  they act less than greedy in some circumstances, and they try to find a
way
  to force the system to accept that their individual and property rights
  superceedes all other rights.
  --
  Ted Chittenden

  Every story has at least two sides if not more.
  ---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
  Claude,
  The reason does not matter.  This so called man should have had control
over
  his urges.  If he does not, he at least should be able to be a man and
admit
  it, rather than foisting the responsibility onto the woman's head.
  If I were a woman, I would not like being in a relationship with this weak
  wimpy.  Send him to one of those countries where the women are "protected"
  by covering them from head to toe.  And let him only work on camel's
teeth.

  Carl Jarvis
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Claude Everett
    To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
    Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:28 PM
    Subject: RE: just too bizarre


    Hmmmm!!  I wonder if he was rebuffed by this woman and that is why he
  fired her.

    Claude Everett
    "First of all:  what is work?
    Work is of two kinds:
      first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface
  relatively to other such matter;
     second, telling other people to do so.
      The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and
  highly paid."
    From The collection of essays "In Praise of Idleness" by Bertrand
Russell






  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
  [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
  Bailey
    Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 5:20 PM
    To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
    Subject: Re: just too bizarre


        Yes, here is another possibility that strikes me as the very most
  likely. I remember Tom Snyder once saying that every time he walks down
the
  street he falls in love a dozen times per block. Putting aside his loose
use
  of the word love I understand just what he meant. There are a lot of
highly
  attractive women out there. I am sure that most every married man is
exposed
  to those attractive women every day and that does not in the least
endanger
  their marriages, even when they happen to work with those highly
attractive
  women. It is taking action on the attraction that causes problems with the
  marriages. I hate to sound like I may be blaming the victim, but it has to
  go two ways too. If he tried to act on his attraction and it was rebuffed
  then the woman had nothing to do with endangering his marriage and if he
  kept on  trying to act on his attraction she might have had a case for a
  sexual harassment suit. I would expect that she might have capitulated.
  There is an old piece of advice that goes around that says that you should
  never seek sexual gratification in the same place that you get your
  paycheck. It is also put as never date a coworker. The reason is that if
you
  do it is likely that you will carry issues in the relationship into the
  workplace and that, by itself, can be very uncomfortable. It doesn't have
to
  be, but it is likely. Then, if you happen to break up you are faced with
  having to come to work every day and face each other. If you do date a
  coworker, though, then never, ever, under any circumstances date your
boss.
  Not only are you likely to bring issues from the relationship into the
  workplace, but what happens if you break up under that kind of
circumstance?
  The likelihood is that you will also be breaking up with your job. I would
  suspect that the woman in question made just that mistake. It is also
likely
  that the wife found out and the boss had to make a choice between his
  employee and his wife and the wife won. All of this would go far to
explain
  why the firing would have been an effort to save his marriage. Admittedly
it
  is speculative, but, like I said, marriages just do not become endangered
  just because the husband is around attractive women. If that was the case
  then no marriage would last long at all.

    On 12/22/2012 6:08 PM, R. E. Driscoll Sr wrote:

      Good theory.  Any other possibilities?

      On 12/22/2012 2:26 PM, ted chittenden wrote:

  Claude:
  I think it more likely that the dentist's wife finally got a chance to
look
  at his employee and threatened him with divorce if he didn't get rid of
her.
  --
  Ted Chittenden

  Every story has at least two sides if not more.
  ---- Claude Everett <ceverett@dslextreme.com> wrote:
  Hmmm!!  She worked for him for ten years and the Dentist just now decided
  that she was a threat to his marriage?  Did he have a sight saving surgery
  that awakened his vision?


  Claude Everett
  "First of all:  what is work?
  Work is of two kinds:
    first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface
  relatively to other such matter;
   second, telling other people to do so.
    The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and
  highly paid."
  >From The collection of essays "In Praise of Idleness" by Bertrand Russell

  -----Original Message-----
  From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
  [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
  Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 6:51 AM
  To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
  Subject: RE: just too bizarre

  Ridiculous!

  Miriam


  ________________________________

  From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
  [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of joe harcz
  Comcast
  Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:04 AM
  To: blind democracy List
  Subject: just too bizarre



  NATIONAL BRIEFING | MIDWEST. Iowa: Court Upholds Firing of Woman Whose
Boss
  Found Her Attractive. By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. A dentist acted legally
when

  he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his
  wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the Iowa Supreme
Court
  ruled

  unanimously on Friday. The all-male court said bosses could fire employees
  they saw as an 'irresistible attraction,' even if the employees had not
done

  anything wrong. Such firings are not unlawful under state law because they
  are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, wrote Justice Edward
M.

  Mansfield. A lawyer for the dentist, James Knight, said the decision was a
  victory for family values because Dr. Knight fired Melissa Nelson to save
  his

  marriage. Ms. Nelson's lawyer said the court failed to recognize the
  discrimination that women see routinely in the workplace. These judges
sent
  a message

  to Iowa women that they don't think men can be held responsible for their
  sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and
  control

  their bosses' sexual desires,' said the lawyer, Paige Fiedler. Ms. Nelson,
  32, worked for Dr. Knight for 10 years..






  _______________________________________________
  Blind-Democracy mailing list
  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

  _______________________________________________
  Blind-Democracy mailing list
  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy


  _______________________________________________
  Blind-Democracy mailing list
  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy





  _______________________________________________
  Blind-Democracy mailing list
  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy



  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    Blind-Democracy mailing list
    Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
    http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy


  _______________________________________________
  Blind-Democracy mailing list
  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy

  _______________________________________________
  Blind-Democracy mailing list
  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy





  _______________________________________________
  Blind-Democracy mailing list
  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy



  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    Blind-Democracy mailing list
    Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
    http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy


  _______________________________________________
  Blind-Democracy mailing list
  Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
  http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy


_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy