# Affirmative action, yes or no?



## shesulsa (Jun 2, 2009)

This was the simple status message of a local yocal here and thought we should explore this as a community.

Thoughts?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jun 2, 2009)

May the best Man/Woman/Alien/whatever get the job.

I am a minority here in Miami because I am White and the majority is Spainsh. I am sure I get passed by on jobs however I am sure I am hired because of my qualifications. I rather be hired because of my qualifications then my skin.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 2, 2009)

AA brings everyone down. The person that gets a job through AA usually cant keep it because they were not qualified in the first place and the people over looked because of AA lose a job they should have gotten.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 2, 2009)

I think it may have been useful in the past to get a critical mass of minorities into professional & administrative roles, but the window has ended.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 2, 2009)

Afirmative action is just another form of bigotry and brings with it all the associated consequences.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2009)

Good comments from eveyone above :tup:.

As with anything, you can't delineate a concept with a single stroke of the brush.  I am sure that there have been those who got their break through an 'Affirmative Action' but I am equally sure that there have been those who have had 'their' break handed to someone else because of it.

That makes it a 'cure' not worth the price in my book.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 2, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> This was the simple status message of a local yocal here and thought we should explore this as a community.
> 
> Thoughts?


 

I voted No.

If they are qualified for the job in the first place then they have the expereince or the education. 

I go back to the Search Committee I was invovled with years ago at a University. They were searching for a new Registrar. 

We went through hundreds of applications and in the end everyone saw all the applications and got to rate them. These ratings were then tabulated and the pool was made smaller. 

The process was repeated with more cirteria added in for the rating. 

In then end the committee recommended that the top 7 be interviewed as all were so close with the exception the one ranked number one. We had no information on sex or race or religion or what have you. All that information had been redacted. 

Then the Affirmative Action department got involved and told us we did not have enough minorities and to take these two (* 13 & 25 *) and place them into the interview pool. I insisted upon the data for the top 25 and in the end got it only by threatening to go public with all the data I had to that point. Big Universities do not like publicity like that the damage control is too costly. 

1) was white male. (* his name on the application was Jamie we did nto know if he was male or female until then *).

2) was a hispanic female

3) was a black female

4) was a black male

5) was a white female

6) was a black female

7) was a black female

13) was a black female

25) was a black female


13 & 25 knew someone and they were using the point system to get them into the interview pool. I know it was abuse of power but the real point is look at the top 7 we wanted to interview in the first place. 

one white male and one while female the rest were minority in race and only one of them was male. 

Without having the data there were qualified people in the pool. 


The white male had obtained a different job for more money and took himself out. The number two took herself out during the second interview as she told them she was pregnant (* she had just found out *) and did nto want to start in the fall when she would be delivering. The number 3 interviewed well and she got the job. It was close between her and number 2 in the ratings and also in the interview.

A very qualified person got the job, and until the end race was not an issue.  

But, in some cases, where minorities are given points this does bring them into the playing field. So if they were even before now they are ahead in the rankings. Ok in the time of rampant racism I could see this. But not today. To hire them or promote them because to meet a quota (* not the real intent of the system in the first place *) that is not right and in itself also racist.


----------



## just2kicku (Jun 2, 2009)

Affirmative action sucks.

You want equality? Then be better at the job than the other guy.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 2, 2009)

I think affirmative action gets a really bad rap.  Folks will cite isolated cases and accept them as the yardstick by which everything under AA is measured.

AA really acknowledges that folks have been and are treated differently based on their race, gender, and even sexual orientation.  It also serves as a flexible tool in understanding that standards may be initially un-attainable for folks who eat 1 meal per day or have to walk 5 miles to school (as examples).

Somehow, and I posted this somewhere else, folks get the idea that EITHER you hire qualified people OR you subscribe to AA.  I'm not sure it's that simplistic.  It does mean that, in an office situation that doesn't at all reflect the true diversity of a community, when hiring someone new and all things seem equal, that a visible minority may get the nod over yet another heterosexual white male (the 40th one in the office).  That is not a horrible thing.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't like it...but it isn't time to do away with it yet.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't like it, but neither do I care for the viewpoint that the most qualified person should automatically win the job. Just as I am not obligated to buy the top-shelf products when I shop, employers should have the option of choosing "good enough" if the asking price is reasonable.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 2, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> I don't like it, but neither do I care for the viewpoint that the most qualified person should automatically win the job. Just as I am not obligated to buy the top-shelf products when I shop, employers should have the option of choosing "good enough" if the asking price is reasonable.


 
Why would anyone want less than the best person they can afford to hire for a job? I understand that sometimes you don't need a top shelf product, but I can't see why an employer wouldn't want to hire the best qualified employee that they can afford.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 2, 2009)

May the best whatever get it because of knowledge annd experience instead of the color of there skin.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 2, 2009)

morph4me said:


> Why would anyone want less than the best person they can afford to hire for a job? I understand that sometimes you don't need a top shelf product, but I can't see why an employer wouldn't want to hire the best qualified employee *that they can afford*.


 
That's the key phrase right there. Let's say you need a secretary and two applicants walk in. One has five years experience, can type 75 words a minute, has an excellent grasp of Microsoft Office, and wants $45K. The other is fresh out of school, types 65 words a minute, knows Word and a little Excel, wants $40K. Maybe 65 wpm is good enough for your company's needs. Maybe you don't need fancy spreadsheets. Sometimes you don't need all the bells and whistles, so why pay the higher price? *


* I have no idea what the going rate for a secretary is.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 2, 2009)

The idea of AA is to create a middle class within what ever community where there was not one before. It is, on the surface, unfair; however, the discrepancy in qualification is really a non-issue in the end. With some understanding in What AA is trying to accomplish the underqualified personel will eventually become qualified with some remedial training. Eventually we wont need AA given that the proper race ratio was inserted. 
Sean


----------



## just2kicku (Jun 2, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> The idea of AA is to create a middle class within what ever community where there was not one before. It is, on the surface, unfair; however, the discrepancy in qualification is really a non-issue in the end. With some understanding in What AA is trying to accomplish the underqualified personel will eventually become qualified with some remedial training. Eventually we wont need AA given that the proper race ratio was inserted.
> Sean



Why should a race ratio matter? Have you been to a DMV in Southern Ca., or the guys that give out parking tickets? Obviously someone forgot to tell them there's a ratio. I thought we are all one race, human race. That's what I've put on every job app I've ever filled out.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 2, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> Why should a race ratio matter? Have you been to a DMV in Southern Ca., or the guys that give out parking tickets? Obviously someone forgot to tell them there's a ratio. I thought we are all one race, human race. That's what I've put on every job app I've ever filled out.


 It matters because the children within these communities look to the adults for guidance. If the White people are the only ones with jobs, the minority children will seek out alternative lifestyles, that don't involve striving for a middleclass existance.
Sean


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 2, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> AA brings everyone down. The person that gets a job through AA usually cant keep it because they were not qualified in the first place and the people over looked because of AA lose a job they should have gotten.


 
...not to mention the negative impact it has on the numerous people their jobs affect. 

You want a "racially diverse" doctor that barely passed their bar exams doing open heart surgery on you or would you rather have the person that aced those exams (regardless of race or gender)? 

It's just plain stupid and wholely contradicts the tenets of common sense!



morph4me said:


> Afirmative action is just another form of bigotry and bring with it all the associated consequences.


 
...yeah...and that too. 

Forget the excuses...census bureau blah, blah, blah... no application for anything should have a section for race or gender on it. If necessary, interviews should be conducted by text only so that there is no clue as to the gender or ethnicity of the applicant. 

Showing favortism for any reason other than qualifications is simply wrong.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 2, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> Why should a race ratio matter? Have you been to a DMV in Southern Ca., or the guys that give out parking tickets? Obviously someone forgot to tell them there's a ratio. I thought we are all one race, human race. That's what I've put on every job app I've ever filled out.


And you are part of the human race. Are you suggesting that it is best that the *black community,* as a whole, should fail and just disolve into a human race thing?
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 2, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> ...not to mention the negative impact it has on the numerous people their jobs affect.
> 
> You want a "racially diverse" doctor that barely passed their bar exams doing open heart surgery on you or would you rather have the person that aced those exams (regardless of race or gender)?
> 
> ...


That is easy to say if your race has been in the majority all along. Try looking at it from the point of view that the only place where the minority gets to be in the majority is in the prison system.
Sean


----------



## just2kicku (Jun 2, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> And you are part of the human race. Are you suggesting that it is best that the *black community,* as a whole, should fail and just disolve into a human race thing?
> Sean



Why does it have to be the black community? Why can't it be any community, whether it's black, brown, yellow, or whatever?

Where is this drive to be middle class, if it is handed to you based on your ethnic background?

I'm a brown boy from Hawaii who never asked for anything. I took out student loans and went into the military and got educated. I chose a rate that would be around for a long time. (Electronics). Everyone has the same oppurtunity, if they got educated first, then hit the job market, then no matter who you are, you'll be qualified for whatever position you apply for.

We wouldn't need affirmative action.

So why should I think it's OK to hand someone something who didn't have to work for it like I did?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 2, 2009)

Whole lot of privilege on display here.

Until this is no longer a problem, the "best person for the job" is a polite fiction.  AA attempts to address the biases on display that lead to results like above.  A Solomon-like neutral finding of the "best candidate" just doesn't happen much - unless all details are blinded like the search committee discussed above.  Personal biases all come into play, in a way that just so happens to discriminate against minorities - no matter how qualified they are.

You see this with Sotomayor.  Somehow, a person who graduates _summa cum laude _from Princeton, goes to Yale Law, was the editor of a law journal, and has more bench experience than any SCOTUS nominee in 100 years is an unqualified Affirmative Action pick.  The response to her shows just how far we have _not _come.  As do the responses of some here.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 2, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> Try looking at it from the point of view that the only place where the minority gets to be in the majority is in the prison system.
> Sean




no one's fault but theirs. I refuse to feel guilty that some black kids decides to steal or sell drugs instead of getting an actual job


----------



## Live True (Jun 2, 2009)

First, let me note that I am considered a minority (Asian Pacific Islander), and I may have benefited from AA in getting into my first college choice. I don't know for certain, but the thought is always there.  Hmmmm....

I voted no, for a couple of reasons, but mainly because I think Aff. Action is not the best means to the stated end goal. The first reason for no is mentioned above. I will never be 100% certain that I got into the college of my choice simply because of my qualifications.  While I do not believe in turning down a helping hand, and it does not cheapen the accomplishments I made from there, it will always be a question in the back of my mind. A small one, inconsequential really, but there, nonetheless.

I also think, like Unions, that Aff. Action had a purpose and use when first created.  Sometimes, a paradigm shift requires some nudging to help give it the chance to grow and develop.  Even today, racism exist, although the focus may have changed more from colour to sexual and belief orientation.  But any good gardener knows that you may need support early in the growth of a tree, to give it chance against weather and predators. But if you keep that stake and wire as the tree grows, you create an overly dependent tree that cannot stand on its own and who's "assistance" may actually bring harm and encourage pests into the living organism (breaks in the bark from wire cuts invite invasion).  So, I think Aff. Action was a helpful support in the early stages of America growth into the diverse culture it was truly meant to be.  While I still think we have much work to do, I think it's time to nurture growth instead of support.

That said, I think the money spent on Aff. Action oversight would be better spent elsewhere.  Right now, those funds would be better spent in assuring that poorer and disadvantaged neighborhoods had some of the same educational resources, programs, and opportunities for thier children to learn and experience other opportunities.  To speak to Sean's concern....instead of a program meant to artificially require equality (and unfortunately old enough to be ripe for abuse), why don't we put that funding into programs that will help folks achieve thier own equality by showing them opportunities and then providing the tools to reach those opportunities?  Put the money into nutrition programs, work programs, education programs, and mentor programs.

Messier, by far, but it has so much more potential to improve lives across the board, not just on a case by case basis.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 2, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> And you are part of the human race. Are you suggesting that it is best that the *black community,* as a whole, should fail and just disolve into a human race thing?
> Sean




if they stop getting things handed to them, eventually, they wont need to get things handed to them

and this goes for ANY group


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 2, 2009)

maybe if she wasnt overturned 60% of the time FOR BEING WRONG no one would object.

maybe if EVERY single decision of her's that went before the supreme court hadnt been overturned no one would be objecting

touchy feely types always assume racism, when the truth is often simply that the person of color is INEPT



Empty Hands said:


> You see this with Sotomayor.  Somehow, a person who graduates _summa cum laude _from Princeton, goes to Yale Law, was the editor of a law journal, and has more bench experience than any SCOTUS nominee in 100 years is an unqualified Affirmative Action pick.  The response to her shows just how far we have _not _come.  As do the responses of some here.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 2, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> maybe if she wasnt overturned 60% of the time FOR BEING WRONG no one would object.



The national overturn average for all circuit courts is 77%.

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 2, 2009)

Yeah, think about which decisions _do_ get appealed...


----------



## Live True (Jun 2, 2009)

And Empty Hands, I agree that racism and prejudice still exist, but the nature of this abuse has changed.  I would say (or dare I say hope) that physical intimidation and threats to one's life are no longer the norm.  We shouldn't forget how far we've come, or be afraid to step out and up for what we believe is right.  I simply think that existing laws against discrimination are a better vehicle to prevent abuse. I think Aff. Action is not the best use of those resources (funds).  I think it is time for more personal and direct action.  

But of course, we are free to disagree and do so with freindly discussion.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 2, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> The national overturn average for all circuit courts is 77%.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.


 
I would like to see evidence of this. I have heard vastly different numbers.


----------



## Thems Fighting Words (Jun 2, 2009)

Depends on why the minority is underprivileged. If it's because there is or was system of legal oppression that led to their underprivilege (ie Apartheid) then I'm all for AA. But if they are underprivileged simply because they are waiting for hand outs, than I'd say no.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2009)

Ladies and gents, I know that most of the posters here are American and so will naturally respond within the context of their cultural experience. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm not criticising.

It's just that I wanted to add to the discourse from my own background and I'm not sure if you'll understand when I say that I may be a white, heterosexual, male with roots that really do go back to the Anglo Saxons {Hi, English :waves: }; however, I was also discriminated against (and still am) in the education and job market. 

Why? 

Because I'm from a lower working class family (unskilled to semi-skilled manual labour).

The only Affirmative Action I ever got was when the Labour government lived up to the promise of making university education free for those who could make the grade. From there I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps until I am now a very well qualified professional that most people would call Middle Class (altho' I still reckon I'm Working class (which is a whole other discussion )).

Now it's no longer true that degree level education is free and at the risk of sounding like an appalling fascist and racist, our universities are packed with foreign students with wealthy parents and I'm the only person I know (that isn't in my age bracket) who came from such 'lowly' council estate roots.

Discriminatory affirmative action is as valueless and unfair as the racism that spawned it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 2, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I would like to see evidence of this. I have heard vastly different numbers.



as have I


----------



## JDenver (Jun 2, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Now it's no longer true that degree level education is free and at the risk of sounding like an appalling fascist and racist, our universities are packed with foreign students with wealthy parents and I'm the only person I know (that isn't in my age bracket) who came from such 'lowly' council estate roots.



Disengenuous.  You're mixing complicated European immigration issues in with a distinctly American issue.




Sukerkin said:


> Discriminatory affirmative action is as valueless and unfair as the racism that spawned it.



And if you use inflammatory language like calling AA 'discriminatory' then the debate rolls to a full stop.  Discriminatory against who - the most privileged and elite group of people on Earth, heterosexual white american men??


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 2, 2009)

Is this just a five minute argument or the full half hour?

It's fine to disagree with me, you know. But this is not the first time you've done so with undue vigour. Any assumptions and prejudices you carry about me are not my responsibility. Perhaps you have me confused with someone who has done you wrong?

To attempt some sort of answer to your first point, I think you mistook me, possibly due to flaws in my own phrasing. What I was attempting to say is that the universities are now full of the children of the wealthy (again) and I did muddy that by the reference to the fact that many of these are from abroad (which is for the simple pragmatic reason that the universities charge more for them).

As to your second point of contention, that is my opinion. Certainly, it is not intended to stop the debate stone dead. I would also dispute your last assertion to the extent that the nebulous elite may fit that categorisation but that is only a tiny percentage of the whole population.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 2, 2009)

JDenver said:


> And if you use inflammatory language like calling AA 'discriminatory' then the debate rolls to a full stop.



Oh, it's undoubtably discriminatory--but as the link provided in this post indicates, so is _not_ having AA.

I lost a prestigious fellowship when my application was rated high enough for every category but White Male. That sucked. We've been compelled to make offers to minority candidates that were rated low but acceptable. I don't like that. But...there are consequences to doing nothing, too. A world of racially segregated haves and have-nots isn't desirable (or fair). Locally optimal need not be globally optimal.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 2, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I would like to see evidence of this. I have heard vastly different numbers.





Twin Fist said:


> as have I



Oh, *now *you are interested in hard data TF?  Look here.  This is also a foolish argument based on a very small sample size, as only 5 cases are in the set.  I await your breathless condemnations of the entire circuit court system as hopelessly inept.

Anyway, this is a distraction from the point of my post.  Sotomayor was just an example.  Would either of you care to address the actual point?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 2, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Oh, *now *you are interested in hard data TF? Look here. This is also a foolish argument based on a very small sample size, as only 5 cases are in the set. I await your breathless condemnations of the entire circuit court system as hopelessly inept.
> 
> Anyway, this is a distraction from the point of my post. Sotomayor was just an example. Would either of you care to address the actual point?


 
The 9th Circus court of appeals.... lol
thats awsome. I don't even have to say another word.
Thanks for the post though, I am reading it now, I just think thats funny is all..


----------



## JDenver (Jun 2, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> As to your second point of contention, that is my opinion. Certainly, it is not intended to stop the debate stone dead. I would also dispute your last assertion to the extent that the nebulous elite may fit that categorisation but that is only a tiny percentage of the whole population.



Okay.  

I dunno anything about 'undue vigour' or 'assumptions' of your personage.  I come to the boards and post and don't follow who said what-----

---anyways, my opinion is already stated.  To give a bad example, it's like any discussion around abortion.  Soon as someone uses the word 'murder', it just goes from there.  For me, my opinion, depositing AA into discrimination does a similar thing.  My question was legitimate too, if it's discriminatory, against which demographic?

Ahhh, we see each other.  Is okay.  Funny too, English and Canad talking up American policy!


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 2, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> That is easy to say if your race has been in the majority all along. Try looking at it from the point of view that the only place where the minority gets to be in the majority is in the prison system.
> Sean


 
LOL...right. There ain't a race in the history of man that hasn't had it bad at one point or another. 

My heritage is Irish. The Irish haven't exactly had it great throughout history. Not even in the good ole' US of A. Got any idea where the term "Paddy Wagon" came from? Oh, and the Chinese weren't the only ethnicity treated like crap by the railroads. 

But hey, I don't feel anybody owes me anything because of my race, gender, or otherwise. 

I would rather be judged, if I am to be judged, based on my actions and accomplishments. I would be offended to be offered a handout our shown "pity" becuase of my ethnicity or gender. I would think anyone that had any respect for themselves would feel the same. 

I challenge anyone to effectively argue that any particular race or gender deserves special treatment over another and not come off as biased or prejudicial. You simply can't do it. It's impossible because such treatement is in and of itself biased and prejudicial! 



Empty Hands said:


> Whole lot of privilege on display here.
> 
> Until this is no longer a problem, the "best person for the job" is a polite fiction. AA attempts to address the biases on display that lead to results like above. A Solomon-like neutral finding of the "best candidate" just doesn't happen much - unless all details are blinded like the search committee discussed above. Personal biases all come into play, in a way that just so happens to discriminate against minorities - no matter how qualified they are.
> 
> You see this with Sotomayor. Somehow, a person who graduates _summa cum laude _from Princeton, goes to Yale Law, was the editor of a law journal, and has more bench experience than any SCOTUS nominee in 100 years is an unqualified Affirmative Action pick. The response to her shows just how far we have _not _come. As do the responses of some here.


 
Hate to beat a dead horse...two wrongs don't make a right. You either believe and follow that line of thought or you don't. You can't apply it when it suites you and not apply it when it doesn't. IMHO, the only proper ethical approach is to put the most qualified person for the job in the job. 

There's no denying that wrongs have been commited based on prejudices, but arguing that more prejudice is needed to correct the problem... well... is like saying more gasoline is needed to put out a fire. AA is simply not the right approach to overcoming these problems. It only makes it worse and contributes to further bad feelings. 

In regards to Sotomayor, her gender and race have nothing to do with why she's a bad pick. Her comments in regards to what she feels the role of a judge is supposed to be is plenty to disqualify her. It's simply unconstitution for a judge to legislate, if that's what she'd like to do then she needs to run for Congress. Judges, especially Supreme Court Judges should never feel they have the right or duty to legislate. It violates the core principles of our constitution. It doesn't get any simpler than that. 

Consider this: what do the people (all of us) have to gain from any legislation that serves to further differentiate and separate us from one another? What does the central government have to gain from legislation that serves to further divide the diverse people of this nation? 

Our problems won't be solved by anything that serves to divide us in any way shape or form.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 2, 2009)

JDenver said:


> Okay.
> 
> I dunno anything about 'undue vigour' or 'assumptions' of your personage. I come to the boards and post and don't follow who said what-----
> 
> ...


 
Does it matter which demographic is being discrimated against?  If so why?


----------



## JDenver (Jun 2, 2009)

morph4me said:


> Does it matter which demographic is being discrimated against?  If so why?



1. Not my word.  I don't see AA as discriminatory.  It attempts to level a field that has been tilted in one direction for centuries.  I don't find that egregious.

2. If you choose to see it as being discriminatory, you would have to concede that it discriminates against heterosexual white men.  I don't see a qualified white male as having a difficult time finding work when an equally qualified black man is hired in his place.  I also find it historically and culturally blind for a heterosexual white male to find this problematic.

That's my take on it.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 2, 2009)

I would see any program that makes employment, education, benefits, etc. available to a person based on race, gender, or sexual preference as discrimanatory. Using one form of discrimination to fight another form of discrimination has never made sense to me.


----------



## K-man (Jun 2, 2009)

So far all the posts have looked at AA from an ethnic viewpoint.
Until the late 1960s very few older women were in the Australian workforce. Once a woman married she was expected to have kids and stay home to look after them and her husband. Wages and costs were such that most families could live on one wage. There were very few women in the professions, no judges, few barristers, no commercial airline pilots etc, etc, and where women worked, they were paid less than men to perform the same job.
Economically things changed in the 70's and many families found they needed two bread-winners. Women were still excluded from the top positions. 
Affirmative action legislation was introduced in 1986 and 20 years later it is a totally different environment, not so good if your a man.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




What I am suggesting is that affirmative action should be not seen as an inappropriate person being employed over a more qualified one but more, where there is a choice available a demographic balance is maintained. Eventually the AA should not be needed. :asian:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 2, 2009)

Satamayor is clearly an unqualified failure as a judge, and was only nominated because of her race and gender.

yeah, satomayor isnt the point, but you brought her up to try and get people to back down. White people HATE being called racist, and usually? they just walk away.

Media Matters?

media ****ing matters?

seriously?

epic FAIL

there is literally NO source more biased.





Empty Hands said:


> Oh, *now *you are interested in hard data TF?  Look here.  This is also a foolish argument based on a very small sample size, as only 5 cases are in the set.  I await your breathless condemnations of the entire circuit court system as hopelessly inept.
> 
> Anyway, this is a distraction from the point of my post.  Sotomayor was just an example.  Would either of you care to address the actual point?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 2, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Satamayor is clearly an unqualified failure as a judge, and was only nominated because of her race and gender.



Every piece of evidence available shows you are wrong.  It's either extreme partisan hackery or racism/sexism that makes you persist.  Pick one.

Alito had an overturn rate of 100% (2 out of 2).  Naturally, he is highly qualified.  I wonder how you can even respect yourself here.



Twin Fist said:


> Media Matters?
> 
> media ****ing matters?
> 
> ...



I expected that.  They show their work, as my old math teacher used to say.  The cases filed, and the cases overturned, for each district.  You can check their numbers if you like.  Which you won't.

I know you won't pay any attention to the evidence, or to my original actual point, these posts are for the benefit of others.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 2, 2009)

To say discrimination is wrong and then say that someone should be shown preferential treatment because of race or gender in the same breath is hypocrisy. 

Somehow that simple fact escapes some people. That's what I don't understand. Can somebody please explain *that* to me? :idunno:


----------



## searcher (Jun 2, 2009)

I will not lower my standards to raise yours.

These are the words I live by.    I am still mad about not getting into medical school.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 2, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> To say discrimination is wrong and then say that someone should be shown preferential treatment because of race or gender in the same breath is hypocrisy.
> 
> Somehow that simple fact escapes some people. That's what I don't understand. Can somebody please explain *that* to me?



Yes. That makes sense in a vacuum: All other things being equal, it would be hypocritical to discriminate while maintaining that to do so is wrong. On these grounds I would oppose affirmative action for the blue-eyed, even though I myself am a member of that class.

But the discrimination practiced against African-Americans (say) was wrong...yet it happened, and has had lasting effects. Earlier *Empty Hands* mentioned this study:
*Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination*



> We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews.



So, discrimination is wrong...and it still happens. Is it so clear that fighting fire with fire, though unfortunate, is really the wrong response?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 4, 2009)

I think you should be able to use affirmative action...ONCE.

Yes, past discrimination, bad circumstances, and bad schools do hurt people.  If your mom is a crack whore and you don't know who your father is, I think you deserve a break...ONCE.

For example, if you need affirmative action to get into Brooklyn Technical High School, then you don't get to use affirmative action to get into Harvard.  Why?  Because you just got a great education at Brooklyn Tech, that's why! That should mitigate your crack whore past, so you should apply to Harvard on your own merit.

If you go to state university, and you decide to get some affirmative action points to go to Harvard Law, fine, but then you don't get any points when you're applying for a job--because you just got a Harvard diploma, which should be more than enough to get you a job.

I think that's fair. I don't think it's fair for you to affirmative action your way from nursery school to Yale.

I also don't think you deserve affirmative action because your ancestors, but not you, suffered discrimination. If your great great grandfather was a slave, but both of your parents are physicians, you don't need affirmative action.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 4, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Every piece of evidence available shows you are wrong. It's either extreme partisan hackery or racism/sexism that makes you persist. Pick one.
> .


Show me where TF's or anyone here has been racist. That comment was just plain out of order. Might I remind you that the reason Sotomayer isn't appropriate for the Supreme court is not because she is not qualified. It is because SHE has made RACIST an SEXISTS comments in the past and she doesn't seem to get what the role of a judge is. To believe that policy is set by the courts is damn right dangerous.

You would be the first to cry foul if Alito, Thomas or Roberts had made the same comments about Latina or Black women as Sotomayer had made about White males. 

One more thing 'Media Matters'.......Come on now.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> But the discrimination practiced against African-Americans (say) was wrong...yet it happened, and has had lasting effects. Earlier *Empty Hands* mentioned this study:
> ?


I know on particular African American who was screwed by the AA system in the US, because he claimed he was African American and was in fact white. The only problem with this was that he was the only real African applying. If Americans sttopped using designations like African American, Irish American and Italian American and started using the term American instead, maybe we all could move forward.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 4, 2009)

Phoenix44 said:


> I think you should be able to use affirmative action...ONCE.
> 
> Yes, past discrimination, bad circumstances, and bad schools do hurt people. If your mom is a crack whore and you don't know who your father is, I think you deserve a break...ONCE.
> 
> ...


 
Bloody good post


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 4, 2009)

I do think that that is an important point that *YL* made there in post#52. 

The clinging to 'ethnicity' for advantage is, it seems to me, a retrograde step in terms of social integration and advancement. It's also one that I think is a false appeal to 'sympathy' and appears to be very much a development of the past few decades.

Almost all of us that are posting here I would hazard a guess have status of a slave at some point in our family history. I know I do and nearly all of the non-noble families of England do. If it wasn't the Saxons, it was the Romans, if it wasn't the Roman's, it was the Normans, if it wasn't the Norman's it was the aristocracy ...

The only difference I see in the cases that fall under the AA banner is the relative shortness of time - a century or so rather than millenia. That's still three generations or more.

It sounds harsh and I know that people who don't know me well will judge me badly for it but it really is time to let go of racism/sexism/ageism as easy reasons not to try on your own account. As I said earlier, prejudice takes many forms in many different places and Affirmative Action is only targeted to those quarters where a sense of collective guilt is traded on. That is wrong.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 4, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Every piece of evidence available shows you are wrong.


 
No...her own words prove YOU are wrong. 

As stated in the initial post that started this thread I recognize that she has a done a good job as a judge for the most part. 

HOWEVER...and it's a BIG "HOWEVER" ...
She has stated, knowing that the view she took at the time she was stating it as evidenced in the footage of her stating it, was contrary to the very foundations our country were founded on and that it contradicted the constitution and that her view was contrary to maintaining the very balance of power between the 3 branches of government. 

That, more than her remarks about Latinos and women, should be more of a concern to any citizen concerned with the direction this country has and is taking. 

Have we simply strayed so far over the last century + that people don't even recognize that we haven't been a "constitutional" country in as much time!?!?! 

Don't you realize that once you give up a freedom or liberty that you'll never get it back? Just look at income tax for crying out loud! People just accept it and go on about their day..dum-dee-dum. 

It drives me bonkers! 

*JUDGES ARE NOT INTENDED TO, NEVER HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO, AND NEVER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH!!!!*

Does no one see the absolute danger in that? :tantrum:

What frightens me is that so many people want to give up the rights, protections, and priviledges I am supposedly garaunteed by the constitution. 

WTH, the constitution has just about become some ancient relic at this point and the principles of the Founding Fathers an outdated ideal... Who cares anymore? Nobody...that's who..."grumble..grumble..."



arnisador said:


> Yes. That makes sense in a vacuum: All other things being equal, it would be hypocritical to discriminate while maintaining that to do so is wrong. On these grounds I would oppose affirmative action for the blue-eyed, even though I myself am a member of that class.
> 
> But the discrimination practiced against African-Americans (say) was wrong...yet it happened, and has had lasting effects. Earlier *Empty Hands* mentioned this study:
> *Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination*
> ...


 
Two wrongs don't make a right. 

You can try to rationalize it all you want but it's still wrong all day long. 

I could cite different examples untill I'm blue in the face but those that support it, support it and probably will never see the other side of the coin to consider why it's a bad idea. 

You rape my wife so I get to rape your wife and on and on and on. It's not ethical to "punish" one person or group of people for a wrong done to another person or group of persons. 

The Jews get it. They're probably the most persecuted group in the history of man and how often do you see them crying? They don't! Perhaps we should take a lesson from them? 

There's no justification for wronging anybody for any reason. 

:soapbox: End rant. I apologize if I offended anyone.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 4, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> it really is time to let go of racism/sexism/ageism as easy reasons not to try on your own account.



That only works if everyone agrees to do it at once...and even then, this 'new beginning' would begin with african-Americans disproportionately poor, incarcerated, etc. But someone can 'try on his own account' very hard and still suffer from a stereotype that "most" of his group don't do so. At hundreds of applicants per job during times like these, a small disadvantage like that can tip things away from you every time. The U.S. is about 14% African-American...many desirable occupations are not. There are many reasons for that, but discrimination and the lingering affects of laws that are _not_ over a hundred years old--see e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed when I was an infant in order to prohibit not serving customers who are black in your restaurant (or the Civil Rights Act of 1968 regarding renting apartments and buying housing)--still affect people. There are still many people alive who went to legally segregated schools, and more who went to effectively segregated schools. This isn't the ancient past. When I was in kindergarten it was still legal to not rent an apartment to someone because you didn't like the color of his skin. (The story is a bit more complicated than I'm indicating--this is federal legislation that applied throughout the U.S.; individual states had the right to prohibit these things prior to the federal laws being passed.) The effects are still with us. They're real. A colleague of mine--a light-skinned Ethiopian tenured professor--tells us he feels the stares as we walks around our overwhelmingly white town. Until about 5 years ago he had been for many years the sole black professor at our school of well over a hundred faculty.



> As I said earlier, prejudice takes many forms in many different places and Affirmative Action is only targeted to those quarters where a sense of collective guilt is traded on. That is wrong.



The statistics make it clear that an African-American child is more likely to be born poorer, with less access to well-child care, and in a more violence-prone area with worse schools. When she must 'try on her own account' she does so, on average, from a considerable disadvantage...and then there's the very real employment discrimination faced by African-Americans even with literally _equivalent_ resumes, as the previously cited study shows.

The discrimination is already out there. If not AA, how to address it? Is "keep a stiff upper lip, old chap" all we'll offer--advice?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 4, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right.



Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.



> There's no justification for wronging anybody for any reason.



Convenient reasoning that leaves whites privileged and black disadvantaged.

Any _solutions_?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



sure, stay in school, get good grades, EARN thier way into college, get a degree, get a job, and do everythign that whites do to get to the same place?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> sure, stay in school, get good grades, EARN thier way into college, get a degree, get a job, and do everythign that whites do to get to the same place?


 

Yeah, like be born rich, the son, grandson and great-grandson of Ivy League grads, so it doesn't matter if you don't have the brains God gave a turnip-you'll go to a good boarding school, get into an Ivy League school, graduate from both with mediocre grades and have a ready made "position" waiting for you upon graduation?

_-whew!-_ THAT FELT GOOD.


Honestly.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 4, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> sure, stay in school, get good grades, EARN thier way into college, get a degree, get a job, and do everythign that whites do to get to the same place?



But blacks start further back from that same place, on average. Like the ski lodge full of young girls looking for husbands, and husbands looking for young girls, the situation is not as symmetric as it appears.

Is that fair?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 4, 2009)

yes it is

it isnt my fault thier parents were losers.

white previledge is mostly a myth, and everyone knows it.

whitey here, been poor all my life, my parents were poor, I had to join the service to learn a trade, 

the difference is, I aint bitching about how someone owes me something.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Is that fair?


 
Life isn't fair. AA actually ends up hurting minorities. It make the majority resent the minority. Let work, grades, experience and talent be the guide. Do you think that anyone in Golf cares what colour Tiger Woods' skin is. NO. All they care about is that he gets the ball into the hole.

A Pakistani friend of mine in England said that the Premiership was racist because there were very few, if any asians in it, even though there is a significant population of asians in the UK. He thought that Positive Discrimination (AA) was needed. I told him that his position was ridiculous. If they found an asian who could put the ball in the back of the net, they would sign him in a heart beat. 

Maybe we need AA in the NBA, there seems to be a disproportionate number of blacks to whites. How many people would be on board with that. Please raise your hands.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
> 
> Convenient reasoning that leaves whites privileged and black disadvantaged.
> 
> Any _solutions_?


 
Black's aren't the only one's that suffer from discrimination. That fact is often overlooked for some reason. 

I do know the answer is not MORE OF THE SAME. 

Bill Cosby is probably one of the best examples of taking personal responsibility for one's own destiny and overcoming the odds and making a life, a successful life, for one's self. 

He also routinely speaks out against such things as Affirmative Action. 



> Bill Cosby wasn't talking about affirmative action when he made his remarks last month, criticizing the failure of some African Americans to meet standards of decent behavior. But it should surprise no one that those most unhappy with Cosby's criticism are the people most enamored of preferences based on race and ethnicity.
> 
> Once upon a time, the Left opposed racial discrimination. It argued that it was unfair to let racial considerations trump qualifications based on merit. The principle of nondiscrimination carried the day in the 1960s, and it was enshrined into law in various statutes. But these statutes have not resulted in proportional representation for some groups, particularly African Americans, at the upper reaches of our elites. And so now, ironically, it is the Left that pushes racial preferences and denigrates merit.


 
Read more if you like: http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2004/col20040528.asp




Twin Fist said:


> sure, stay in school, get good grades, EARN thier way into college, get a degree, get a job, and do everythign that whites do to get to the same place?


 
You forget, we live in an age of "Entitlements". For some reason, some people feel they are entitled to a job or college admission based on nothing more than the color of their skin. Forget actually having to EARN it. That's an outdated ideal. 



elder999 said:


> Yeah, like be born rich, the son, grandson and great-grandson of Ivy League grads, so it doesn't matter if you don't have the brains God gave a turnip-you'll go to a good boarding school, get into an Ivy League school, graduate from both with mediocre grades and have a ready made "position" waiting for you upon graduation?
> 
> _-whew!-_ THAT FELT GOOD.
> 
> ...


 
Aren't you the one that routinely likes to remind everyone how well off you and your family is? 



Twin Fist said:


> yes it is
> 
> it isnt my fault thier parents were losers.
> 
> ...


 
There ya go. People, regardless of background, will take everything they can get and use any excuse they can to get it. Nobody actually wants to put the effort into something to actually EARN what they are given. 

How many times has the topic of McDojos come up on this forum for exapmple? 



yorkshirelad said:


> Life isn't fair. AA actually ends up hurting minorities. It make the majority resent the minority. Let work, grades, experience and talent be the guide. Do you think that anyone in Golf cares what colour Tiger Woods' skin is. NO. All they care about is that he gets the ball into the hole.
> 
> A Pakistani friend of mine in England said that the Premiership was racist because there were very few, if any asians in it, even though there is a significant population of asians in the UK. He thought that Positive Discrimination (AA) was needed. I told him that his position was ridiculous. If they found an asian who could put the ball in the back of the net, they would sign him in a heart beat.
> 
> Maybe we need AA in the NBA, there seems to be a disproportionate number of blacks to whites. How many people would be on board with that. Please raise your hands.


 
Life isn't fair, you have to work for what you want. The concepts of Reaping what you sow, what goes around comes around, return on investment...etc...are lost on those that feel entitled. 

I wish there were a United Honky College Fund...maybe then I wouldn't owe so much in student loans. 

You can make all the excuses you want, rationalize it untill you can look yourself in the mirror... but at the end of the day you all know that showing any favortism based on race is wrong. 

You want advancement? Then take up the torch for what is right without unfairly harming others in the process. 

Don't prostitute your principles for what you know is right. 

Fight fire with fire? That's BS and you know it. Affirmative Action only perpetuates the problem, not solve it. 

Divide and conquer... God forbid the citizens of the US banded together. MLK plan before his assassination was for another march...that was not racially motivated, but rather the working class demanding the same rights as the elite. 

Clear your heads and look at it logically...AA simply doesn't make sense. It's wrong. *Bias based on race is wrong*. You know it. You preach it, yet endorse it in the same breath. Take a step back and look at it and you're bound to realize it.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 5, 2009)

Yes, there are similarly disadvantaged whites...but if they get a good college education, they're indistinguishable from the born-rich whites. Not so for blacks.

Given the differences in income among racial groups in the U.S. currently, the "bootstraps" arguments seem implicitly to be saying that the groups are different in some way (work ethic? natural abilities?)--because otherwise, why wouldn't the disparities have been erased?

I'd like to see someone who is anti-AA comment on the study mentioned upthread (one of many similar studies). You can overcome being poor, but overcoming being discriminated against based on your ethnicity is much harder. It's a large extra hurdle. What's the remedy for working hard but still being discriminated against based on irrelevant factors you can't control?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jun 5, 2009)

I am White I am against AA I am discriminated all the time for jobs.
I have even been told to my face"no speaka spanish noa job"
I live in Miami a highly populated Spanish area were White is such a minority that if you tell someone you are White Irish they look at you speechless. I may be discrimintated by my skin but I do not want a job based on my skin either. I want to know I got it because of hardwork and experience.

What does a white person name sound like Barry White is black but Frank Black is white. 

Some people I know in a company can't get promoted though they have the experience been with the company more than 10 yrs because of AA. Means some other guy who has less experience been with the company less than 10yrs get the promotion because of his skin.

AA is racist because it only picks people by their race and skin color.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 5, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Yes, there are similarly disadvantaged whites...but if they get a good college education, they're indistinguishable from the born-rich whites. Not so for blacks.


 
Really? I don't recall getting a big "W" stamped on my forehead or anything that would disquinsh me as attaining a college education. I surely wasn't awarded a Royles upon graduation nor was I handed the keys to a fully staffed mansion complete with a French chef. 

I also have some educated friends of African decent that would be extremely offended by your assertion as well. 



arnisador said:


> Given the differences in income among racial groups in the U.S. currently, the "bootstraps" arguments seem implicitly to be saying that the groups are different in some way (work ethic? natural abilities?)--because otherwise, why wouldn't the disparities have been erased?


 
I'm not debating that "wrongs" still occur. I'm saying that AA only perpetuates the problem making it worse. It isn't helping to change anything in a positive way. AA is racial bias and it makes no sense to endorse it if you're against racial bias. 

I don't endorse a double standard for anybody for anything, doesn't matter if it's race, gender, or socio-economic status. You will never have any justice or fairness unless the same rules apply to everyone equally. That's simply a fact. 




arnisador said:


> I'd like to see someone who is anti-AA comment on the study mentioned upthread (one of many similar studies). You can overcome being poor, but overcoming being discriminated against based on your ethnicity is much harder. It's a large extra hurdle. What's the remedy for working hard but still being discriminated against based on irrelevant factors you can't control?


 
Depends on where you live too. Obama seems to have done a pretty good job of overcoming his conditions as did Oprah. Niether one of them are disquinshable from blacks that live in poverty are they? 

How about upthread where the poor fellow didn't get into med-school because of AA? 

Harming another in the name of fairness is just plain wrong. How would you feel if the police dragged you out of your house in the middle of the night and threw you in jail because somebody else you didn't even know committed a crime against somebody else you didn't even know because of the color of their skin? It doesn't matter that you had nothing to do with it, but now you're being punished because of something somebody of your race did to somebody else of a different race that was wrong. It doesn't matter how you feel about it or your philosophies about race and right and wrong. You're now sitting in jail suffering. It's the same thing. 

I don't even pretend to have the answers, but I do know that Affirmative Action is racial bias and racial bias is wrong no matter who is benefitting from it or what the reason is. The KKK had their reasons and it sounded pretty good to them too. The Nazi's had their reasons as well and so on and so on. You can put a different face on it, but at the end of the day it's still discrimination and does nothing to end it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2009)

that study?

you want the cold hard truth about that study?

the cold, hard truth is that when employers see Lakisa or Jamal, they KNOW, from past experience that there is a HIGH chance they are getting someone with a lousy work ethic, that will get confrontational and get in your face. Someone who will do a lousy job then threaten to sue if you get on thier ***.

thats the bed the modern "angry black" mentality has created that the good ones get to lie in

it isnt my fault, it isnt the employers fault.

the CULTURE is creating the problems.

there is a reason cops stop blacks, because blacks commit more crimes. There is a reason taxi's wont stop for blacks in NYC, cuz the drivers have been robbed BY BLACKS too many times.

you may think these opinions are racist, but they are also true, from the viewpoint of the employer, the cop, or the taxi driver. I know this because 5 years ago, i was the manager of a Dairy Queen here in town.



arnisador said:


> I'd like to see someone who is anti-AA comment on the study mentioned upthread (one of many similar studies). You can overcome being poor, but overcoming being discriminated against based on your ethnicity is much harder. It's a large extra hurdle. What's the remedy for working hard but still being discriminated against based on irrelevant factors you can't control?


----------



## just2kicku (Jun 5, 2009)

I think the bottom line is this, AA is discriminatory. We don't want discrimnination yet we condone it with AA. Quite the double standard. That's like a group saying "don't call me whatever racial slurs" and running around and calling each other that. I don't agree with that either.

You can't demand equality by saying don't discrimninate against me, but it's OK if your discriminated against cause it works out in my favor. That's a load of horse ****. All AA does is build more resentment against those playing the race card.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I do know that Affirmative Action is racial bias and racial bias is wrong no matter who is benefitting from it or what the reason is. The KKK had their reasons and it sounded pretty good to them too. The Nazi's had their reasons as well and so on and so on. You can put a different face on it, but at the end of the day it's still discrimination and does nothing to end it.



Wow, that's really extreme. Affirmative action is like lynchings or concentration camps?



Twin Fist said:


> the cold, hard truth is that when employers see Lakisa or Jamal, they KNOW, from past experience that there is a HIGH chance they are getting someone with a lousy work ethic, that will get confrontational and get in your face. Someone who will do a lousy job then threaten to sue if you get on thier ***.



I believe there's some truth to this. Can we help change it?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2009)

not until the LISTEN to bill cosby instead of ignoring him.....

it isnt easy to hear the truth about yourself, it is easier to blame someone else.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 5, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Wow, that's really extreme. Affirmative action is like lynchings or concentration camps?


 
It seems to take a hammer to drive a point home with some people. 

Interesting that you pick that one particular thing to address and conveinently avoid the other 90% of my post.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

Actually, affirmative action is all sorts of bias.

If you were to take an exam for a federal job-the Postal Service, say, and scored a 96, but you weren't a veteran, you might be beaten out for that job by a veteran who got an 87, because he gets 10 pts. added to his score. It doesn't matter that the test measures aptitude for the job, or that your score was easily superior-the vet gets preferential treatment._Life is not fair._

If you were to apply for a job on an Indian Reservation, say with PNM at the Four Corners Power Plant on the Navaho Nation, and you, again, had to take a test, scored well on it, had good grades in school and had operated at another plant for 8 years with lots of good experience in your resume, and you weren't an American Indian, you might be beat out for the job by someone who scorerd lower, didn't have as good grades or as much experience, but was a "Native American." In fact, if you look at some of those jobs or go to some of those plants, there's a sign right there on the webpage or in the lobby that says they have that preferential hiring practice._Life is not fair._

Another thing, of course, is that "Affirmative Action" doesn't necessarily mean "they hire a less qualified person who's 'whatever'" It might mean that upon weighing all the qualified applicants, theyh choose the qualified candidate who fills whatever quota if is they feel that they're obligated to fill with that job. Or, it may be as it has been in my case, that the most qualified candidate is a "bonus", in that I sit down for the interview and they see the color of my skin (since I didn't self identify until they started allowing you to designate two or more races) and thionk soemthing along the lines of _"Ooh goody, he's a really good candidate AND he's black."_ Of course, the last time that actually happened that way is when I hired on at the lab._Life is not fair._

Lastly, I don't like AA, because, well, I feel the same way Clarence Thomas did, though not quite as spitefully: it makes people make erroneous assumptions about me, and discounts the hard work that I have done.I also don't really care for "social engineering," though I can see the necessity. I'm not really certain how well it works. In any case, I've never needed it, but people continue to make that assumption about me. _Life is not fair._

However.



			
				celtic crippler said:
			
		

> Aren't you the one that routinely likes to remind everyone how well off you and your family is?


 
There's a story in that, of course. My family-my _father's_ family, has been pretty well off for a long, long time-it's a matter of history. While I've also managed to do pretty well for _myself_, I'd be the first to point out where I've had _advantages_ along the way-including my intellect. I attended pretty exclusive private schools for parts of my education-and I knew some other, not so bright guys in boarding school who wouldn't have gotten into the schools they got into if their families hadn't been able to send them to schools like Hotchkiss, and if not for their rather famous last names. Of course, they were all white, and that's why the little joke post. My father, and both his parents, and his grandfather and great grandfather all went to college, and succeeded in a lot of ways mandated by the way my family trust is set up, but they had an advantage. _Life is not fair._

My _mother's_ parents both graduated from college as well, but, since they didn't hire "people of color" as schoolteachers in Wyoming, my grandfather mined coal, and my mother grew up really poor-the kind of poor a lot of people in America can only imagine. Some will say all the things I've said myself:_why didn't they move? There must have been *another* reason_, etc., but the fact is that I've seen my grandparents transcripts, and they did well and should have been able to get jobs once the depression was over, but it didn't happen. Grandma was Wind River Shoshone, grandpa was black (and deaf, which also may have been a factor, and we have AA for the "handicapped" as well) and they weren't going to teach school, and that's the way it was._ Life is not fair._

Was AA needed for folks like my grandparents,and the people who came afterward? Sure was. Have *I* ever needed it? Nope. Not really, but then, _I'm superlative,_, anomalous and atypical. For others, where the margins might be somewhat narrower, it's needed and used, still I think. Is it fair? No fairer than the likes of Bill Ford getting into Princeton-man's as dumb as a box of tire-chains, I know because I was his trigonometry tutor when he was a senior and I was a freshman.Spoke pretty fair French, though-the ***. Of course, he's done pretty well with his family's company....._Life is not fair,_ get over it. I have. That's why I voted "I don't care." AA hasn't ever deprived me of a job, gotten me a job, or deprived anyone I know of a job. I don't care.

That's another reason for my little whiny joke-the idea that people whose very skin color continues to be an advantage should complain about the very narrow advantage given to those who are simply born at a disadvantage is somewhat disheartening. That those same people insist that "it's discrimination" (it *is)* "and that's wrong, regardless of _why_" miss the point that choosing the _best_ candidate is _also_ a form of discrimination. Life is _sooooo_ unfair. :lol:


----------



## morph4me (Jun 5, 2009)

Afirmitave action makes assumptions without evidence. If X % of the population in an is a certain race then the same percent of the population should be represented in the job market or educational institutions, but there is no evidence that X % of that population is qualifed, or even interested.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 5, 2009)

I've been in hiring positions for a long time. We have no AA up here, so it does not come into play. Regardless, the 'best' candidate is not always the one that scores higher, that has the best education or the most experience. The best candidate is always the one that I feel can do the job _and get along with the culture of the company_. I've often dismissed better qualified candidates for those reasons. Not quite the same as AA, but get over the 'I'm more qualified, but he got the job because he's...' mentality.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> I've been in hiring positions for a long time. We have no AA up here, so it does not come into play. Regardless, the 'best' candidate is not always the one that scores higher, that has the best education or the most experience. The best candidate is always the one that I feel can do the job _and get along with the culture of the company_. I've often dismissed better qualified candidates for those reasons. Not quite the same as AA, but get over the 'I'm more qualified, but he got the job because he's...' mentality.


 
I've passed over "the most qualified candidate," also. 

He or she was a _jerk_.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 5, 2009)

morph4me said:


> Afirmitave action makes assumptions without evidence. If X % of the population in an is a certain race then the same percent of the population should be represented in the job market or educational institutions, but there is no evidence that X % of that population is qualifed, or even interested.


 
Tell me about it...sigh. 

Last year I had to spend hours with Corporate HR because I didn't hire an "X". Though I thought *her* resume, work experience, etc pretty much summed up why we hired her, Corporate thought it important enough to actually send somebody down for a face-to-face because *she* wasn't the right color. It wasted my time and I actually took offense as I consider myself to be a person of integrity. 

BTW...after a year I wish I had 10 more like her. She's helped generate a ton of revenue and is the hardest worker I've ever seen. Every day I have to run her off saying, "You know, we dock you an hour for lunch so you might as well take it." 

And no, life ain't fair. 

I've lived in the ghetto, literally. I've lived in a cinder-block house with a board nailed up where a back door should have been. I've lived, with another guy, cramped up in a small travel trailer rigged up to a light pole for electricity with a small cubby that you hade to squat down in to take a shower. I've worked the crappiest of crappy jobs. I wasn't born into priviledge. 

Perhaps that's why I finally decided to do whatever it took to further my education and better my life. Oh, and by the way this all happened *after* I got out of the service. Vets may get an advantage on a postal exam but it's never got me squat (not that I've asked for it). 

So, it goes without saying that life's not fair. Thanks for that Captain Obvious.  lol 

It's true that one's perspective and/or opinion is partly based on that individual's experiences. Both sides of this coin have been debated and the "victims" of both sides have stated good cases and examples. But when you boil the argument down to it's base it is *racial discrimination*. That's different than being rewarded 10 points on a postal exam for prior public service to one's country. You get that for being a veteran regardless of your ethnicity.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Black's aren't the only one's that suffer from discrimination. That fact is often overlooked for some reason.
> 
> I do know the answer is not MORE OF THE SAME.
> 
> ...


Bill Cosby is a comedian.
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Vets may get an advantage on a postal exam but it's never got me squat (not that I've asked for it). .


 
Vets get 10 preference points added in consideration for *all* federal employment. You don't have to "ask for it," just let them know that you're a vet. Not begrudging it, just pointing out the inherent unfairness that someone who demonstrates that they're more qualified gets discriminated against because they're not a vet. _Life is unfair._

"Captain Obvious" _I like that._ :lol:



Touch Of Death said:


> Bill Cosby is a comedian.
> Sean


 
_Thanks for that, *Lt. Obvious*_ :lfao:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 5, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> yes it is
> 
> it isnt my fault thier parents were losers.
> 
> ...


And it wasn't your fault that there grandparents were enslaved, but the problem still exists. There are even more White losers than Black losers by the way. The whites are priviledged plain and simple; however, there are plenty of under priviledged whites given that they are the dominant population. 
Sean


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 5, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> Bill Cosby is a comedian.
> Sean


 
He's also got a PhD in Psychology. 



elder999 said:


> Vets get 10 preference points added in consideration for *all* federal employment. You don't have to "ask for it," just let them know that you're a vet. Not begrudging it, just pointing out the inherent unfairness that someone who demonstrates that they're more qualified gets discriminated against because they're not a vet. _Life is unfair._
> 
> "Captain Obvious" _I like that._ :lol:


 
Point taken. I'll make you a cape.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> He's also got a PhD in Psychology.
> 
> 
> 
> Point taken. I'll make you a cape.


And that makes him an expert on Race relations?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> He's also got a PhD in Psychology.
> 
> 
> 
> Point taken. I'll make you a cape.


 
Actually, Bill has a doctorate in education, which is an_ EdD_. So no "_psychology_," and he has no "PhD" per se........(they're both _doctorates_, of course, but....)

_No Capes!!!_


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 5, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> And that makes him an expert on Race relations?


 
Not exactly...but uh... he is black so he may have something to say in regards to his race and so forth.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Actually, Bill has a doctorate in education, which is an_ EdD_. So no "_psychology_," and he has no "PhD" per se........(they're both _doctorates_, of course, but....)
> 
> _No Capes!!!_


 
I stand corrected. Point is he's educated and pretty much did it on his own paying for it by tending bar before breaking into comedy and acting. Even though he was successful, he still persued his education to better himself.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I stand corrected. Point is he's educated and pretty much did it on his own paying for it by tending bar before breaking into comedy and acting. Even though he was successful, he still persued his education to better himself.


I do appreciate his attitude; however, there are a lot of African Americans that don't share his opinion. They feel society has wronged them not only in the past, but today. Just as with some white parents, many black families badmouth the status quo and there children then share that opinion. *AA* is an attempt to reverse that cycle. 
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I stand corrected. Point is he's educated and pretty much did it on his own paying for it by tending bar before breaking into comedy and acting. Even though he was successful, he still persued his education to better himself.


 

Yeah, but he served in the military, got a GED in the military, and then he got a scholarship for track. And he dropped out to be a comedian and went back to school in the 70's, _after_ he was successful. (I'm thinking about going back to school for nursing or for a PA...hardly counts as "lifting myself up" though-_Life is so unfair._ :lol: )


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I stand corrected. Point is he's educated and pretty much did it on his own paying for it by tending bar before breaking into comedy and acting. .


 
And I'll pose a question-or two-here, for anyone to answer: what do you suppose _his_ views are on Affirmative Action? What do you suppose the views of Dr. martin Luther King were?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 5, 2009)

I'm quite sure it leaves a bad taste in his mouth; however, the problem is not solving itself.* We *can do something about it *now *or we can sit back and ignore it.
Sean


----------



## arnisador (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I've passed over "the most qualified candidate," also.


 
The whole concept of "the most qualified candidate" is questionable already...or at least that a person can make that decision based on the info. available. It's fuzzy.



> He or she was a _jerk_.



See, in mathematics we consider that a plus.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

arnisador said:


> See, in mathematics we consider that a plus.


 
Yeah, but when working with explosives, lasers, radioactive substances, hazardous chemicals and extremely high voltage electricity-sometimes all at the same time-it's not a plus. It's not even good to have someone like that around other people who work with those things.....:lol:


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Vets get 10 preference points added in consideration for *all* federal employment. You don't have to "ask for it," just let them know that you're a vet. Not begrudging it, just pointing out the inherent unfairness that someone who demonstrates that they're more qualified gets discriminated against because they're not a vet. _Life is unfair._


 It's possible for me to be a vet. It's not possible for me to be black. To make the choice to serve your country and put your life on the line is completely different than been BORN into a race. 

It seems to me that all whites are being punished for enslaving blacks. The truth is, that when all that was going on, my family were peasants working the lands for British aristocrats in Ireland. I can't explain that to certain employers and educational institutions, they would laugh me out of the park. "Sir, I know I'm not black, but I was born without 2 pennys to rub together. My Dad moved to England when he was 15 and because he was Irish was discriminated against when it came to finding a job. Apparently they didn't want an idiot 'Paddy' in there midst. He ended up leaving me and my alcoholic, manic depressive Mum to fend for ourselves, in the **** hole council estates of West Yorkshire. Will AA apply to me? I could do with a helping hand".

We all have our problems and nobody cares, especially employers. Most employers want somebody who, knows the job, is qualified to do it, is pleasant to deal with and who puts work before self. 

Again, AA causes resentment when it comes to race, gender and ethnicity.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> It's possible for me to be a vet. It's not possible for me to be black. To make the choice to serve your country and put your life on the line is completely different than been BORN into a race.
> 
> It seems to me that all whites are being punished for enslaving blacks. The truth is, that when all that was going on, my family were peasants working the lands for British aristocrats in Ireland. I can't explain that to certain employers and educational institutions, they would laugh me out of the park. "Sir, I know I'm not black, but I was born without 2 pennys to rub together. My Dad moved to England when he was 15 and because he was Irish was discriminated against when it came to finding a job. Apparently they didn't want an idiot 'Paddy' in there midst. He ended up leaving me and my alcoholic, manic depressive Mum to fend for ourselves, in the **** hole council estates of West Yorkshire. Will AA apply to me? I could do with a helping hand".
> 
> ...


 As a whole; however, white society is doing fine; and; as a whole black society is not doing fine. Resentment is the least of Black societies worries.
Sean


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, but when working with explosives, lasers, radioactive substances, hazardous chemicals and extremely high voltage electricity-sometimes all at the same time-it's not a plus.



Clearly I am in the wrong lab!


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Again, AA causes resentment when it comes to race, gender and ethnicity.


 
_Life is *soooo* unfair, isn't it?_

And, just so it doesn't get lost, I'll repeat my questions about Bill Cosby and Dr. King:



elder999 said:


> And I'll pose a question-or two-here, for anyone to answer: what do you suppose _his_ views are on Affirmative Action? What do you suppose the views of Dr. martin Luther King were?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> As a whole; however, white society is doing fine; and; as a whole black society is not doing fine. Resentment is the least of Black societies worries.
> Sean


That may be so, but black society's worries are largely self created. If you are refering to the "whole" of black society, then you have to concede that Black society as a whole has been infiltrated with the meme of victimhood. When you have leaders like Sharpton and Jackson screaming entitlements and Blacks marching to protest the killing of a rapist and cop killer in Oakland there is something wrong. When you have a hip hop/rap culture that is violent and demeaning to women and the faces of these 'artistes' by and large are black, there is something wrong. the change has to come from within the community.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> And I'll pose a question-or two-here, for anyone to answer: what do you suppose _his_ views are on Affirmative Action? What do you suppose the views of Dr. martin Luther King were?


 
I thought I posted a link further back... I dunno...my brain is swiss cheese by this time of the week. LOL 



Touch Of Death said:


> I'm quite sure it leaves a bad taste in his mouth; however, the problem is not solving itself.* We *can do something about it *now *or we can sit back and ignore it.
> Sean


 
Just because a gas can is sitting next to the fire and you can't find a bucket of water is no execuse to throw the gas on the fire. 

Do something? Absolutely! Do something to make the matter worse while at the same time compromising the very ethic you claim to endorse? Absolutely not! 



Touch Of Death said:


> As a whole; however, white society is doing fine; and; as a whole black society is not doing fine. Resentment is the least of Black societies worries.
> Sean


 
Really? I think that's more opinion than fact. It's like saying that it's discriminatory that over 60% of the people in jail in Atlanta are black. Well, over 60% of the population of Atlanta is black. I guess that's one area where AA _doesn't_ apply, eh? 

At any rate, we all know that life's not fair. :deadhorse lol 

Life's what you make of it. Everyone, regardless of race has their individual and unique problems to overcome. Life's not fair...be glad you no longer have to worry about saber toothed tigers pouncing on you and eating you or dying from infection caused by a small cut. 

I simply don't buy into showing favortism to any particular group based on skin color whether it's white, brown, black, yellow, red, purple, green, orange, pink, teal, etc, etc, etc. I don't expect it to be given to me and I certainly will not give it to another. IMHO I think it's demeaning as stated by Elder earlier. 

It's illogical and hypocritical to say you are against racial discrimination but endorse Affirmative Action. It baffles me how that simple fact seems to elude some. :idunno:

What can we do? How about starting with living by the motto that _a little respect goes a long way_? Preach it, live it, spread it. Regardless, nothing's going to change over night. However, the further you go in the wrong direction the longer it takes to get back...if'n ya know what I mean.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I thought I posted a link further back... I dunno...my brain is swiss cheese by this time of the week. LOL .


 

No, you didn't. The link you posted was an article on one of Bill's more publicized speeches-where he said a lot of things about black culture, and _nothing about affirmative action._


----------



## arnisador (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> We all have our problems and nobody cares, especially employers. Most employers want somebody who, knows the job, is qualified to do it, is pleasant to deal with and who puts work before self.


 
Those just aren't the facts. If that were so, we wouldn't have AA. It's patently false that racial (and gender) discrimination doesn't exist. We haven't even talked about the gender-based pay gap...job discrimination is for real.



> Again, AA causes resentment when it comes to race, gender and ethnicity.



Agreed. African-American poverty causes resentment too.



Touch Of Death said:


> As a whole; however, white society is doing fine; and; as a whole black society is not doing fine. Resentment is the least of Black societies worries.



Yup.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> That may be so, but black society's worries are largely self created. If you are refering to the "whole" of black society, then you have to concede that Black society as a whole has been infiltrated with the meme of victimhood. When you have leaders like Sharpton and Jackson screaming entitlements and Blacks marching to protest the killing of a rapist and cop killer in Oakland there is something wrong. When you have a hip hop/rap culture that is violent and demeaning to women and the faces of these 'artistes' by and large are black, there is something wrong. the change has to come from within the community.



First off, even if we accept all of that, there's a big chicken-and-egg issue. Second--and more important--so what? Do we work to address the issues, or ignore them?



celtic_crippler said:


> It's illogical and hypocritical to say you are against racial discrimination but endorse Affirmative Action. It baffles me how that simple fact seems to elude some.



I'm against war, but if someone wages war on us...sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. It's unfortunate but it isn't hypocritical to say that now that we're in this mess, this may be the best way out.



> What can we do? How about starting with living by the motto that _a little respect goes a long way_? Preach it, live it, spread it. Regardless, nothing's going to change over night. However, the further you go in the wrong direction the longer it takes to get back...if'n ya know what I mean.



But if AA could get things to where the percentage of people at various income levels matched their percentage of the population, it'd ease a lot of racial tensions. There'd be other problems, but that one would be much better.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, but when working with explosives, lasers, radioactive substances, hazardous chemicals and extremely high voltage electricity-sometimes all at the same time-it's not a plus. It's not even good to have someone like that around other people who work with those things.....:lol:


 
Don't you need people to test those things on?:idunno:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> No, you didn't. The link you posted was an article on one of Bill's more publicized speeches-where he said a lot of things about black culture, and _nothing about affirmative action._


 
Like I said...swiss cheese. Time for the weekend and rechargin' the old batteries.



arnisador said:


> First off, even if we accept all of that, there's a big chicken-and-egg issue. Second--and more important--so what? Do we work to address the issues, or ignore them?


 
You don't ignore it, but you don't fix a wrong with more wrongs. Or maybe you do, but I don't. It goes against my core values and what I percieve as right and wrong.  




arnisador said:


> I'm against war, but if someone wages war on us...sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. It's unfortunate but it isn't hypocritical to say that now that we're in this mess, this may be the best way out.


 
Who's waging war on you? There are legal actions you can take if you feel you've been discriminated against. 

Defending yourself is one thing, it's completely different if you blindside some poor schmuck on the street because somebody else did you wrong. 
Take that! :whip: What the heck did I do!?!?!

Um...Nothing really...:lookie:

But you see...this other guy kicked me in the nutz earlier today. :btg:

And I just thought of it and since you were here I decided to take out my anger on you even though you personally didn't do anything to me. 

WTF! :idunno:




arnisador said:


> But if AA could get things to where the percentage of people at various income levels matched their percentage of the population, it'd ease a lot of racial tensions. There'd be other problems, but that one would be much better.


 
If a frog had wings...

Affirmative Action simply doesn't work and only perpetuates the problem. You can't have a solution that creates the same problem. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. *More* discrimination ain't gonna change that. 

By that logic we could solve our dependence on oil by using more oil.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

arnisador said:


> First off, even if we accept all of that, there's a big chicken-and-egg issue. Second--and more important--so what? Do we work to address the issues, or ignore them?
> .


 
No, we don't ignore them, we point them out. It seems that white people in the US are afraid of calling black people out on the ********. Thank God for Bill Cosby. Again, should AA be used in the NBA. I'm a 5'8" white guy, but I am sure I could represent my colour on the court. Granted, I might lose every game for my team. I am sure that this would be ok though, because everyone would see that my team is an equal opportunity employer.

I am not responsible for the woes of black people in the US.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I am not responsible for the woes of black people in the US.


 

How are you _penalized_ for them, then?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 5, 2009)

> Another thing, of course, is that "Affirmative Action" doesn't necessarily mean "they hire a less qualified person who's 'whatever'" It might mean that upon weighing all the qualified applicants, theyh choose the qualified candidate who fills whatever quota if is they feel that they're obligated to fill with that job.


 
This is a good point, and this circumstance usually becomes obvious fairly quickly.  For example, AA may play a role in your acceptance to Princeton, but that doesn't mean you graduate summa cum laude, and it doesn't get you accepted to Phi Beta Kappa.  For that, you need to have what it takes. Think Sotomayor.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> How are you _penalized_ for them, then?


As a white guy, am I more likely to get penalized or rewarded through AA? I think you'll find that the answer in PENALIZED.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

Phoenix44 said:


> This is a good point, and this circumstance usually becomes obvious fairly quickly. For example, AA may play a role in your acceptance to Princeton, but that doesn't mean you graduate summa cum laude, and it doesn't get you accepted to Phi Beta Kappa. For that, you need to have what it takes. Think Sotomayor.


Sotomayer is a great example of AA. She might be qualified, but she is 100% unacceptable. She is a racist and sexist. If any male nominee had made the comments about latinas as she made about them, they would have been kicked to the curb. The left are excited that she is a latina.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> _Life is *soooo* unfair, isn't it?_
> 
> And, just so it doesn't get lost, I'll repeat my questions about Bill Cosby and Dr. King:


I'm not refering to comments made by Cosby about AA. I'm refering to comments he has made calling black people on the 'victimhood' ********.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> As a white guy, am I more likely to get penalized or rewarded through AA? I think you'll find that the answer in PENALIZED.


 

As a white guy, _how *have you been* penalized?_

Not likelihood. I understand your foreswearing any responsibility whatsoever for the plight of the black man, and I accept it-though it seems a little hypocritical in the face of your stance on abortion, that it's "all of our business." In any case, have you missed out on a fireman's job, or maybe that gig on the police force, because you got beaten out by a minority that scored lower? Perhaps you didn't get that job as a trader with Merrill-Lynch ? 

Or maybe you just didn't get hired by the "_Mickey D's"_ in Compton, 'cause, let's face it, they're not going to hire you??


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Sotomayer is a great example of AA. She might be qualified, but she is 100% unacceptable. She is a racist and sexist. If any male nominee had made the comments about latinas as she made about them, they would have been kicked to the curb. The left are excited that she is a latina.


 
I really don't care that she's latina, and I'm what some would call "on the left." No matter. It's important to note that her very public comments on making decisions as a "wise Latina woman" were prefaced with the words "I would hope," and also to note that she was speaking not in court, or at a judges' conference, but at a conference of what?_Latina Women._

In any case, if she's qualified, she's acceptable. More to the point, that's not our decision to make (and perhaps more's the pity, but it's probably a good thing.) It's up to the Senate to confirm her, and they will, just as Justice Thomas was confirmed in spite of allegations of sexual misconduct. Sotomayor will become a Supreme Court Justice in spite of the objections of so many Americans-that's the way the system works. It's not AA, it's just *A*merica.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 5, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I'm against war, but if someone wages war on us...sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. It's unfortunate but it isn't hypocritical to say that now that we're in this mess, this may be the best way out.


 
A fair point that :tup:. I don't agree that AA is the best way but that is still a patently true statement.



arnisador said:


> But if AA could get things to where the percentage of people at various income levels matched their percentage of the population, it'd ease a lot of racial tensions. There'd be other problems, but that one would be much better.


 

I agree that you would expect the percentage of any given group to be represented in the workplace but that is never going to be true as long as the very real cultural problems that were pointed out earlier are not addressed in the so-called 'minorities'.

I would likewise agree that the stereotypes we receive from the likes of the rap 'artists' are not representative of all that racial grouping and that there are a great number who are just ordinary Joes who want to live an ordinary working life.

Now, as a foreigner, I don't know how accurate the depictions we see in the media (both fictional and factual) really are but if there truly is ghettoisation, with it's attendant gang-rule and drug-dealing, that is going to have a powerful affect on any attempt to alter the demographics.

Making employeers hire them to fill a quota is not the way to attain that affect, it's as simple as that. Especially if environment of the 'target' popuation codes them with traits that are not desirable in the work place - such as getting stoned whilst at work and then crying racism when they get fired for it (not a hyperbole or a hypothetical example but one I have witnessed for myself).

Racism did exist and still does. Indeed I would argue that it is getting worse in large part due to the very factors we've been discussing here (belligerent 'reverse' racism, sense of victimisation leading to sense of entitlement, attempts to provide guarantees of employment, endemic drug culture et al). 

In an ideal world, we would all realise that we are descended from the same tribe (literally) and the problems of 'colour' would disappear. But it seems that it's not really about race per se any longer but rather disfunctional fracturing of social unity. Part of this is the marginalising of the views and the trivialising the concerns of the majority segment of your (our) population - it's a dangerous thing to do and the pressure in the pot is rising from what I see.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> As a white guy, _how *have you been* penalized?_
> 
> Not likelihood. I understand your foreswearing any responsibility whatsoever for the plight of the black man, and I accept it-though it seems a little hypocritical in the face of your stance on abortion, that it's "all of our business." In any case, have you missed out on a fireman's job, or maybe that gig on the police force, because you got beaten out by a minority that scored lower? Perhaps you didn't get that job as a trader with Merrill-Lynch ?
> 
> Or maybe you just didn't get hired by the "_Mickey D's"_ in Compton, 'cause, let's face it, they're not going to hire you??


 
Hang on mate, you deny all rights of a baby to live, because the thing is in the womb and yet you wail like a banshee because terrorists' heads were dunked in water during interrogation and you call me a hypocrit. Just how am I being hypocritical? I don't like the fact that a person's skin colour is used as presidence for getting a job, whether they're are white, black or green with purple polka dots. I don't like the fact that fully formed babies are able to be killed at the whim of the mother. No hypocrisy there matey.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Hang on mate, you deny all rights of a baby to live, because the thing is in the womb and yet you wail like a banshee because terrorists' heads were dunked in water during interrogation and you call me a hypocrit. Just how am I being hypocritical? I don't like the fact that a person's skin colour is used as presidence for getting a job, whether they're are white, black or green with purple polka dots. I don't like the fact that fully formed babies are able to be killed at the whim of the mother. No hypocrisy there matey.


 

Hmmm? I say it's the same as the "women who used PBA as birth control."

Name one case where you know that a person got a job because of the color of there skin. More to the point, name one instance _ where it happened to you._


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I really don't care that she's latina, and I'm what some would call "on the left." No matter. It's important to note that her very public comments on making decisions as a "wise Latina woman" were prefaced with the words "I would hope," and also to note that she was speaking not in court, or at a judges' conference, but at a conference of what?_Latina Women._
> 
> In any case, if she's qualified, she's acceptable. More to the point, that's not our decision to make (and perhaps more's the pity, but it's probably a good thing.) It's up to the Senate to confirm her, and they will, just as Justice Thomas was confirmed in spite of allegations of sexual misconduct. Sotomayor will become a Supreme Court Justice in spite of the objections of so many Americans-that's the way the system works. It's not AA, it's just *A*merica.


Considering Thomas they were ALLEGATIONS. Sotomayet made racial comments that by any standard would have prevented a white male from being even nominated if the shoe was on the other foot. I don't care if "I would hope..." prefaced her comments, the comments were RACIST and SEXIST. Again the dual standard.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Hmmm? I say it's the same as the "women who used PBA as birth control."
> 
> Name one case where you know that a person got a job because of the color of there skin. More to the point, name one instance _where it happened to you._


That's just it. I would be none the wiser if it had happened to me. That's why again, it is all of our business. You said yourself that Clarence Thomas benefitted directly from AA. Wasn't Sotmayer involved in a lawsuit that involved white firefighters passing a promotion exam, yet they were not promoted because no blacks passed the exam. I'm sure a quick google search will give you numerous examples of AA in the workplace and school environment.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> You said yourself that Clarence Thomas benefitted directly from AA.


 
No, I didn't. I said that _that's the assumption people make,_ and why neither of us likes it.



yorkshirelad said:


> Wasn't Sotmayer involved in a lawsuit that involved white firefighters passing a promotion exam, yet they were not promoted because no blacks passed the exam. I'm sure a quick google search will give you numerous examples of AA in the workplace and school environment.


 
Actually, blacks _passed_, they simply didn't score in the top three for the open positions in New Haven. Initially, this was an arbitrary decision on the part of the civil committee (?) to not certify the exam results, and reexamine _why_ no blacks scored in the top three-the positions have, for the last 6 years, remained vacant. The examination itself was supposed to be "race/culturally neutral," but the decisions-one from a judge, and one from an appellate panel of three judges on which Sotomayor sat, rejected the suit from the white firefighters-who were denied promotions-on the basis that the original civil committee was within their rights to do so. Now, I don't think it's right, and I don't think it's fair-but I also don't think it's "Affirmative Action." It was an (*stupid*) administrative decision made by the hiring committee.The "Affirmative Action" portion of their hiring really already took place in two places: up front, when they hired new cadet firemen, and with the test itself, by ensuring that it was "racially and culturally neutral"-whatever *that* means.



yorkshirelad said:


> That's just it. I would be none the wiser if it had happened to me. That's why again, it is all of our business


 
Actually, *that's* one thing that makes it _none of our business......_


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> It's possible for me to be a vet. It's not possible for me to be black. .


 
Sure it is. My son is "black." Go for it. Check the "_black, not of hispanic origin_" box on what we playfully call the "EIEIO" forms. (_Old MacDonald had a plant, *E* i *E* i *O*. And at this plant there worked some Negroes, E i E i O._ :lol: ) No one's going to challenge you, and if they do, just tell them you're granddad was black, or your dad was, or your mom was, and they won't bother checking-because race is an _artificial construct,_ and one that is _only defined in the U.S. by skin color and language_, or , in the case of those of us with American Indian heritage, the ridiculous "_blood quanta_. The fact that I qualify for both "races" is only an accident of birth, though a potentially propitious one-same for my son and daughter, the "cookies", as in _macaroons,_ which is altogether different from an _octaroon_. :lfao:

In any case, call yourself "black." You could be a ginger, and no one would, or *could* argue with you.:lol:

*Yet another reason why I voted, "I don't care." Shame you didn't have "I don't give a ****." * :lfao:

Oh, and I'll keep quoting my question on every page of this thread, until someone _tries_ to answer it......



elder999 said:


> And I'll pose a question-or two-here, for anyone to answer: what do you suppose _his_ views are on Affirmative Action? What do you suppose the views of Dr. martin Luther King were?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 5, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> You don't ignore it, but you don't fix a wrong with more wrongs. Or maybe you do, but I don't. It goes against my core values and what I percieve as right and wrong.
> [...]
> Affirmative Action simply doesn't work and only perpetuates the problem. You can't have a solution that creates the same problem. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. *More* discrimination ain't gonna change that.



So...your solution would be...?



yorkshirelad said:


> I am not responsible for the woes of black people in the US.



You're not responsible for the poor and uninsured who become sick either, but don't you want to live in a country that takes care of such people? Similarly, wouldn't you want to live in a country that attempts to address the woes of other groups?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 5, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I agree that you would expect the percentage of any given group to be represented in the workplace but that is never going to be true as long as the very real cultural problems that were pointed out earlier are not addressed



This is a huge issue. But for a child growing up poor in a bad neighbourhood, going to lousy, unsafe schools, cliches and Public Service Announcements won't do anything. They don't see the benefits and opportunities available to them. This makes addressing those real cultural problems extraordinarily difficult. If you can't raise them out of poverty, it'll be very hard...hence jobs- and school- focused AA.



> Making employeers hire them to fill a quota is not the way to attain that affect, it's as simple as that. Especially if environment of the 'target' popuation codes them with traits that are not desirable in the work place - such as getting stoned whilst at work and then crying racism


 
This is a really simplistic view. People of all races get fired for getting high on the job. Unqualified people need not be hired--AA is among the qualified.

Let me tell you what I see as a college prof. When we hire a minority (racial or female) candidate--as we have done for AA/EOE reasons, over higher-ranked candidates, as well as based on them being the highest-ranked candidate already--it's only from among those already deemed fully qualified. The minority students absolutely _flock_ to those faculty. It matters to them to see someone "like them" in such a position. We're all more comfortable in our own little cliques, after all. It helps our recruitment and retention of like students. That's the "multiplier" effect I see every day at work--getting and keeping more minority kids in college. I teach in an engineering college. Those kids' kids will grow up better off, shifting the balance in the minority population, providing role models, etc. I'm told it's an even stronger effect with minority teachers at the K-12 level.

Does it matter? If you've never seen a black-skinned physician, you form a mental model of the medical profession that you may not even be able to articulate. But if your African-American teachers encourage you to go to medical school, it matters more than if a white teacher does. I assure you, students decide these things on the flimsiest of reasons. They think someone from their own group 'gets' their struggles and is giving them better advice. _It doesn't matter whether that's true or not._



> But it seems that it's not really about race per se any longer but rather disfunctional fracturing of social unity



...along race-based lines. The Muslims remember the Crusades; African-Americans (and Native Americans) remember more recent atrocities. I hear much wishing away of it here, but few constructive suggestions other than "can't we all just get along?" 

I don't like it when we hire other than the highest-ranked person, but I understand it. We have a woman who was tenured by the administration over the objections of the relevant faculty committee (which decided that she was unqualified). The president said, this would be the first tenured woman in an engineering dept. and failing to retain her would be demoralizing to female faculty (who might see discrimination) and female students. She was tenured by presidential fiat. Everyone on the faculty knows what happened and most look down their noses at her for it. Indeed...she's underqualified in the technical arena. But it _did_ make a big difference with the female students, who overwhelm her with requests for her time. She's been a big inspiration to them and has greatly helped in the recruitment of female students. (They don't know about this stuff, of course.) So, she's underqualified by most standards but is making a disproportionately positive contribution in recruitment, retention, and advising. Arguably, the president correctly saw the bigger picture.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> My son is "black."



Him I would hire.  Not you though.  That facial hair makes you unqualified, irrespective of skin color. :lol:


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> In any case, call yourself "black." You could be a ginger, and no one would, or *could* argue with you.:lol:
> quote]
> That's actually very good advice, I'm sure at some stage there were black people in my family. BTW, I do have a ginger beard when I grow it.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

arnisador said:


> You're not responsible for the poor and uninsured who become sick either, but don't you want to live in a country that takes care of such people? Similarly, wouldn't you want to live in a country that attempts to address the woes of other groups?


 
No, I left the UK and the NHS to live here. The health care is alot better here believe me, my Mum has had colon cancer for over 20 years. They detected it early, but because she was in the NHS system she was put on a waiting list for her colostomy operation. Her cancer spread and she is in a bad way. Just last year she got a staff infection from the hospital. God bless American health care. If I ever think that I can't afford my health insurance, i'll just get rid of cable tv.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Indeed...she's underqualified in the technical arena. But it _did_ make a big difference with the female students,.


 
If ever you need an operation, let's say a heart transplant. Make sure you ask for the surgeon who was hire through affirmative action. The guy might be underqualified in the technical arena, but it sure will be good for your moral. :rofl:


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> If I ever think that I can't afford my health insurance, i'll just get rid of cable tv.



The average cost of a single person health plan is $4700 per year - and that's what they charge companies on group plans.  Individual plans can be significantly higher, or even unobtainable with preexisting conditions.

Extended basic digital cable costs about $600 per year.  So, good luck with that.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Him I would hire. Not you though. That facial hair makes you unqualified, irrespective of skin color. :lol:


 
Ahh, but the wife _loves it_, and I only get to wear it for a brief portion of the year (respirator fit requirements, and all that....) 

Go on though, hire the little blue-eyed devil! :lfao:

Oh, and:



elder999 said:


> And I'll pose a question-or two-here, for anyone to answer: what do you suppose _his   _ (Bill Cosby's)  views are on Affirmative Action? What do you suppose the views of Dr. Martin Luther King were?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> If ever you need an operation, let's say a heart transplant. Make sure you ask for the surgeon who was hire through affirmative action. The guy might be underqualified in the technical arena, but it sure will be good for your moral.



I didn't say I'd have made the same choice, or that it would be reasonable in every field. In this case I think she's insufficiently qualified, whereas AA is usually among the fully qualified. I _am_ saying that the AA situation isn't nearly as one-sided as people think. There are benefits and costs.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 5, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> The average cost of a single person health plan is $4700 per year - and that's what they charge companies on group plans. Individual plans can be significantly higher, or even unobtainable with preexisting conditions.
> 
> Extended basic digital cable costs about $600 per year. So, good luck with that.


it costs me $240 per month for health insurance. It cost me $155 per month for cable, including HBO and Showtime(I'm addicted to the Tudors and Big Love and can't wait for Dexter). My wife and I watch about 8 PPV movies per month, that's $30. Then there are PPV event UFC/Boxing about $60 per month. That adds up to abou $245 per month.

In England at school, in 10th grade (5th form for the Brits) we can do work experience. For 2 weeks we shadow a professional in a job of our choosing. I went to work with a social worker called Ann. I thought the job would be enlightening. 
One day we went to a house in Gipton. The reason we went was because the school the kids of the house went to complained to social services that the children were turning up to school without a school uniform and looking unkempt.
Ann gave me an overcoat and told me never to take it off in the house.
The garden was a disgrace. A rusted Ford Escort filled the space, the car was on bricks and the thing was covered with grafitti. The whole place smelled like *****.
We went through the front door and the smell hit me. There were kids running naked, there was dog crap on the floor and I sat on the couch and noticed a dirty nappy (diaper) sticking out of the cushion. Ann asked if it was ok that I was there, the woman of the house just didn't care
I've forgotten what the woman of the house was called, but she told us that because they were on the dole they couldn't afford school uniforms. Ann was visibly peeved and told them that it was unacceptible, she pretty much barked at them to buy the kids uniforms. I felt bad and later asked why she behaved that way.
She told me that whenever she goes to a house such as this, she always looks for toys; tvs stereo equipment, video game consoles. She told me that anyone who has these has no excuse to not give their child the necessities that they need and I agree. I don't mind helping the helpless, but I hate helping the clueless.

If you can't get health insurance or don't have the means to get educated, then join the reserves. You'll get up to $20000 enlistment bonus, GI Montgonery Bill, a trade up to $20000 for school and you will qualify for Tricare. Why not earn it that way.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> it costs me $240 per month for health insurance.



That's what you pay (now) but that's not what it costs.



yorkshirelad said:


> If you can't get health insurance or don't have the means to get educated, then join the reserves.



They won't take just anyone you know.  Not even now.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 5, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> That's what you pay (now) but that's not what it costs.



Yeah, the employer and employee combined pay in the ballpark of $6-8K per person or $10-14K per family (very round numbers, varying from employer to employer, health care company to health care company, and state to state).


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 6, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> They won't take just anyone you know. Not even now.


I did say, "I don't mind helping the helpless". My thought is if your in good health, and you can't afford healthcare, join the reserves. Even if you don't have a high school diploma, they will take you as long as you stayed in school through the 9th Grade. Then they enroll you in GED+ and give you another grand EVEN NOW. Just make sure you're not a criminal, then you're screwed. I don't want my taxes paying for the healthcare of stupid people. The helpless, disabled and children, yes, but not everyone.

Back to the thread, when it comes to AA, to discriminate in order to stop discrimination is kinda stupid, don't you think?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 6, 2009)

It really is this simple:
It is impossible to tell a good person from a bad one by looking at them. 
Attempting to is foolish.
Claiming one is better than the other on looks alone: STUPID.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2009)

I can't rep you for your excellent post #118 above, *Arni*, so please accept this embarassingly public commendation instead .

Given your working environment, I can well understand why you hold the position you do on this issue.  We will never agree on the matter but I respect that your view is founded on well considered and practical ground :tup:.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2009)

Big Don said:


> It really is this simple:
> It is impossible to tell a good person from a bad one by looking at them.
> Attempting to is foolish.
> Claiming one is better than the other on looks alone: STUPID.


 
I think this is part of the problem that AA is attempting to address in that those who conduct job interviews make their mind up whether to hire or not within seconds of laying eyes on someone.  All the shillyshallying about with questions and tests is window dressing.

I can see the sense in trying to ameliorate that effect, because even non-knowingly-racist people will tend to want to hire people similar to themselves. But I dispute it's effectiveness (in a non-academic context) and object to the explicit inherent mechanism that for one to 'rise' then another must 'fall'.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2009)

In respone to *Elder*'s invitation to investigate what Martin Luther King would think of Affirmative Action, I did a little digging in that vast information pot that is the Web.

The answer I have found so far was a surprise to me, I confess, as I thought that the point *Elder* was making was that Dr. King would not be in favour of AA:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/mlk3.html

http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/04needs/affirm25.htm

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/dr-martin-luther-king-would-have-supported-affirmative-action

Now I haven't finished looking yet but, unless there is a huge conspiracy to hide it from me, every link I've tracked to date suggests that the inspiring doctor would have supported AA - whether he would support it in it's current form we can't say but the concept certainly.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I can see the sense in trying to ameliorate that effect, because even non-knowingly-racist people will tend to want to hire people similar to themselves. But I dispute it's effectiveness (in a non-academic context) and object to the explicit inherent mechanism that for one to 'rise' then another must 'fall'.


 
See, I just don't know that it actually ever "hurts" anyone. I also don't know that it helps,but in the absence of anything else, I don't know that it's actually a problem. On the other hand, I *do* know that there are people out there who would not hire the "most qualified person" because of the color of their skin. Just as Empty Hands wouldn't hire me because of my moustache, and just as I once removed someone from consideration for their body odor. All those things are _discriminatory,_ just as "qualifications" are. There are objective points to the hiring process, just as there are completely subjective ones-I tend to think that some forms of AA minimize the likelihood of race, gender or handicap being a subjective basis. I think other forms *are* to address past inequities. How much they actually do so is questionable-how much harm they actually do is *also* questionable.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> , every link I've tracked to date suggests that the inspiring doctor would have supported AA - whether he would support it in it's current form we can't say but the concept certainly.


 
Dr. King definitely supported AA. THere's a tendency among certain conservatives to trot out his "judged by the content of his character" quote, but the fact is that Dr. King was progressive to the point of embracing socialism, if not an outright communist. The other fact is that, in terms of addressing 400 years of oppression of the "Negro," as he'd have put it, he was in favor of all manner of redress,espcially including what would come to be called "Affirmative Action,"and well beyond it up to reparations for slavery in the form of land-grants and cash payments.

Bill Cosby hasn't said anything publicly against AA either-there is a tendency in conservative circles to embrace his "don't be a victim" philosophy, and make a leap in logic to _that_ being anti-AA, when, in fact, his only public statements on that particular subject were to criticize Clarence Thomas's point of view. In an interview with Larry King shortly after one of those well-publicized speeches (that I almost fully agree with) he repeatedly pointed out that Clarence Thomas "got _help_", and "now he doesn't want to help _anybody._"


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2009)

I found the links I followed very interesting reading, I must say and it refreshed in my mind how little was done by the state to help the freed slaves make their way in the world. 

It does make you wonder how different the USA would be now if, say, each freed slave had been given enough land to have a viable farm of their own. Of course, that ignores all the already 'free' blacks that were in the North, so maybe, as well as being a pipe-dream, that is wishful thinking .

As to AA, have there been any 'proper' studies done on it's actual effectiveness? Or what those who have 'benefitted' from it feel about it?

EDIT:  at the bottom of the page on this link that I already posted:

http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/04needs/affirm25.htm

there are a great number of links to related articles that make for thought inducing reading.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> As to AA, have there been any 'proper' studies done on it's actual effectiveness? Or what those who have 'benefitted' from it feel about it?


 

I don't know that there have been any proper studies, though I imagine there are  probably some out there. I do know that Clarence Thomas acknowledges that he "benefitted" from it-and very publicly resents it.

I know that I've more than once considered starting yet another business to benefit from federal efforts to contract with minority and woman owned businesses, but just don't really have the time, or the need to simply get more money because I'd be "first in line," so to speak.

I'd guess that some programs are effective, and others just waste money. "Affirmative Action" covers a great deal of territory beyond race and jobs, and some of them needed and continue to need the attention that it brings, like handicap accessibilty in the work place. Others, effective or not, cause resentment in some people-whether they benefit from it or, for some reason, feel slighted by it.

And now, on to other business:




Twin Fist said:


> that study?
> you want the cold hard truth about that study?
> the cold, hard truth is that when employers see Lakisa or Jamal, they KNOW, from past experience that there is a HIGH chance they are getting someone with a lousy work ethic, that will get confrontational and get in your face. Someone who will do a lousy job then threaten to sue if you get on thier ***.
> thats the bed the modern "angry black" mentality has created that the good ones get to lie in
> ...


 
I think those opinions are racist,_ *because they are*._ 

Tellner's right: at least you're consistent. Please, don't ever change....:lol:





yorkshirelad said:


> That may be so, but black society's worries are largely self created. If you are refering to the "whole" of black society, then you have to concede that Black society as a whole has been infiltrated with the meme of victimhood. When you have leaders like Sharpton and Jackson screaming entitlements and Blacks marching to protest the killing of a rapist and cop killer in Oakland there is something wrong. When you have a hip hop/rap culture that is violent and demeaning to women and the faces of these 'artistes' by and large are black, there is something wrong. the change has to come from within the community.


 


Sukerkin said:


> I found the links I followed very interesting reading, I must say and it refreshed in my mind how little was done by the state to help the freed slaves make their way in the world.


 

These posts bring up several interesting points. I don't know that anyone could address them all, but I'll try.

First off, one has to recognize that almost all of what is called "black culture" is a creation of or response to "mainstream culture" in America-I won't call it "white culture," but I probably could. All of those "largely self-created worries" that Yorkshirelad speaks of are simply *not* largely self-created; they are largely the product of generations of slavery.

When international slave trade was shut down, it engendered in the south of the country several changes in the attitude towards slaves, and the way they were treated. Over just a few short generations, the idea of family and fatherhood were completely wiped out-why form such attachments at all, if they were merely the product of forced breeding? Why form such attachments at all, if your family could be parted by sale at a moments notice? Why form such attachments at all, if your mate could be carrying your owner's child, and subject to his rape at a whim? Why form such attachments at all, if your mate's child might not be your own? When the slaves were "set free," they were set free with a culture that had a deep disrespect and mistrust of authority, a widespread lack of of fatherhood or family values, and an sustained ethic of having to hustle-to conceal and sometimes steal to simply get by. There were, of course, _other values_, but these are the negative traits that we see and criticize even today: a romanticization of crime. A tendency to not father children-but to _sire_ *many*, perhaps. Fact is, if you aren't parented-you won't know how. If you didn't have a father, you won't know how to be one yourself.If you look to the black people that are held up as successes-what Twin Fist might call "the good ones," you'll almost invariably see that they indeed did have both parents in the house-not always, but very often: Bill Cosby and Dr. King both immediately come to mind. And individuals do overcome these cultural patterns: the unfathered *do* become good fathers, very often by force of will, and for the fact of not wanting someone else to miss what they had. 

When one listens to the braggadoccio, swagger and glorification of crime in "rap music," they're not hearing anything new. This is important, inasmuch as the history of ALL "American" music is, in fact, the history of "black music." In fact, with a few notable exceptions like Aaron Copeland, _American music *is* black music._ In any case, if we look to the past, blues songs and even older slave songs have always glorified stealing and hustling, and putting one over on the "massa," and songs like "Stag 'O Lee," which was based on actual events that took place near the end of the 19th century, have always glorified men of violence.Rap music, with its sexual braggadocio and glorification of crime, is just a continuation of expressions of aspects of a culture _that have always been there_.These aspects, of course, run contrary to any "meme of victimhood," though I'll concede that such a meme might exist. They are, rather, the products of an ingrained mistrust of authority, and the notion that unless one does for oneself: rights wrongs by whatever means available, even violent ones, or steals, or sells drugs-no other means are available to attain anything. Generations of injustice-of simply _knowing_ that if one approached the authorities to redress grievances, those grievances would *not* be heard-often led to men who have no respect for law, and take the law into their own hands, or completely disregard it.

These things cannot be addressed by "Affirmative Action." Nor are they "largely self created." And, while they can, on occasion, be addressed by an act of individual will, you're right that they have to be addressed from within the community, but they truly cannot be solved by a community that largely lacks the _*means* to address them_, and has since its inception, hundreds of years ago.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 6, 2009)

As to the point about effectiveness...I don't know. I wish there was a definite study about its impact. It's a lot of effort, and causes (disproportionate) resentment, and it'd be nice to know how much good it's doing. I've seen clear benefits of it and also costs. In my niche--education--I'm confident it has net value. Overall...I wish I could be more sure it was being beneficial. I do believe it helps more than it hurts, but quantification would be great.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> When international slave trade was shut down, it engendered in the south of the country several changes in the attitude towards slaves, and the way they were treated. Over just a few short generations, the idea of family and fatherhood were completely wiped out-why form such attachments at all, if they were merely the product of forced breeding? Why form such attachments at all, if your family could be parted by sale at a moments notice? Why form such attachments at all, if your mate could be carrying your owner's child, and subject to his rape at a whim? Why form such attachments at all, if your mate's child might not be your own? When the slaves were "set free," they were set free with a culture that had a deep disrespect and mistrust of authority, a widespread lack of of fatherhood or family values, and an sustained ethic of having to hustle-to conceal and sometimes steal to simply get by. There were, of course, _other values_, but these are the negative traits that we see and criticize even today: a romanticization of crime. A tendency to not father children-but to _sire_ *many*, perhaps. Fact is, if you aren't parented-you won't know how. If you didn't have a father, you won't know how to be one yourself.If you look to the black people that are held up as successes-what Twin Fist might call "the good ones," you'll almost invariably see that they indeed did have both parents in the house-not always, but very often: Bill Cosby and Dr. King both immediately come to mind. And individuals do overcome these cultural patterns: the unfathered *do* become good fathers, very often by force of will, and for the fact of not wanting someone else to miss what they had.


So what you are saying is that it is not the fault of black culture that the black community on average is doing, shall we say less well than the white community, because of the effects of slavery. Isn't slavery traditionally African. I mean, hasn't slavery been entrenched in African culture since the beginnings of civilization. Isn't slavery STILL predominant in various African nations.
I believe you will find that most here, my family in particular were the product of slavery. Why else would my family have moved from the Spanish Mediteranean to Ireland. 
Up until just a few generations ago, like I said before, my ancestors were working the lands for British nobility and were i all intents and purposes owned. In the nineteenth century the women were able to be 'taken' by these self same land owners. My birth father's brothers were interned by the British in the 70s for the simple reason of being Irish Catholics.
What I am saying is that every nation of people who came to America have at some time being persecuted. Look at all the Jewish holocaust survivors who came here just 6 decades ago.
You asking us to believe that black culture is stupid because they don't understand the difference between the times of slavery and the present day. I don't believe this. America is a meritocracy, we all know that. There are countless examples of decent, hardworking black people that should be an inspiration to the community and proof that with HARD WORK and TENACITY anything is possible. It's just unfortunate that we have idiots like Sharpton and Jackson who think its correct to defend every gangbanger who shoots someone and claim racial prejudice.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2009)

Aye, a pertinent point.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 6, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> So what you are saying is that it is not the fault of black culture that the black community on average is doing, shall we say less well than the white community, because of the effects of slavery.


 
No, what I'm saying is that there ingrained cultural patterns that are a direct result of generations of slavery-and a type of slavery that developed distinctly and separately in the U.S. 



yorkshirelad said:


> Isn't slavery traditionally African. I mean, hasn't slavery been entrenched in African culture since the beginnings of civilization. Isn't slavery STILL predominant in various African nations.


 
Again, the form of slavery as it developed in the U.S. was vastly different-as for what's predominant in various African nations, well, that's not really what we're talking about here, is it? 

I mean, they're still killing people for witchcraft in Nigeria.



yorkshirelad said:


> I believe you will find that most here, my family in particular were the product of slavery. Why else would my family have moved from the Spanish Mediteranean to Ireland.
> Up until just a few generations ago, like I said before, my ancestors were working the lands for British nobility and were i all intents and purposes owned. In the nineteenth century the women were able to be 'taken' by these self same land owners. My birth father's brothers were interned by the British in the 70s for the simple reason of being Irish Catholics.


 
I too, am the descendant of slaves-shipped to this country as _cargo,_ before it even *was* the United States. In my case, though, as in some others, there was a vehicle for them to buy their freedom, which they did-if not, perhaps my name would be _Slocum_, which was the name of the man who owned them, instead of "Cuffee," which was the first name of their father, my great-great-great-great-great grandfather. There was also a system in place that permitted slaves to own property, earn money, become educated, and _keep their families intact._ Slave life was vastly different in early colonial times. After the abolition of international slave trade in 1807 and 1808, and with the devlopment of large plantations in the south-where slavery remained legal and what industry and agriculture there were were largely dependent upon it-slavery became an institution where these things gradually disintigrated: slaves were treated as _livestock_, not permitted any education outside of trades, not permitted to own property, and families were kept intact-and, more often, broken up-at the whim of the slaves owners.



yorkshirelad said:


> What I am saying is that every nation of people who came to America have at some time being persecuted. Look at all the Jewish holocaust survivors who came here just 6 decades ago.


 
Most of whom largely were not forcibly brought here as cargo, and forced to live under conditions that were not conducive to developing familial bonds or any sort of bonds with some sense of permanence.



yorkshirelad said:


> You asking us to believe that black culture is stupid because they don't understand the difference between the times of slavery and the present day.


 
No. I don't think "black culture is stupid" at all-more often than not, I'll confine the criticism of stupidity to the acts and _words_ of certain individuals.  

I'm also not saying that "they don't understand the difference between the present and slavery. What I am saying is, just as you are Catholic because your father, grand father and great grandfather, and his father and grandfatther before him were Catholic, and just as *I* will go sailing, and whether I am on the sea in my _real_ boat, or just putzing around on Abiquiu or Heron Lake on my Hobie cat, sing the songs and say the prayers that my father, grandfather, great grandfather and _his_ father and grandfather before him sang and prayed when _they_ sailed, many in "black culture" practice the type of "fatherhood" and lifestyle that has been part of their culture-such as was allowed-for just as long.

Those things, of course, have all evolved. The Catholic church no longer burns witches and heretics. I don't necessarily believe, any more than my father, grandfather and great-grandfather did, that I'm summoning the wind with my songs and prayers-well, maybe great grandfather Nathan *did* believe that. :lol: Blacks are no longer actual "slaves," but that _slave mentality_ still persists-fathers feel no real bonds to their families, women-all too often, girls, actually-have no expectation that men will stay in their lives, and the pervasive attitude is one that says the system is out to diminish you, that the "meritocracy of America" is *not* yours, and that the only way to attain what you want is by operating in the margins. All too often, elements of this are just as true for your "hardworking black people." 



yorkshirelad said:


> I don't believe this. America is a meritocracy, we all know that. There are countless examples of decent, hardworking black people that should be an inspiration to the community and proof that with HARD WORK and TENACITY anything is possible.


 
Sadly, while a great deal-sometimes seemingly anything-is possible with hard work and tenacity, all too often it's not. More to the point, if you read about some criminals, you'll often find that hard work and tenacity are exactly what was applied to their field-a perverted application of America's so-called "meritocracy," but an application nonetheless. And, since there are only about 41 miillion _people who identify as_ "black" in the U.S., and their demographics are the subject of much study and classification, one can hardly say that there are "countless" hardworking black people-they have, in fact, been counted.:lol:




yorkshirelad said:


> It's just unfortunate that we have idiots like Sharpton and Jackson who think its correct to defend every gangbanger who shoots someone and claim racial prejudice.


 
Sharpton and Jackson are hardly idiots. They know their target demographic much better than you, and they tell them what they want to hear. As much as Jesse Jackson supported rather than condemn what Bill Cosby said, he also has a target audience whose support he needs, and he tells them what he believes they want to hear. 

You and I, of course, view these things from outside of them, but there can't be any understanding at all without grasping just how deeply ingrained some of these things can be. When you criticize "gansgsta rap" you're just criticizing something that has always been here, and has changed only to the extent that the entire culture-all of America-has changed, and reflects that change: electronic technology and drugs, for example-the other things, the braggadocio, the criminal intent, even the violence towards women, things that you've called "stupid" , have been there for more than a century, for those who were willing to listen.

Stagger Lee Shelton:



> 'Could be on a rainy mornin'
> could be on a rainy night
> Stagger Lee and Billy de Lyon, had a great big fight
> Talkin' bout de bad man-bad man-cruel ol' Stagger Lee.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2009)

This is a real danger of inducting thread drift and it's not fair to expect *Elder* to speak for Black Culture (TM) as he's just one man but why is it that it is the black segment of American society that thinks (however subliminally) it merits special treatment rather than any other? 

I know that's a hugely broad brush to use and that it may well be that the 'voice' that we hear prominently comes from those members of that group who may not believe what they say but reckon to turn an easy dollar (or an easy excuse) from it. I also know that I not only have not been in their shoes but have not even (other than briefly) been in their country, which probably makes my views a touch naive. 

Taking the completeness of my understanding of the situation as partial (at best), is it just the closeness of the enslavement that causes it's persistent presence in the "We're owed" argument? Or is it that it is a learned response because that is what is fed by the media and well meaning spokespeople?

*YL* laid out quite well that many other races and classes suffered 'slavery' just as badly as the African's that were sold to the international slavers by their indiginous slavers. It *has* been quite a while since my own family was last in servitude but we were (ironically that is why I have a tinge of 'noble' blood in me; I'm sure you can imagine how that got there).

The point I'm flapping about and not making very well is that we don't feel a need to explain a lack of success because of our background, let alone our race. We accept that life isn't fair and try as best we can to work with the system to get somewhere. We have been just as oppressed by the Man and until just as recently too e.g. even in the early twentieth century, as a working class man, you had to be over thirty and own or rent a house to vote.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 6, 2009)

It's also important to point out that the "end of slavery" was *not* necessarily _the end of slavery._ In much of the country, the same sort of paradigms were perpetuated-right into my lifetime.

What were those court cases in the 50's and 60's, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. and all that marching about, after all?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2009)

Oh aye, I recognise that ending slavery does not end the implicit social stratification that devolves from it :tup:.

What I was attempting to say in the horribly limiting format of the text only interface that the same unfair and in cases horrific oppressions have been visited on many (if not most) races and peoples over the course of history.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I think those opinions are racist,_ *because they are*._
> 
> Tellner's right: at least you're consistent. Please, don't ever change....:lol:



think about what you just said.
 You ought to feel dirty even saying it. 

Look dude, I know how it sounds, and lord knows i wish it wasnt true,but it IS. Hell, i WISH i was racist, it is easier when you can just slap labels on people. Sadly, I cant let myself do that.

but facts, as they say, are facts.

Lakisha and jamal suffer from too many of their cousins trying to "keep it real" and "standing up to the man" and all that other ********. Taxi drivers dont WANT to pass up fairs, but they do want to pass on getting robbed, and they all know who is more lilely to rob them

so they are racist?

when iwas running that dairy queen, i went out of my way to hire black kids, cuz i know this town, not many people WOULD hire them. In every case, I got nothing for it. No work, bad attitudes, late all the time, and when i would try to talk to them, and tell them why this was wrong, I got threatened. I got ignored. I would overhear them talking about how they had no interest in anything a white man had to say.

same thing with cops. They KNOW who is doing crimes. no police officer WANTS to out of his way to set himself up for a profiling charge.

pffft

and I know what I am. and racist isnt it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 6, 2009)

Looping us back around, it sounds to me that such experiences or perceptions are why the overwhelming majority in the poll stand against AA. 

We can all accept, I think, that our 'contact' with the notion of Affirmative Action or voluntary employment of 'minorities' (I keep putting that in single quotes 'cos I really don't like the word) is limited. But if we add our experiences together we must get something close to a realistic picture, surely?

I would hope so anyhow because "collective experience" is what is otherwise termed "History".

One additional thing to note, as I've mentioned in passing in other threads, is that the attitudes prevelent in the media about the coloured population of America have crossed via that media to Britain such that we now have a generation of young black men, a significant (or at least highly visible portion) of which act for all the world as if their father worked with a lash on his back in cotton fields and whose response is to be gun-toting drug dealers and pimps.

Appealing to collective guilt of ancestors of one race to forgive the transgressions or failings of those of another who live in the present is not acceptable. Which is why, in the end, for all that I can have sympathy with the rationale's given both in this thread and in the articles I have read, I shall not be changing my 'vote'.

Sadly, of course, all our hot emotions and empassioned discourse won't change a whit .


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I'm also not saying that "they don't understand the difference between the present and slavery. What I am saying is, just as you are Catholic because your father, grand father and great grandfather, and his father and grandfatther before him were Catholic, and just as *I* will go sailing, and whether I am on the sea in my _real_ boat, or just putzing around on Abiquiu or Heron Lake on my Hobie cat, sing the songs and say the prayers that my father, grandfather, great grandfather and _his_ father and grandfather before him sang and prayed when _they_ sailed, many in "black culture" practice the type of "fatherhood" and lifestyle that has been part of their culture-such as was allowed-for just as long.


 
I suppose I should start being an ignorant drunkard and wife beater because that fits the stereotype of the Irish Catholic navi, and because that was the behaviour of my father, grandfather ect. Noone can blame me, it's the fault of my ancestry and 'the Man' for keeping my people down. My wife will be none too pleased.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> One additional thing to note, as I've mentioned in passing in other threads, is that the attitudes prevelent in the media about the coloured population of America have crossed via that media to Britain such that we now have a generation of young black men, a significant (or at least highly visible portion) of which act for all the world as if their father worked with a lash on his back in cotton fields and whose response is to be gun-toting drug dealers and pimps..


 
In the first place, we have a significant portion of young black men over here, who _basically have had no father at all_, and act like it.That was part of my point.

On the other hand, if we look at the demographics-outstanding successes like Oprah Winfrey, black astronauts and a black president aside, the median income for blacks in the U.S. is roughly $33k/yr-not bad, but the median income for whites is about $54k/yr in comparison. Nearly 25% of blacks live below the poverty level. I point these things out not to "*****," but actually to show what a great deal of progress has been made in some quarters-a large portion of the black community is comfortably middle class today. 

Or, at least they were until the economy tanked. 

In any case, such things have existed to a degree all along. There have almost always been black communities-in some cases entire towns-and black people built their own churches and schools where they had to-in many cases in the south, and in some cases in the _not so south._ And, the fact is that ever since 1865, freed slaves and their descendents have managed to rise past some of the ingrained cultural patterns of slavery..

Of course, in some cases, those "black towns" were burned to the ground, as in the Rosewood massacre of 1923.

But hey, America's a meritocracy right? _Life is *soooo* unfair._

On the other hand:



Twin Fist said:


> think about what you just said.
> You ought to feel dirty even saying it.
> 
> Look dude, I know how it sounds*<snip!>*
> ...


 
Well, I'll commend your deleted efforts at outreach-really.

You ever wonder _why _they didn't succeed, though? What was behind that attitude? 

On the other hand, I _don'_t feel dirty, and the majority of what you say, denials notwithstanding, *is* racist. Whites commit a great deal of crime as well, and you don't hear a thing about white people being pulled over just because they're driving a Mercedes-which isn't to say that it doesn't happen, just that the justification for it in one case *is*, no matter how you color it, racist.....and I meant what I said, _please, don't ever change._

And, I'm sorry, names like "Jamal" are a sorry attempt at recovering the culture that was *stolen* from them. Is it _really_ fair, though, to judge a person simply by the name that their mother gave them? Of course, it's no different than not hiring a person because of their hair, or body odor, or obesity, or obnoxious laugh, or simply becuse they're a jerk: completely discriminatory and subjective, and independent of "qualifications." _Life is sooo unfair._




yorkshirelad said:


> I suppose I should start being an ignorant drunkard and wife beater because that fits the stereotype of the Irish Catholic navi, and because that was the behaviour of my father, grandfather ect. Noone can blame me, it's the fault of my ancestry and 'the Man' for keeping my people down. My wife will be none too pleased.


 
You know, I talk about people who weren't "kept down" in spite of the best efforts of some, and I say (in keeping with the original topic) that the problems that you mentioned *can't* be addressed by "Affirmative Action." 

Then, in an attempt at _reasoned_ discourse, I offer _reasons_ for those cultural patterns, and some of the _history_ behind them. I don't offer "excuses"-very often, as 
in TF's story, such behavior is _inexcusable_- but, rather, possible _root causes_-ones that are, btw, supported by history, sociological and anthropological studies. 

In any case, you demonstrate quite well that attempts at _reasoned discourse_ are a complete waste of time with some people. 

Once again, from the _Merriam Webster's Online English Language Technical Manual_ (that's engineerspeak for "dictionary" ):



> 1stu·pid
> 
> Pronunciation: \&#712;stü-p&#601;d, &#712;styü-\ Function: _adjective_ Etymology: Middle French _stupide,_ from Latin _stupidus,_ from _stup&#275;re_ to be numb, be astonished &#8212; more at type Date: 1541 1 a*:* slow of mind *:* obtuse b*:* given to unintelligent decisions or acts *:* acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c*:* lacking intelligence or reason *:* brutish2*:* dulled in feeling or sensation *:* torpid <still _stupid_ from the sedative>3*:* *marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting :* senseless <a _stupid_ decision>4 a*:* lacking interest or point <a _stupid_ event> b*:* vexatious, exasperating <the _stupid_ car won't start>
> &#8212; stu·pid·ly _adverb_
> &#8212; stu·pid·ness _noun_


 
"_You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means_"


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2009)

Whatever jeff. You want to say it isnt fair that you get looked at twice by cops? dont blame the cops, blame the 100's of THOUSANDS of your bretheren that steadfastly REFUSE to operate within the system.

trust me, i KNOW life isnt fair, but I am trying to BETTER my life, instead of just bitching about how bad I got it, like most of the people i grew up around do.

I know why those kids refused to listen to me. "you need to work harder" isnt as easy to tell themselves as "whitey is holding me down"

too many of them think of micheal vinck as a hero and none of them consider clarence thomas or bill cosby one....or even someone like you

and I dont need to change. White folks HAVE changed, we elected that idiot Obama BECAUSE he was black.

we are not the problem


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Whatever jeff. You want to say it isnt fair that you get looked at twice by cops? dont blame the cops, blame the 100's of THOUSANDS of your bretheren that steadfastly REFUSE to operate within the system.


 
I don't _blame_ anyone. I just equipped all my vehicles with digital recorders, and, in the cars, digital pencil cams. They're on every time I get pulled over-have been since....well, for a long time-at least the last seven years, because that's how long we've been married, and Rita (that's the wife) thought I was paranoid, until we got pulled over. I've been in this skin, well, _all my life, _and I'm used to it-used to being looked at by lots of people for lots of reasons.

And, while I know enough of the smartest people in the world to know I'm not one of them, I also know (or, at least, _think_) that I'm generally _smarter than just about everyone else._ What you hear from me isn't that "_life is soooo unfair,_ what I'm generally saying is _"I have *got the edge."*_ 

I'm more than content with my lot-been pulled over for speeds at over 90 or 100 mph, and gotten out of those tickets-or had them reduced, because *my family* has a long, long history ofknowing how to work the system the way that it's supposed to be worked , and I've got time, practice and technology on my side.

Plus, speeding is about the worst thing I do, criminally speaking.




Twin Fist said:


> trust me, i KNOW life isnt fair, but I am trying to BETTER my life, instead of just bitching about how bad I got it, like most of the people i grew up around do.


 
I know that-it's one of the things I like about you-I *meant* it:_don't ever change._ 

Just because I disagree with you about your viewpoint, and think it's racist, doesn't mean for a minute that I think you're a bad person. Like I said, I commend your efforts at outreach in hiring those kids-I know what it took for you to do that-hell, *I* wouldn't have done it: I grew up in an all-white neighborhood in Westchester County, for chrissakes,IBM country, and my dad grew up in Fairfield, Conn. in a house that sold for a little less than $3 mill last time it was on the market, and we both went to pretty exclusive schools, where there were just not a lot of people like us-my Dad was the first and only "person of color" to go to Fairfield Prep for a long, long time. Heck,* I* went to school with Kuwaiti princes (and others), who looked down on me not because of the color of my skin, or because I wasn't a Muslim, but because I was "_merely upper-upper middle class_." With a background like that, it should be no surprise that in a lot of ways, a lot of black people scare the *crap *out of me-I'm not angry about _anything_, and my life hasn't been anything I'd call "hard," except for some health issues when I was a kid, and the fact that I can't play basketball worth a damn, in spite of my height and my race. _Life is soooo unfair!_ :lol:

In any case, if I'm ever in your part of Texas, I'll probably be driving the pickup truck, and I hope we can have a beer and some real Texas barbecue-brisket!
(Though I don't have much hope of it being a "real" _beer_. What is with Texas and the Budweiser, anyway???!!! :lol

If you're ever in New Mexico, I'll take you for a ride in the Porsche-or one of the oldies-there's a few stretches here where we can get pretty well past 150 mph, and I don't ask just anyone to go on the "death ride." It's not like I want to make _everybody _scream, just a select few now and againAfter, we'll have some real "Cuffee" barbecue: _bison_ brisket!

And homemade ale, or one (or more!) of my wines.......

(Hell, I break bread with my first wife's family all the time-and I don't think they come much more racist than New York Italians, _anywhere_...:lol



Twin Fist said:


> I know why those kids refused to listen to me. "you need to work harder" isnt as easy to tell themselves as "whitey is holding me down"


 
_They didn't know any better._ They didn't have the tools to listen, or even _hear_ you-never mind the desire. No one had told them. I'd _never_ have hired them (and I've had lots, and lots, and lots of jobs where I might have had to) and wouldn't have hesitated to *fire *them on the spot-then again, as a boss, I'm an excellent dictator. I really do commend you for trying, though....



Twin Fist said:


> too many of them think of micheal vinck as a hero and none of them consider clarence thomas or bill cosby one....or even someone like you


 
Odds are good that they didn't know who Thomas or Bill were-never mind _me_-I'm almost completely atypical, and something of a secret, in a lot of ways.._there really just aren't too many "like me"_, white, black, red, yellow, or any colors in between.....as for Michael Vick, I'll point out again that admiration for that sort of behavior-downright _thuggery_- is an ingrained part of aspects of "black culture" that aren't new, but have existed for literally more than a hundred years, and are renewed and reglorified by many in sports and entertainment, sadly.



Twin Fist said:


> and I dont need to change. White folks HAVE changed, we elected that idiot Obama BECAUSE he was black.
> 
> we are not the problem


 
No, you're not "the problem," and I'm not asking you-individually or collectively-to change.But you (collectively and historically) had a hand in _creating_ the problem. I don't think for a minute that you can or should have to _solve_ it-I think that's largely done on an individual basis, not a widespread one-every time a basically fatherless child decides that _he_ *will* be there for his child, a little bit of the problem is resolved. You usually don't get a Bill Cosby (friend of my dad's,BTW) without a William Henry Cosby, Sr. You don't get a Clarence Thomas-who grew up impoverished (unlike Bill, who was merely lower-middle class) and without a father, who left when he was 2-without his _grandfather_ Myers Anderson. You don't even get Tiger Woods without Earl Woods. Sure, many people manage quite well without fathers, but I'm talking about something basic and endemic to black culture-something that Bill Cosby was really, really trying to address with the speeches that so many people commended without listening to the words:



> Ladies and gentlemen, these people set, they opened the doors, they gave us the right, and today, ladies and gentlemen, in our cities and public schools we have fifty percent drop out. In our own neighborhood, we have men in prison. No longer is a person embarrassed because they&#8217;re pregnant without a husband. (clapping)* No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child *(clapping)​
> Ladies and gentlemen, the _*lower economic and lower middle economic people are [not*] holding their end in this deal*_. *In the neighborhood that most of us grew up in, parenting is not going on*. (clapping)​
> _I&#8217;m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? (clapping) Where were you when he was twelve? (clapping) Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don&#8217;t know he had a pistol? (clapping)_ *And where is his father, and why don&#8217;t you know where he is? And why doesn&#8217;t the father show up to talk to this boy? -Bill Cosby, at the 50th anniversary commemoration of Brown v. Board of Education* (the SCOTUS decision that said "separate *is not* equal.")​


 
I think this thread demonstrates an almost universal lack of understanding of those problems, though-and a complete refusal on the part of some to even try. 

_Life is sooo unfair._

And we didn't elect Obama because he was black-we elected Obama because 8 years of Bush really, really, really *sucked*. :lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2009)

naw, for BBQ, i would only give you a Shiner Bock.

It's real beer, and made in texas too. yummy stuff.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> naw, for BBQ, i would only give you a Shiner Bock.
> 
> It's real beer, and made in texas too. yummy stuff.


 

Shiner Bock is...._okay,_, but only okay. Come out this way, and we'll have some microbrew that'll turn you into a liberal.:lol:

The brisket, though, is not nearly as good as in Texas. Even mine, sad to say.....we just cut down a cherry tree, though, so we'll have some extra special beef and bison smoking for a year or two.....


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 7, 2009)

Elder this is off topic , but when I saw your picture with your boy.
I thought you reminded me of some actor or musician but I can't quite think who it is. 
Has anyone told you that before?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I think this thread demonstrates an almost universal lack of understanding of those problems, though-and a complete refusal on the part of some to even try.
> _Life is sooo unfair._


 Everybody understands that black people have been enslaved, it is drumed into us at every turn. What you fail to even consider is that EVERY culture has been oppressed at some time or other. The Irish came to America and were treated like ****. They fought and created their own opportunities. Everything you have said about people needing fathers is correct. The only way we can solve this imbalance is for young black men to take responsibility for their actions. AA just gives minorities the impression that there is something to get pissed about.
When Obama was running for the office of President, he gave a speech in which he told young black men to take responsibility for their children. Jesse Jackson, who was about to be interview and didn't realize his mike was on, told the guy next to him that when he hears Obama speak like that he wants to "cut his nuts off". It's a shame that leaders like Sharpton and Jackson profit from the victimhood of blacks and continue preaching the meme. Maybe , now we have Obama things will change and young black people will see what is truly possible for any race, with a good work ethic.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I don't _blame_ anyone.


No, you may not, but affirmative action isn't about blaming anyone, it is about penalizing people based on their race. That is racism, and it is wrong.





> And we didn't elect Obama because he was black


That's a shame, because that is all he ran on...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 7, 2009)

Big Don said:


> That's a shame, because that is all he ran on...



No it's not. He ran primarily on dissatisfaction with the republicans.
Bush's approval ratings were in the toilet, and McCain-Palin would have been more of the same.

Palin was a media disaster, and McCain's age gave her an actual shot at the presidency. President Palin scared a lot of people because of her extremism on most issues and her failure to answer even basic questions on global politics.

Then the economy went 'BOOM' right after MCCain said that the economy was strong and fine.

And throughout the campaign, it was primarily the republican team that fought dirty in the media, which backfired with a lot of people when it became obvious that that was all they had.

Then there was the fact that Obama is an intelligent man and gifted speaker.

I understand that you will never ever approve of anything any democrat will do, but to say that Obama's campaign ran solely on blackness is to deny reality. At least give credit where it is due. The republicans f-ed up big time, which is why it was a landslide for Obama.


EDIT: Btw, on topic: affirmative action sucks.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2009)

mook jong man said:


> Elder this is off topic , but when I saw your picture with your boy.
> I thought you reminded me of some actor or musician but I can't quite think who it is.
> Has anyone told you that before?


 
I get that all the time-at dinner just this past Thursday night, even, with the table across from me insisting that I was "that guy." I'm not about to go there, though-maybe you'll figure it out.




Big Don said:


> No, you may not, but affirmative action isn't about blaming anyone, it is about penalizing people based on their race. That is racism, and it is wrong.


 
By your account then, it's also about "penalizing" people based on their gender, and their ability to see and walk, and their not having served their country in the armed services-all of these people, and more, receive preferential treament-literally called "_preference points_"-due to "Affirmative Action." 

More to the point, though, if the handicapped,vets, women and underrepresented minorities receive preference points in hiring, how is it that _anyone_ is "penalized?" I still don't get that-I get that preferences are discriminatory, and, in the case of _racial_ ones, might even be considered "racist." There are, in many situations, as has been pointed out, _other considerations in hiring besides "qualifications,"_ like body odor, obesity, hairstyle, speech patterns, general grooming, interpersonal relations-I once had a job interview that consisted of several parts, one of which was having lunch with the team-who basically just spent lunch trying to rattle me to see how I'd "fit in." I had another interview where the interviewer asked me a technical question _that I practically invented, and knew I answered correctly_ then tell me that no, I was wrong-and proceed to explain the _correct answer I'd just given_, a real "that's what *I* said" moment, when I knew I wasn't getting the job-(Terry, the worm, had already made his selection, and was just going through the motions-but I got a decent lunch out of it...)
_Life is soooo unfair!_

Anyway, how is anyone "penalized?" 





Big Don said:


> That's a shame, because that is all he ran on...


 
Actually, Don, Obama's a lot like *you*: _you *both* run on hot air._ :lol:


----------



## JDenver (Jun 7, 2009)

Folks can do as they please, but I thought I'd point out that this is starting to really talk in circles.

I do see how some say AA is unfair, but I find that I have to dig deep inside myself and suspend my understanding of the still prevalent racism, sexism, and subjectivity in hiring practice which always tilts everything towards heterosexual white men.  I also have to forget that AA doesn't mean hiring unqualified people.  

When I do these things I see the counter arguments against AA, but it's a bit of work.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2009)

this is off topic, but everything I quoted is exactly WRONG, in fact, it is 100% wrong. And not just factually wrong, but so wrong it sounds deluded.



Bruno@MT said:


> No it's not. He ran primarily on dissatisfaction with the republicans.
> Bush's approval ratings were in the toilet, and McCain-Palin would have been more of the same.
> 
> Palin was a media disaster, and McCain's age gave her an actual shot at the presidency. President Palin scared a lot of people because of her extremism on most issues and her failure to answer even basic questions on global politics.
> ...


----------



## JDenver (Jun 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> this is off topic, but everything I quoted is exactly WRONG, in fact, it is 100% wrong. And not just factually wrong, but so wrong it sounds deluded.



There's a slightly off-putting attack in here -

BUT I also gotta say that the wording of this really made me laugh TF!  It's true too you know, we figure there's no room for grey areas, it's THIS or it's THAT.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> this is off topic, but everything I quoted is exactly WRONG, in fact, it is 100% wrong. And not just factually wrong, but so wrong it sounds deluded.



Could you please explain? I don't mind if people disagree with me, but if you say that I am totally 100% wrong and deluded, you must obviously know things which I don't. Let's go over these things 1 by 1, mkay?

1) Normally, the president would strongly support the candidate of his party during the campaign, like for example reagan and Bush senior. This was absent from the McCain campaign because Bush was not that popular anymore. If he had been, then Bush and McCain would have shared a lot of public facetime. And given the election results, the republicans got kicked on all fronts. Ergo, there was a lot of dissatisfaction.
The night before the election, there was a debate in which the republican representatives (the republican youth or young republicans or something like that) did a lot of effort to distance themselves from Bush. They would not have done that if his approval rating would have been high.

2) Palin not knowing much about international politics became apparent in media interviews. Also, her 150K$ campaign wardrobe didn't gain her any favor at a time when people couldn't pay their bills because of the housing crisis. Firing a police chief who refused to sack her former brother inlaw? 
Mentioning an interview with the UK PM which never happened?
Palin was given a lot of rope, and she put a noose around her own neck.
Her extremism also alienated a lot of moderates. Btw this does not come from me, but from several moderate Americans I know. After the  election, they mentioned that Palin was an important factor for them not voting republican

3) The economy couldn't have dumped at a better time for Obama. McCain said that the base of the economy was still strong before fannie and freddy crashed.

4) Obama -is- a gifted speaker. He did not run solely on blackness

5) The Obama side did not throw much dirt at all. They were fortunate enough that the press was having a field day with Palin.

6) 365 to 173 electoral votes is not a landslide?

Which one of these is not true?


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I get that all the time-at dinner just this past Thursday night, even, with the table across from me insisting that I was "that guy." I'm not about to go there, though-maybe you'll figure it out.


 
Ok I've been racking my brain , but I think I've got it .
With a full beard I reckon you'd look a bit like Barry White.
Was I correct ?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Actually, Don, Obama's a lot like *you*: _you *both* run on hot air._ :lol:


Not me, I run on bitterness and Mountain Dew...


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2009)

ack, Mountain Dew is the Devil's brew


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2009)

not here, I am not giving myself  a dinger for off topic posting



Bruno@MT said:


> Could you please explain? I don't mind if people disagree with me, but if you say that I am totally 100% wrong and deluded, you must obviously know things which I don't. Let's go over these things 1 by 1, mkay?
> 
> 1) Normally, the president would strongly support the candidate of his party during the campaign, like for example reagan and Bush senior. This was absent from the McCain campaign because Bush was not that popular anymore. If he had been, then Bush and McCain would have shared a lot of public facetime. And given the election results, the republicans got kicked on all fronts. Ergo, there was a lot of dissatisfaction.
> The night before the election, there was a debate in which the republican representatives (the republican youth or young republicans or something like that) did a lot of effort to distance themselves from Bush. They would not have done that if his approval rating would have been high.
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 7, 2009)

Aye, I can't drop in an 'official' post to direct people to return to topic, so to speak, because I've been involved in this thread as a 'private' person.  But it would be a good idea to try to get back on track or wind this up, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> You want to say it isnt fair that you get looked at twice by cops? dont blame the cops, blame the 100's of THOUSANDS of your bretheren



Wait...you seem to be acknowledging that he'll suffer discrimination based on his appearance that has nothing to do with him personally. He can't control his, uh, "brethren" either...this is a problem he faces that you don't. Can we do anything about it?



> I know why those kids refused to listen to me. "you need to work harder" isnt as easy to tell themselves as "whitey is holding me down"



You may be stuck in the 60s here...I don't think that's the claim. But the claim that blacks are perceived as poor job candidates--a claim you seem to agree with--isn't matched by a perception that whites are poor job candidates. A given African-American can't change that...and is held to this perception unfairly. Can we do anything about it?



> and I dont need to change. White folks HAVE changed[...]we are not the problem



Everything you say endorses the view of the races having different characteristics overall. If that view is false and unfairly hurting people...can we do anything about it? If that view is true and people are suffering...can we do anything about it?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 7, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> 2) Palin not knowing much about international politics became apparent in media interviews. Also, her 150K$ campaign wardrobe didn't gain her any favor at a time when people couldn't pay their bills because of the housing crisis. Firing a police chief who refused to sack her former brother inlaw?
> Mentioning an interview with the UK PM which never happened?
> Palin was given a lot of rope, and she put a noose around her own neck.
> Her extremism also alienated a lot of moderates. Btw this does not come from me, but from several moderate Americans I know. After the election, they mentioned that Palin was an important factor for them not voting republican
> ...


----------



## searcher (Jun 7, 2009)

Here is my take on A.A.    It had its place and time, but it needs to go away.

At one time it worked great, but it either needs to be thrown out or re-worked.


Back on topic.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2009)

arnisador said:


> If that view is true and people are suffering...can we do anything about it?




sure. People need to quit living DOWN to the stereotypes

let me be blunt. It isnt fair that all are judged by the bad actions of a few.
Ever. Wether it is all whites judged by the bad actions of the hillbilly's or all blacks being judged because of their ghetto livin, thug life livin buddies.

White culture realized this, and changed in the last 40 years. Black culture has changed, FOR THE WORSE.

Only they can stop the cycle. As long as the prisons are filled with black people, whites will consider them all as potential criminals.

start staying in school

stop giving your kids stupid names

stop glorifying ignorance

stop with the angry all the time thing. it's old and tired.

dont ACT like you are ghetto and you wont get TREATED like you are ghetto.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 7, 2009)

It's not my country nor my culture but it sounds like the man has a valid point to me. 

Whilst it is often true that people will fail to live up to expectations of them, it is also true that if there is a low-level-of-expectation escape clause then many will take it.

I recognise though that what *Elder* (for one) has been putting across in his cogent posts above has having an element of truth to it - much more than an element in fact - viz that those that were slaves were cut loose without a clue as to how to live normal, productive, 'free' lives (being something of an archetype of 'institutionalised'). 

It is also the case that such 'social' traits pass on through the generations and that those that tried to 'play by the rules' seldom got an even break (or at least that it was the message that began to be played with "Roots"). That acted to disincentivise attempts to even try to be in the 'game'.

Further, I have also been convinced by the persuasive argument that there are other exemplars of AA, which focus on tangible, physical disadvantage, that we do not decry so voluably, which makes the focus on racial AA a touch on the 'selective outrage' side.

But just as we may fail to grasp just what that is like for a people in an industrialised, supposed democratic, country to go through the end of a period of slavery, it does seem that the oft referred to fact that many of our own ancestors have been through just as evil a period is brushed aside. I think until either it is accepted that the experience those victims of the international African slave trade is qualitively different than that of all other slave 'peoples' or realised that in fact it was not significantly different then this question is never going to settle and fade.

That means that Affirmative Action or something similar will be a bone of contention for as long as it takes for the pot to boil over.


----------



## just2kicku (Jun 7, 2009)

searcher said:


> Here is my take on A.A.    It had its place and time, but it needs to go away.
> 
> At one time it worked great, but it either needs to be thrown out or re-worked.
> 
> ...



Kinda like the welfare system, started out as a good idea, but now it sucks.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 7, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> sure. People need to quit living DOWN to the stereotypes



So...give them nothing but "keep a stiff upper lip" advice?



Sukerkin said:


> viz that those that were slaves were cut loose without a clue as to how to live normal, productive, 'free' lives (being something of an archetype of 'institutionalised').




(Compare the end of colonialization in Africa.) But again, it's not just slavery's end in 1865...look at the civil rights laws of the 60s, and what prompted them.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 7, 2009)

The final Occam's razor of all this is that you cannot successfully run a culture that is schismed within and against itself.

The 'oppressive' and 'majority' portion of the society acceeded that Slavery was no longer the function by which a civilised nation could in all good conscience economically support a portion of itself.

What they did not do in the aftermath of that is anything more than excercise wishful thinking that the mess that they had made for themselves would sort itself out.

AA is no more than a slightly more practical extension of that line of thought.

The prevously oppressed have within them elements that will, like water, seek the easiest and quickest path to get where they wish. Continue to dig the channel for that element and all you will get is a faster flow to the bottom.

I sign off from this now as the constant attempts to batter through the wall are giving me a headache.

Good luck with sorting the ill-health of your country out using band-aids rather than major surgery.


----------



## searcher (Jun 7, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> Kinda like the welfare system, started out as a good idea, but now it sucks.


 

You got it.    It is another program that needs to go away or be re-vamped.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 8, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I thought I posted a link further back... I dunno...my brain is swiss cheese by this time of the week. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Where did I say I was against discrimination? I am for AA with all its discriminations. Thank you. I think the mentality that 'the richest black man should not be richer than the poorist white man' is still alive and well. If setting up a middle class in the black community is the wrong direction, then I'm not sure I like the destination.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 8, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> sure. People need to quit living DOWN to the stereotypes
> 
> let me be blunt. It isnt fair that all are judged by the bad actions of a few.
> Ever. Wether it is all whites judged by the bad actions of the hillbilly's or all blacks being judged because of their ghetto livin, thug life livin buddies.
> ...


Could you provide a list of stupid names you don't like? Should they sound more European? Why?
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 8, 2009)

here is a good example.

there is a pair of twins in this town. their names are pronounced :

Lee Mon Gelo
Oran Gelo

They are spelled:

Lemonjello
Orangejello

Thats friggin stupid.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 8, 2009)

I'll grant you the dessert topping names; however, maybe they were inspired by Bill Cosby, making them perfectly acceptable.
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Jun 8, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> here is a good example.
> 
> there is a pair of twins in this town. their names are pronounced :
> 
> ...


 
_Laws yes, massa John. Ebbybody knows de silly names is just fo' de rich white chilluns, lahk Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter, *Apple*, an' dem nice Zappa chillun, *Moon Unit 'n Dweezil*_-_nots to mention_ *Achmed*.:lol:




Honestly, I always thought "Isaac" was a pretty funny name! :lol: First time I heard it, _I laughed!_ :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 8, 2009)

oh dont even get me started on stupid celebrity kids names.....

but you see, here is ONE difference, those kids are born RICH

when you are rich, you are just eccentric.......


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 8, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> oh dont even get me started on stupid celebrity kids names.....
> 
> but you see, here is ONE difference, those kids are born RICH
> 
> when you are rich, you are just eccentric.......


Another White priviledge... HHMMMM?
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Jun 8, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> oh dont even get me started on stupid celebrity kids names.....
> 
> but you see, here is ONE difference, those kids are born RICH
> 
> when you are rich, you are just eccentric.......


 

Yes, and at least they weren't "stupid" enough to be poor and name their kids _Adolf Hitler_ and _Aryan Nation_, and have them unjustly taken away by protective services in a blatant act of oppression and discrimination.....:lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 8, 2009)

yes, those people were in fact stupid white trash.


----------



## searcher (Jun 8, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> yes, those people were in fact stupid white trash.


 

Just as bad as someone naming their child Michael Hunt.


If I have to explain this one you need to just keep thinking about it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 9, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Yes, and at least they weren't "stupid" enough to be poor and name their kids _Adolf Hitler_ and _Aryan Nation_, and have them unjustly taken away by protective services in a blatant act of oppression and discrimination.....:lol:


 That would be wrong; however, I'm sure the parents weren't angels; so, in the end it won't be about the names.
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> oh dont even get me started on stupid celebrity kids names.....
> 
> but you see, here is ONE difference, those kids are born RICH
> 
> when you are rich, you are just eccentric.......


Not rich, rich ENOUGH...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Honestly, I always thought "Isaac" was a pretty funny name! First time I heard it, _laughed!_


 
I cant bellieve no one got that!

See-Sarah was past the age of childbearing, and when God promised Abraham and Sarah a child, _she laughed_, and so, when she did have a child they named him _Yitshaq_, which, in Hebrew, means _"I laughed"_......oh, never mind.




searcher said:


> Just as bad as someone naming their child Michael Hunt.





searcher said:


> If I have to explain this one you need to just keep thinking about it.




Honestly, my Mom went to nursing school with a woman named "Red Cross." She couldnt _wait_ to get married. I also knew a fitter named-and, no, I am not making this up-_Jack " *Please, call me John*" Mehoff_. I actually worked with an I&C technician named "Harry Chestnuts." His parents must have really loved him.

The best, though, was an HP tech from down south-her name was "King Cummins." I joked with her once, said, _Your parents must have wanted a boy, huh?_ and she said, "Yeah," and then I though about it for a second and said, _Or a *puppy!*_ :lol:

"Course, all those people had managed to land some education and good jobs, in spite of their silly names., and, apparently, in spite of being white.....:rolleyes":




Sukerkin said:


> It's not my country nor my culture but it sounds like the man has a valid point to me.





Sukerkin said:


> Whilst it is often true that people will fail to live up to expectations of them, it is also true that if there is a low-level-of-expectation escape clause then many will take it.
> I recognise though that what *Elder* (for one) has been putting across in his cogent posts above has having an element of truth to it - much more than an element in fact - viz that those that were slaves were cut loose without a clue as to how to live normal, productive, 'free' lives (being something of an archetype of 'institutionalised').
> It is also the case that such 'social' traits pass on through the generations and that those that tried to 'play by the rules' seldom got an even break (or at least that it was the message that began to be played with "Roots"). That acted to disincentivise attempts to even try to be in the 'game'.




I get the feeling that what Ive been trying to say here hasnt quite gotten across. 

I didnt offer those "social traits" as a reason or justification for "Affirmative Action." I offered them as reasons for certain continued behavior patterns as a consequence. More to the point, its pretty clear that _ the people who display those traits do not utilize affirmative action, and clearly dont need it._ They are either successful rappers, athletes or gangstas, or lower income people for whom affirmative action isnt necessary-they are going to sink or swim in situations like the one presented by TF. Maybe they join the military, or they wind up with some lower end gig. Their best hope for AA is if they wind up succeeding at some civil service examination, and get a job with the Postal Service......odds are good that youve seen them at the DMV, too...:rolleyes;

Fact is, though, civil service jobs aside, AA was always really for people who were _qualified_, but *excluded on the basis of the color of their skin.* That this has happened in the past cannot be denied-that its happening right now can also not be denied, but it cant be proven-very often, anyway. 

A couple of really good examples from the past are Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotamayor. Both were raised very poor, but worked hard in school: Clarence Thomas, its important to add, was raised speaking two languages: english and _gullah_, which is basically a _creole_ dialect based on English, but influenced by West African language-its nearly unintelligible to those unfamiliar with it, and it creates some interestingly accented English. Sotomayor, of course, grew up speaking English and Spanish-the rapid fire Spanish of New York Puerto Ricans-think Rosie Perez for what her English probably sounded like in high school.. Both went to good colleges and law schools because-and principally because-of affirmative action. At that time, while _exceptional_ minorities of all sorts had attended them at one time or another since their inception, those schools that we call "elite" simply were not admitting minorities, no matter how qualified, who were merely "good enough"-with the exception, perhaps,of Clarence Thomass undergrad school, Holy Cross, which had an affirmative action program of its own that was really a form of outreach like TwinFists at Dairy Queen. 

In any case, both of their reactions to their status were vastly different-both attended  excellent schools, and Yale Law because of affirmative action, and both had their qualifications questioned in job interviews to the extent that the interviewer actually questioned whether or not they were truly qualified for their schooling-in spite of the evidence of their exemplary performance-or had merely received their spots because of their color. Both had made efforts to improve their language skills-ironically, Clarence Thomas actually set out to do what I have often been accused of: sound white. But where Sotomayor is an advocate of Affirmative Action, Thomas was bitter about it almost from the beginning, and still is.

_Life is soooo unfair._




Sukerkin said:


> But just as we may fail to grasp just what that is like for a people in an industrialised, supposed democratic, country to go through the end of a period of slavery, it does seem that the oft referred to fact that many of our own ancestors have been through just as evil a period is brushed aside. I think until either it is accepted that the experience those victims of the international African slave trade is qualitively different than that of all other slave 'peoples' or realised that in fact it was not significantly different then this question is never going to settle and fade.
> That means that Affirmative Action or something similar will be a bone of contention for as long as it takes for the pot to boil over.




But slavery in the U.S. *was* substantially different-most of the places where slavery existed  it was  more like colonial slavery, where slaves could learn a trade, be educated, own property,  buy their freedom back,  and _families were usually kept intact._ Slavery as it came to exist in the south after the British abolition of the international African slave trade in 1807, and America followed suit in 1808, was a vastly different institution that put  restraints on all of these things: it was illegal to educate a slave, or for one to receive education, slaves could not own property, there was no mechanism for buying back freedom, and _families were often not kept intact._ All of these conditions were set to maintain the state of servitude, and to preclude a slave rebellion, which many in the south were justifiably afraid of.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> A couple of really good examples from the past are Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotamayor.[...]Both went to good colleges and law schools because-and principally because-of affirmative action.



I read an article recently on the academic backgrounds of Supreme Court members (undergrad., law):

John G. Roberts: Harvard, Harvard
John Paul Stevens: Chicago, Northwestern
Antonin Scalia: Georgetown, Harvard
Anthony Kennedy: Stanford, Harvard
David Souter: Harvard, Harvard
Clarence Thomas: Holy Cross, Yale
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Cornell, (Harvard then) Columbia
Stephen Breyer: Stanford (then Oxford), Harvard
Samuel Alito: Princeton, Yale

I've put the Ivy League schools in red. Chicago and Stanford are certainly comparable institutions.

Does Affirmative Action matter? Well, as long as there's discrimination in favour of better schools, it looks like the answer may just be _Yes_.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I read an article recently on the academic backgrounds of Supreme Court members (undergrad., law):
> 
> John G. Roberts: Harvard, Harvard
> John Paul Stevens: Chicago, Northwestern
> ...


 
Thurgood Marshall only wanted to go to the University of Maryland School of Law, but was told by the dean of students that he wouldn't be accepted_ because of the color of his skin_.....so, he went to an all black (at the time) law school, Howard University..........which, as my first wife's mother put it 30 some-odd years ago, "_Is *like* Ivy League for black people...._" (I was thinking of going to grad school there at the time, back when most of my peers-white and black-were still graduating from H.S.) and I guess that, and a little Affirmative Action back in 1965 on the part of LBJ, a Texan Democrat, are what got him on the court.....:lol:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2009)

Oh, and Holy Cross *is technically* an Ivy League school, though not one of the original eight....


----------



## arnisador (Jun 11, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Oh, and Holy Cross *is technically* an Ivy League school



OK Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do...are you talking about ECAC and/or the rowing competition agreements?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2009)

arnisador said:


> OK Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do...are you talking about ECAC and/or the rowing competition agreements?


 
Neither, actually-the phrase "Ivy Schools," originally included both West Point and Holy Cross, which was founded in 1843 and thus old enough to be "ivied" by around 1933, when the phrase was first used.

Aside from the eight schools normally thought of as "*the* Ivy League," Stanford, Duke and MIT are often considered in the same category, though not, in the case of MIT, athletically.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 11, 2009)

Sigh...okay...

Trying to deal with the symptoms never cures the ill. 

I don't have a concrete answer to how to rid "unfairness" from the world. On a personal level, I see the ridiculousnous of it. I have, ever since as a child of about 6 and watching Star Trek re-runs caught the episode "Let That be Your Last Battlefield." 

Many cite the need for Affirmative Action based on "minorities" not having access to the same quality education as "whites." If that's the case, and I'm not denying that fact either, then why aren't you lobbying for better education? 

The people you've elected continuously pass legislation that hurts education. Do you call your rep when this happens? Do you know how your rep is voting on these pieces of legislation? 

I feel that if we could correct a lot of the problems we have in education, that would go a lot further to solving this problem than perpetuating it with more of the same.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 11, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Sigh...okay...
> 
> Trying to deal with the symptoms never cures the ill.
> 
> ...


You bring up a good point. We do need to stop worring about the past and deal with the present; but, at present, we have a serious problem with public opinion either way. Because of that public opinion is a red herinng issue given you are assured negative results. It is a common proplem with politcal fixes. They are ugly but essential for the health of the nation.
Sean


----------



## arnisador (Jun 11, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Neither, actually-the phrase "Ivy Schools," originally included both West Point and Holy Cross, which was founded in 1843 and thus old enough to be "ivied" by around 1933, when the phrase was first used.


 
Ah, OK--an Ivy school but not an Ivy League school. I'll buy that.



> Aside from the eight schools normally thought of as "*the* Ivy League," Stanford, Duke and MIT are often considered in the same category



Absolutely, yes--I'd add Chicago, among others. MIT really is the 9th Ivy. When I was at Brown we'd go up there for seminars (incidental to Red Sox games) much more often than to Harvard. 



> though not, in the case of MIT, athletically.



Yeah, everyone knows that nerds can't throw.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 11, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Many cite the need for Affirmative Action based on "minorities" not having access to the same quality education as "whites." If that's the case, and I'm not denying that fact either, then why aren't you lobbying for better education?



Having public school funding based on property tax levels is the first problem. Poor neighborhood, poor schools...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Yeah, everyone knows that nerds can't throw.


 

*Hey!* I resemble that remark! :lol:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 11, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Having public school funding based on property tax levels is the first problem. Poor neighborhood, poor schools...


 
Then focus on that. There are plenty of problems around education due to legislation. Fix them. 

The government only gains from dissent amongst the population. Keem 'em dumb and docile...divide and conquer...know what I mean?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 11, 2009)

But AA is one way of affecting that...by moving some minorities up into a higher income level than they might otherwise have achieved. Granted, it's not the most direct way possible. Texas has an interesting idea...roughly, if your property values are above the average, half of the extra tax money you raise for the schools goes to your schools, and the other half goes to a statewide fund for the poorer schools. It's s step in the right direction...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 12, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> oh dont even get me started on stupid celebrity kids names.....
> 
> but you see, here is ONE difference, those kids are born RICH
> 
> when you are rich, you are just eccentric.......



Hmm... Hell did not freeze over, did it?
Against all odds, I find myself in total, 100% agreement with you.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 12, 2009)

arnisador said:


> But AA is one way of affecting that...by moving some minorities up into a higher income level than they might otherwise have achieved. Granted, it's not the most direct way possible. Texas has an interesting idea...roughly, if your property values are above the average, half of the extra tax money you raise for the schools goes to your schools, and the other half goes to a statewide fund for the poorer schools. It's s step in the right direction...


 
Detract and distract; AA only further divides people. In the end, it does not help the whole though they would like you to believe that. Anything that sows more seeds of division simply contradicts any claim for unity and equality. 

Focusing on the whole; however, Education seems to have the best chance of having the most  permanent, productive, and positive result.

It's natural to want to change the world overnight, but quick fixes never lead to lasting results, ever.


----------

